Home Featured Stories November 2004 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 30, 2004.
Enclosed you'll find my OpEd on "A New Palestinian Regime?" which was published today (Nov. 30, 2004) by the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041129-095026-7116r.htm).

Enjoy it

A prerequisite for the emergence of a moderate Palestinian regime is the elimination of the rogue Palestinian regime. A precondition for the holding of a free Palestinian election, and for the attainment of a durable Israeli-Palestinian accord, is the uprooting of the regime, which has ruthlessly dominated the Palestinian scene since 1964. The "old Palestinian regime" has been the role model of international terrorism, inter-Arab treachery, serial non-compliance with agreements, hate-education, corruption and suppression of Palestinian human rights.

Just like Taliban and Ba'ath terrorism, Palestinian terrorism has not been a personalized problem (Yasser Arafat), but rather a regime problem (PLO/PA/Hamas). Japan and Germany were transformed into peaceful nations, upon the drastic dismantling of their rogue regimes. None of the old guard top officials was allowed to participate in the new regimes. The entire old guard was disenfranchised, in order to pave the road for moderate leaders, minimize intimidation and facilitate free election.

Abu Mazen has been the de facto No. 2 in the PLO since 1989, while he and Abu Ala' have been Mr. Arafat's top confidants at the helm of the Fatah, PLO and PA regimes since the late 1950s. They starred in the Palestinian cell of the Muslim Brotherhood - the mentor of Hamas terrorism - and were forced to flee Egypt for terrorism. In 1959, they joined Mr. Arafat in establishing the Fatah organization, and were accorded a safe haven in Damascus. However, in 1966 Fatah executed Syrian intelligence officers, and was chased out of Syria. In 1968-70, the late King Hussein provided the Fatah-led PLO with logistic and operational platforms to terrorize Israel. But in 1970 the PLO attempted to topple the Hashemite regime through terrorism, triggering a bloody strife and PLO's expulsion from Jordan to Lebanon. Abu Mazen and Abu Ala' were there, consulting Mr. Arafat. During 1970-82, the PLO perpetrated a series of civil wars in Lebanon, with Abu Mazen's and Abu Ala's active participation. The PLO's subversive operations caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, leading to Syrian occupation of Lebanon and to the demise of its Christian population. The latest chapter of PLO's inter-Arab treachery occurred in 1990, when the organization spearheaded Iraq's plunder of Kuwait - a country which hosted the Fatah since 1959, absorbed 400,000 Palestinians, enabled them to rise to top business and civic positions, and imposed a surcharge tax for the PLO. Subsequently, Kuwait has severed all contacts with the PLO/PA leadership, expelling most of its 400,000 Palestinians.

In 1972, Abu Mazen handled the financial aspects of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. He steered pre-1989 PLO ties with ruthless East European regimes and the Soviet Union, wrote a thesis on Holocaust Denial at Moscow University, co-managed PLO hijacking of Western planes during the early 1970s and the murder of U.S. ambassadors in 1972.

A few days following the signing of the 1993 Oslo accord, Abu Mazen, Abu Ala' Dahlan and Rajoub engineered a series of PA-Hamas understandings.

In fact, Dahlan and Rajoub head PA 'security' units, which have exceeded Hamas' terrorism. According to the understandings, PA/Hamas joint strategy (Israel's elimination) would be advanced by tactical accords with Israel, by diplomacy and by terrorism. In addition, they stipulated that Palestinian unity would supersede any agreement with Israel, calling for an end to PLO-Hamas fighting, while urging escalation of anti-Israel 'resistance.'

Palestinians nickname Abu Mazen, Abu Ala', Dahlan and Rajoub 'Mr. 20 Percent' for the kickback, which they extort for doing business in the PA. The four senior PLO leaders led - under Mr. Arafat - the PA propaganda machine, which hailed the September11thterrorism, praising Saddam Hussein's and Osama Bin Laden's anti-U.S. operations. They have introduced, along with Mr. Arafat, the anti-United States and anti-Jewish hate-education to PA schools, mosques and media, which has constituted the engine of homicide bombing. They have assisted Mr. Arafat in masterminding unprecedented hate-education, terrorism, deception, systematic and violent abrogation of commitments, repression of Palestinians and corruption.

The Palestinian Authority is not the solution; it is the problem. Legitimizing top leaders of the PA, such as Abu Mazen, Abu Ala', Dahlan and Rajoub - in defiance of their horrific track records - constitutes a victory of wishful thinking over moral clarity. The suggestion that the four are moderate compared with Mr. Arafat, is to suggest that the Boston Strangler was moderate compared with Jack the Ripper. It sends a devastating message to terrorists: Not only can you get away with murder, but you shall be rewarded. It energizes global terrorism, deters moderation, precludes free Palestinian elections and undermines the cause of peace. In 1993, wishful thinking smothered Israeli and Western policy-makers. It provided Mr. Arafat with unprecedented legitimacy, triggering unprecedented terrorism. How many innocent lives will be sacrificed on the altar of Abu Mazen and Abu Ala'?

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is an editor and consultant who lives in Jerusalem.

To Go To Top
Posted by Naomi Ragen, November 30, 2004.

For all those who think that Palestinians have a "culture" that needs expression.


This comes from Jewish World Review, November 18, 2003. It was written by Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, a reporter for Knight Ridder. It is archived at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1103/honor_killing.php3

http://www.jewishworldreview.com |(KRT) ABU QASH - Rofayda Qaoud - raped by her brothers and impregnated - refused to commit suicide, her mother recalls, even after she bought the unwed teenager a razor with which to slit her wrists. So Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud says she did what she believes any good Palestinian parent would: restored her family's "honor" through murder.

Armed with a plastic bag, razor and wooden stick, Qaoud entered her sleeping daughter's room last Jan. 27. "Tonight you die, Rofayda," she told the girl, before wrapping the bag tightly around her head. Next, Qaoud sliced Rofayda's wrists, ignoring her muffled pleas of "No, mother, no!" After her daughter went limp, Qaoud struck her in the head with the stick.

Killing her sixth-born child took 20 minutes, Qaoud tells a visitor through a stream of tears and cigarettes that she smokes in rapid succession. "She killed me before I killed her," says the 43-year-old mother of nine. "I had to protect my children. This is the only way I could protect my family's honor."

The guilty brothers are in jail.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 30, 2004.

Let us consider what this means. Given the right motivation (that means money and some place to go) 2/3 of the Arabs in Yeshah would leave. Let us contrast that with the Jews in Yeshah particularly Gaza. There the Jews have actually been offered money and it is being thrown back into Sharon's face. There are estimates that the total cost of exterminating the Jewish communities in Yeshah would be anywhere from 2-10 Billion US Dollars. If there is so much money around to transfer Jews who do not want to leave, why isn't there money for Arabs who do wish to leave???

If sacrifices must be made for peace by cutting social services and money for education then let us at least spend it something useful. It will cost nearly a Billion Dollars to build Sharon's fence. Give the money to Arabs who want to leave instead and in the end there will be no need for a fence.

This comes from Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA). It is archived http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=22996

Survey of Palestinians presented at The Jerusalem Summit, 30 November 2004

Survey was conducted by face to face interviews on 15-21 Nov, 2004 during various hours of the, by means of a structured questionnaire in Arabic, among a random sample of 528 interviewees, representative of the adult population in Judea and Samaria(17yrs of age and above). Statistical margin of error 4.5%

The survey was conducted by Maagar Mohot Interdisciplinary Research and Consulting Institute, Ltd, under the supervision of Prof, Yitzhak Katz, Prof. Baruch Mevorach - Scientific Director, and Amir Horkin, Research Manager in collaboration with THE PALESTINIAN CENTER FOR PUBLIC OPINION (PCPO) under the management of Dr. Nabil Kukali.

The sampling and the interviews were conducted by pollsters of PCPO. The questionnaire design, data input, statistical processing, and formulation of final report were done by Maagar Mohot Ltd..


Most (almost 2/3) the Palestinian population is dissatisfied with the quality of life. (62% or only moderately satisfied or less) Only about one third of the population believes that the chances of improving the quality of life good. Most the population (60%) believes otherwise

Most (53%) the Palestinians believes that the PA is not doing enough to improve the quality of life.

41% believe that the PA is unable to improve the quality of life in the foreseeable future.

Almost half of the Palestinians (46%) believe that the PA is corrupt

Only about one quarter (27%) believe that the chances that the PA will contend effectively with corruption in the next to years are good

About 70% (69%) believe that the chances the chances that the PA will contend effectively with corruption in the next to years are moderate or less

42% state that they have considered emigrating permanently to some other country

Half the population (50%) state do not discount the possibility of emigrating permanently to another country if they had them means to do so, while almost 20% (17%) stated explicitly that they would emigrate permanently. (41% rejected this possibility)

In answer to the question "What would induce you to emigrate permanently, only 15% stated that nothing would induce them. Over 70% (71%)specified one or more material factors that would induce to emigrate permanently them such as substantial financial compensation; guarantee of a good job abroad; a good level of housing.

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 Deb Kotz, November 30, 2004.

Cute article in yesterday's NY Times for those who didn't see it. It's by Greg Myre.

JERUSALEM, Nov. 28 - For many Israelis, it is received wisdom that their country is misunderstood by the world, and that its official representatives compound the problem through inept diplomacy.

True or false, this notion has spawned the country's newest reality television show, "The Ambassador," which features 14 young Israelis competing in the United States, Europe and at home to win a job spreading a pro-Israel message around the globe.

The first episode of the highly publicized show was seen Wednesday night on Israel's Channel Two and it directly addressed the country's preoccupation with "hasbara," a Hebrew word best translated as "advocacy."

Many Israelis passionately believe that if the country could better make its case in the court of international opinion, then much of the world would side with, or at least be more understanding toward, Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. It is a battle that many Israelis say they have been losing during the last four years of violence.

For their first assignment, the contestants were divided into two teams, men and women, with each side delivering a speech and answering questions from skeptical students at Cambridge University in Britain.

"The only aim is to make them more sympathetic to Israel, to modify their opinions if just by a millimeter," said Nachman Shai, one of the show's three judges and a former military spokesman regarded as a skilled practitioner of hasbara.

At Cambridge, the speaker for the men's team was Tzvika Deutsch, who asked audience members how they would feel if a British soccer match was canceled because of the threat of a rocket attack. Such dangers are an everyday concern in Sedorot, he said, a town in southern Israel near Gaza that comes under frequent Palestinian rocket attack.

"I have a simple dream," he said. "I want to wake up every morning to a boring life. To just turn on the telly and watch a match between Arsenal and Manchester United."

The women's team presented a more formal recitation of recent Middle East events, including the collapse of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations when the Palestinian uprising began four years ago.

Responding to a student's question, Ofra Bin Nun of the women's team said, "Let me make it clear that Israel has not taken anything from anyone." That drew snickers and derisive laughter from the audience, which later expressed a preference for the men's presentation by a 3-to-1 margin.

While the men's team celebrated with Champagne, the women were flown back to Israel and debriefed by the judges. Ms. Bin Nun was the first contestant dismissed.

"Hasbara means knowing you are speaking to a hostile audience and knowing how to win their hearts," said Rina Matzliah, a judge who is a prominent television journalist.

On the episode to be broadcast this Wednesday, the remaining 13 contestants travel to France, a country highly critical of Israel, in an attempt to persuade French people to visit Israel.

The show will play out over 11 episodes, with the winner receiving a job in New York with Israel at Heart, an advocacy group established two years ago by Joey Low, 53, a New York businessman.

"I was very upset with the way Israel was being perceived," Mr. Low said in a telephone interview from New York. "I felt Israel was not delivering its message in the best way."

Mr. Low's group recruits Israelis in their early 20's who have just completed mandatory military service and sends them to universities in United States, Europe and Latin America to speak on behalf of Israel.

When approached by "The Ambassador," Mr. Low said, he had reservations but decided it could serve a useful purpose, "because Israelis don't always know how they are being perceived abroad."

Israeli television has been cranking out reality shows inspired by American ones, and "The Ambassador" has been compared to "The Apprentice."

Keshet Broadcasting, which produces the show, whittled down a large pool of potential contestants and selected well-educated, multilingual, photogenic Israelis in their 20's and early 30's. Contestants gather in a dimly lit conference room to receive marching orders at the beginning of each episode, and return at the end to find out who has been dismissed.

"We didn't want a show that was just about finding a winner," said Avi Nir, the general manager of Keshet. "We wanted something that deals with the problems facing Israel. We wanted a show that brought together current affairs and reality TV."

Gideon Meir, a senior Foreign Ministry official, said he welcomed the show because it would demonstrate to Israelis the challenges in advancing Israel's case abroad. He said he was not troubled by the show's underlying premise that amateur diplomats could perhaps be more effective than the professionals.

"Israelis feel if we could only do a better job explaining, the world would understand us," Mr. Meir said. "But it's much more complicated than that. I hope this will show that public diplomacy is not easy, and is something that has to be taken in a serious way."

Mr. Shai was a military spokesman during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, offering assurance that everything was under control even as the country came under repeated missile attacks from Iraq. He said Israel's representatives had a greater challenge today. In 1991, as well as in the 1967 and in 1973 wars, Israel faced actual or imminent attack. But now the country is often portrayed as the aggressor in the fighting with the Palestinians, particularly in the European news media.

"The David and Goliath roles have been reversed, and it's more difficult to explain what we're doing today," Mr. Shai said in an interview. "I meet often with American Jews, and there's a strong feeling that Israel is right, but the world doesn't understand we are right.

"I think we're doing a pretty good job, but we're always critical of ourselves. I think it's fair to say that we are obsessed with hasbara."

Deb Kotz is an active member of the Brandeis Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintains an email list to distribute articles of interest to the local community. She can be reached at DebKotz@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, November 30, 2004.

This article was written by Julie Stahl, CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief, November 29, 2004. It is archived at http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page= \ForeignBureaus\archive\200411\FOR20041129d.html

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Democratic countries need to band together to form an international league of states dedicated to the worldwide fight against terrorism, given the United Nations' failure to do so, experts in Jerusalem said.

Speaking at the second annual Jerusalem Summit - a forum for international conservative thinkers and diplomats - participants said something different needs to be done.

While the United Nations was established with the noble goal of defending international peace and security, it actually has undermined international security and established safe havens for terrorism, said Dr. Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N.

Three weeks ago, for example, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a letter to President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi asking them to call off the anticipated attack against insurgents in Fallujah, Iraq because it would undermine the Iraqi election process.

"What the Secretary-General is essentially saying...was that maintaining the huge terrorist presence in Fallujah was better for the future of Iraqi democracy than having it eliminated," said Gold. Gold is the author of a recently released book entitled Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos.

"In essence, what the Secretary-General was doing by his intervention was to provide protective diplomatic cover to the likes of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and the mujahadeen that were fighting against the United States and the coalition forces in Iraq," he said.

But such "diplomatic cover" for terrorist activities is not new. According to Gold, it began decades ago with "one of the worst" General Assembly resolutions ever adopted - number 2708.

"That resolution reaffirmed the recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle against alien domination...by all necessary means. That resolution became the basis, in my judgment, for the growth of terrorism...as something the U.N. could even legitimize," Gold said.

"If that resolution was adopted in December 1970, it's not surprising that by 1974 Yasser Arafat was in fact invited to the United Nations General Assembly to address it, without having to transform himself in any way," he said.

Arafat's PLO had been thrown out of Jordan in a bloody military confrontation known as Black September. The PLO was responsible for hijacking aircraft, murdering a U.S. ambassador to Sudan and his deputy, and killing Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

"It's not a long distance from those early years in the 1970s to protective cover that the Secretary-General Annan has provided to Zarqawi [and the] Mujahadeen in Fallujah," he said.

Targeting states that support terror

Shabtai Shavit, head of the Israel's Mossad (secret service) from 1989 to 1996, said an international organization should be created to deal with the global war against terrorism.

"Terrorism cannot exist without territory and thus action must be against states that support terrorism," Shavit said.

"The U.N. is of course a natural home for such an organization," he said, but that won't happen. The U.N. has never even been able to come to a consensus on a definition for terrorism, much less fight it, he added.

The difference between terrorism in past decades and today, Shavit said, is that years ago it was primarily secularly based, aspired to self determination and was mostly local -- whereas today it is based on radical, religious, imperialistic Muslim worldview that has strong global support.

The terrorists today believe that they have been given a "divine command" to either convert the rest of the world to Islam or to extinguish it, he said.

Such an ideology has presented dilemmas to the Western world in the methods needed to deal with the terrorism, he said, and therefore an international organization of democracies needs to be formed in order to combat it.

Shavit, who heads the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism near Tel Aviv, suggested that an international definition for terrorism based on the "lowest common denominator" be adopted by the group whose authority would be based on agreed upon conventions.

"Experts from different countries [would] investigate the involvement of states and organizations in terror," Shavit said. A state's involvement in terrorism would be defined by the type and level of involvement, he said.

"States that are involved in terrorism will be penalized based upon a fixed scale, which will be defined. The scale will mention the different types of involvement in order to shift the balance of interests from those states and convince them that supporting terrorism is not worthwhile," he said.

But according to Gold, its not enough to just pull democracies together. In the lead-up to the war in Iraq, even some democracies believed to be U.S. allies refused to view the threat from Iraq in the same way.

"Therefore you need a common mission, which is [to combat] terrorism, and you need democracy, and those have to be wedded to form a kernel of an alternative organization," Gold said.

"In the meantime, within the U.N. system, those countries need to begin to work to change the U.N. resolutions, to begin to form an alternative bloc that pulls in countries from Africa and Asia, away from the non-aligned movement to a more positive voting patterns," he added.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 30, 2004.

Just wanted to share with you a few reflections on Chanukah.

Happy Chanukah, Seasons Greetings and a Happy New Year, top heavy on Health, security, challenges and rewards and low on gloom, terrorism and complacency,


1. CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE: Simon the Maccabee - who succeeded Judah and Jonathan the Maccabees - responded to an ultimatum by the Assyrian/Greek Emperor Antiochus (Maccabees A, Chapter 15, verse 33: "We have not occupied a foreign land; We have not ruled a foreign land; We have liberated the land of our forefathers from foreign occupation." Thus responded Simon the Maccabee to Emperor Antiochus' ultimatum to end "occupation" of Jaffa, Jerusalem, Gezer, Ekron and GAZA.

2. SOME OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE USA, as well as Paul Revere and the organizers of the Boston Tea Party, viewed the Maccabees as their own role-model. However, some of the successors of the Founding Fathers consider the Land Of The Maccabees, where heroic battles were conducted (northwest of Jerusalem), as "occupied territory."

3. ORIGIN OF "Give me liberty or give me death" and "Live Free Or Die". The politically-INcorrect Maccabees launched a principle-driven war in defense of ideas and tradition, in defiance of domestic pressure and external threats. Their sacrifice and political INcorrectness - in contrast with the accommodation, appeasement and vacillation displayed by the Jewish establishment those days - has preserved today's Jewish religion, language, culture and sovereignty. They followed in the footsteps of Abraham, Pinchas the High Priest (grandson of Aharon), Joshua, Calev, King David and Elijah.

4. ORIGIN OF THE NAME, MACCABEE. Yehuda's middle name was Maccabee, derived possibly from the Hebrew word MAKEVET (The Power Hammer), which described Yehuda's tenacious fighting capabilities. It may have derived from the Hebrew verb CABEH (to extinguish fire), which described the fate of Yehuda's adversaries. Another possible interpretation of the name is that MACCABEE is the Hebrew acronym of "Who could resemble you among Gods, Jehovah" ("Mi Camokha Ba'elim Adonye" in Hebrew).

5. ORIGIN OF THE NAME, CHANUKAH (THE HOLIDAY OF EDUCATION). According to the first book of The Maccabees, Yehuda (who succeeded Mattityahu) ordered the Jewish People to observe an eight day holiday on the 25th day of the month of Kislev, in order to commemorate the INAUGURATION (CHANUKAH in Hebrew) of the holy altar and the Temple, following Syrian desecration. Some have suggested that the 8 day celebration was designed to make up for the holiday of Tabernacles, which could not be celebrated by the Maccabees due to the war. Also, a key feature of Chanukah is the EDUCATION of the family on the historical background of the holiday. The Hebrew word for education is CHINUKH, spelled with the first four of the five letters of Chanukah. The Hebrew word, Chanukah, consists of two words, CHANU (they rested/stationed) and KAH (25), which refers to the fact that the Maccabees re-consecrated the Temple on the 25th day of the month of Kislev (purging it from the idolatries installed by the Seleucids). Some have suggested that the celebration of Christmas on December 25th and the celebration of the New Year 8 days later (January 1) have their origin in the 25th day of Kislev (which always "accompanies" December) and the 8 days of Chanukah as well as the eight days of circumcision.

6. HOLIDAY OF LIGHT AND REMEMBRANCE. The first day of Chanukah - the Holiday of Light - is on the 25th day of Kislev. The 25th (Hebrew) word in Genesis is LIGHT (OR). The 25th stop of the People of Israel - on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land - was Hashmona (same root as Hasmoneans, or Hashomonayim in Hebrew). Chanukah commemorates the victory of Light over Darkness. While Light stands for REMEMBRANCE, Darkness (Chashecha in Hebrew) stands for FORGETFULNESS (Schichecha/forgetfulness in Hebrew, spelled with the same Hebrew letters as Chashecah/darkness).

7. HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Alexander The Great - who held Judaism in high esteem and whose Egyptian heir Ptolemy II translated the Torah to Greek - died in 323BC. Consequently, the Greek Empire disintegrated into five, and thirty years later into three, kingdoms: Macedonia, Syria and Egypt. The Land of Israel was always militarily contested by Syria and Egypt (and Gaza was always the main invasion route!). In 198BC, Israel was conquered by the ancient Syrians. In 175BC, a new king assumed power in Syria, Antiochus (IV) Epiphanies, who viewed the Jews as pro-Egyptians and held Judaism with contempt. In 169BC, on his way to Syria from a military victory over Egypt, he devastated Jerusalem, massacred a large number of Jews, forbade the practice of Judaism (including the Sabbath, circumcision, etc.) and desecrated Jerusalem and the Temple. The rebellion against the Syrian (Seleucid) kingdom featured the Hasmonean (MACCABEE) family: Mattityahu, a priest from the small town of Modi'in, and his five sons, Yochanan, Yehuda, Simon, Jonathan and Elazar. The heroic (and tactically creative) battles conducted by the Maccabees, were consistent with the reputation of Jews as superb warriors, who were hired often as mercenaries by Egypt, Rome and other global and regional powers.

8. HOLIDAY/MONTH OF OPTIMISM. Saddam Hussein was captured during the Hebrew month of Kislev, the month of miracles. The first two Hebrew letters of Chanukah are those spelling the name NOAH. The Hebrew month of the post-flood RAINBOW of hope was Kislev. Moses completed the construction of the Holy Arc on the 25th day of Kislev, as was the date of the laying the foundation of the second Temple by Nehemaya.

9. PRINCIPLES AT ANY COST. While Passover and Purim are also national liberation holidays, Chanukah is a special national liberation holiday. The heroes of Passover and Purim had no choice but to defy their enemies. The Maccabees had a choice: They were offered physical peace in return for spiritual assimilation and a sellout of the Cradle of Jewish History and Jewish principles. However, they were willing to pay ANY price for the protection of their values and heritage. Chanukah symbolizes the victory of CONVICTION and ROOTS over SHORT-TERM CONVENIENCE and OPPORTUNISM/CYNICISM (currently known as "pragmatism").

10. NO FREE LUNCH FOR SOVEREIGN PEOPLES. Chanukah serves as another reminder that free people must be ready to fight - and sacrifice - for the RIGHT to be sovereign, especially in violent and unpredictable neighborhoods.

11. THE FEW AGAINST THE MANY, Right vs.. Wrong, Truth vs.. Lies. The Maccabees were a tiny minority - condemned by the "pragmatic" and "enlightened" establishment - upon launching their rebellion against an oppressive super-power. They were referred by Jewish "intellectuals" as "the enemies of peace" and "extremists." They prevailed due to their principle-driven, determined and can-do state-of-mind, which was compatible with reality, rather than with wishful-thinking, with Right rather than Wrong. WALKING AGAINST THE GRAIN, the Maccabees fought against overwhelming demographic, economic and military odds, just like the 1948-1992 leaders of the Jewish State. MAY CONTEMPORARY LEADERS OF THE JEWISH STATE REGAIN THE SPIRIT OF THE MACCABEES.

Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli liaison to the U.S. Congress, is a consultant on US-Israel relations.

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2004.


Syrian agents abroad are attempting to intimidate expatriated opponents by threatening to murder their relatives. Some of the messages arrive via email. Germany arrested a Syrian embassy employee and charged him with being one of a score of such agents (IMRA, 11/21).

Many dictatorships control Western media reports to some extent by forbidding access or by restricting access to journalists who would give favorable coverage. Remember CNN's fawning exclusives during the Saddam era? Syria and the P.A. arrest, beat, or murder journalists, in order to keep the pack in line. The major US media, which has much to say about certain topics, and moralizes about the public's right to know, does not let the public know much about this topic.

Arab states pay off Western officials and subsidize Middle Eastern Studies programs on US campuses. Arab organizations and states provide US schools with colorful brochures that are glorified proselytizing. On campuses in the US and Canada, the Arabs menace Jews. In Europe, the Arabs threaten violence to deter crackdowns and to get the government to ban protests against the Arabs. Not wanting Arab riots, Norway is said to have muted a Holocaust memorial. Arabs attack French teachers who present the historical facts about the Arabs or the Holocaust.

The biased State Dept. is notorious for pleasing the Saudis. A Saudi official boasted that the numerous lucrative jobs that S. Arabia provides to ex-Department diplomats keeps current State Dept. employees subservient to the desert kingdom. The State Dept., largely responsible for failure to prevent 9/11, enjoys immunity from investigation. The current controversy is over which Congressional security reform bill would be passed, but neither calls for reform of State Dept. personnel, procedure, and policy.


Israeli security forces demanded that a wanted terrorist come out of his car and surrender. He and his aides did exit the car but opened fire at the Israelis, who killed them. The news brief contained the usual IDF account of the terrorism of the leading terrorist and other known ones. It was extensive. Their victims seemed legion (IMRA, 11/21).

This was an attempted arrest. It is similar in outcome to some other Israeli attempts to arrest terrorists. I think that targeted assassination is preferable. Many people object to targeted assassination on the basis of international law they misconstrue, and out of ignorance of terrorism. Would that they objected at least as strenuously to terrorist attacks! They want Israel to resort more to attempted arrests. Nevertheless, when Israel takes that kind of action, they object, anyway. I think they just don't want Jews killing Arabs who plan on killing Jews.


A few days ago, Israeli forces in Gaza near the Sinai border spotted terrorists planting a roadside bomb, which the Israelis later disarmed. Firing at the terrorists, the Israelis killed three Egyptians by mistake. Israel apologized, but many Arabs protested in a rage.

It turns out that the three Egyptians, originally called police, actually were soldiers. Egyptian soldiers are not allowed in the Sinai, under the terms of the Egypt-Israel treaty (IMRA, 11/21).

Now the indignation should be by Israel. What were Egyptian soldiers doing in a forbidden zone? Were they helping the terrorists? Have other troops sneaked in? Is this another reason for Israel not to let Egypt play a role in the P.A. police?


PM Sharon told Sec. Powell that the absence of Arafat and the presence of P.A. elections offer great hope for peace. A new P.A. leadership may advance peace (IMRA, 11/22).

"Hope" for peace? Hardly. The candidates are terrorists. The culture is jihadist.

Is this the usual diplomatic nonsense, expressing hope where there is none, or does PM Sharon believe it? Does Powell believe it or is he seizing the pretended opportunity to bolster his anti-Israel agenda of appeasement of the Arabs?


(1) Cartoon in the official P.A. daily depicts a US soldier raping an Iraqi girl, with the approval of the Arab world; (2) Another cartoon depicts National Security Advisor Rice as an exterminator of the Arabs; and (3) Mosque sermon on P.A. Television characterizes the US counter-attack in Fallujah as ethnic cleansing and the US as terrorist (IMRA, 11/22 from Palestinian Media Watch). Pres. Bush has asked Congress to increase subsidy of the P.A. and to exempt it from restrictions based on terrorism and hate-mongering. Did the P.A. terrorists dupe him, or is he duping Congress and Israel?


Omar Jummah had told his family he was going to teach in S. Arabia. They learned of his death alongside the forces of (Jordanian) terrorist Zarkqawi, notorious for beheading captives. The family knew that Omar was deeply pious, but not that he was that extreme. (They all claim not to have known.) Families commonly deny knowing the son was fanatical. IMRA calls this revelatory about the nature of Islam (but it may reveal just that Islam prepares the way towards Islamism.)

Jordanian security forces reported that hundreds of Jordanian Islamists went to Iraq. They did not report intercepting them. The youth reportedly are incensed at Americans killing fellow Muslim Iraqis. IMRA points out that the Islamists kill far more Iraqis (and all innocent ones). It asks why doesn't Jordan consider its role in producing such extremism (IMRA, 11/18).


An IDF company commander was indicted in the slaying of an Arab girl in Gaza, for illegal use of a weapon, acting beyond authority in a potentially lethal manner, obstruction of justice, and conduct unbecoming. Details of the incident were not provided (IMRA, 11/22).

There are a number of such indictments, lately. I am in no position to judge them, but I get a sense of them. First, there is a double standard in the justice system, scapegoating in favor of Arabs. Jews get beaten or arrested for peaceful protest, whereas Arabs riot without penalty and even get apologies from the State when the police fight back for their lives. The justice system - judges, prosecutors, secret service, and police and media -- is biased towards appeasement and antisemitism. There is no trial by jury. The power to arrest is politicalized.

Second, the code of conduct somewhat favors the Arab enemy over preserving soldiers' lives. Combat troops are not allowed to do their jobs, but must consult in detail in battle. (The IDF once was known for improvisation.) Results are second-guessed and subject to foreign pressure to persecute the soldiers for injury to foreigners who deliberately interfered or placed themselves in harm's way. Reasonable circumstances of battle are not always taken into account.

Third, troops seem careless in guard duty and excessively humane in inspecting Arab women.


The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies presented a paper on how Egypt sees its regional role and past and present challenges. The paper presents many factors. Egypt wants to be important, and is envious when it is not, but lacks the resources to match its ambitions. (This is a lesson that the over-extended US should learn.) IMRA notes the omission of: (1) Egypt's having been given $60 billion to develop a first class army (without which it would seem less important); and (2) Egypt's declining to stop the smuggling of arms into Gaza (IMRA, 11/22), even as Egypt pretends to take on a peacekeeper role there. Egypt used to stiffen Arafat's inclination to reject terms offered.

Egypt's role as the leader of the movement to delegitimize Israel in the UN was unstated. Its anti-Americanism, partly because it deems the US a rival in regional hegemony, was ignored, as was the US sufferance of that hostility

The article acknowledges that Egypt has genuine regional interests, but does not analyze them and how well Egypt serves them, nor even define them.

Yes, there may be an opportunity to renew the Arab-Israel diplomatic process (by which the article does not mean that Egypt would return its ambassador to Israel but be involved in P.A. negotiations with Israel). This subject is stated in the assumption that the process was and is a genuine peace effort rather than war on Israel via diplomacy (IMRA, 11/22). Suspension of the process preserved Israel, but Sharon now wants to give the Arabs vital territory, anyway.


The Yachad Party, formerly known as Meretz, sent condolences to the people of the P.A., over the death of Arafat. Arafat was responsible for the murder of perhaps thousands of Israelis (Arutz-7, 11/22). The recipients of the leftist condolences approved of the murders.


In order that occupation forces not cast a shadow over the elections in Iraq and the P.A., they should remove themselves (IMRA, 11/23).

Neither force is an occupier. Neither would interfere with the election, as the neutral presence of Israeli forces during P.A. municipal elections demonstrated. Israeli forces may keep Arab rival militias from doing so. US forces are needed to keep the insurgents from doing so. For US forces to move out would cost a great deal of money, and the new government is likely to want them to stay until the Iraqi forces can maintain stability on their own. POWELL NAIVE?

Sec. Powell praised the new head of the P.A. for attempting to draw Hamas into the elections and government. Powell assumed that in doing so, the Hamas would abandon terrorism.

ZOA criticized Powell for praising the coddling of terrorists, instead of insisting on their defeat (IMRA, 11/23)

Powell assumes that the P.A. would try to get Hamas to abandon terrorism, which the P.A., itself, has not abandoned. Illogical. Powell doesn't care. The major media does not point out such discrepancies. Why the discrepancies. The answer is that the State Dept. seeks to get the Jews out of the Territories and more. Hence it pretends that the P.A. is ready to negotiate peace.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by a Large Group of Participating Blog Sites*, November 29, 2004.

November 29, 1947 - November 29, 2004

This blogburst piece is cross-posted by a large group of websites, to commemorate a milestone in Israel's history. It was initiated by Joseph Alexander Norland of IsraPundit."

United Nations resolution 181

November 29, 2004: Anniversary of the UN vote on Resolution 181

2004_11_13 - un_resolution_181.jpg

Today is the anniversary of the UN vote on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. (It is vital to recall that the UN partition plan referred to western Palestine, to underscore that in 1921 the eastern part was ripped off the Jewish National Home by the British Government and handed over to the then Emir Abdullah.)

The partition plan was approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.

The 33 countries that cast the "Yes" vote were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela. (Among other countries, the list includes the US, the three British Dominions, all the European countries except for Greece and the UK, but including all the Soviet-block countries.)

The 13 countries that chose the Hall of Shame and voted "No" were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. (Ten of these are Moslem countries; Greece has the special distinction of being the only European country to have joined the Hall of Shame.)

The ten countries that abstained are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

On November 30, 1947, the day following the vote, the Palestinian Arabs murdered six Jews in a bus making its way to Jerusalem, and proceeded to murder another Jew in the Tel-Aviv - Jaffa area. This was a prelude to a war that claimed the lives of 6,000 Jews, or 1% of the total Jewish population in 1948. This toll is the per capita equivalent of today's Canada losing 300,000 lives, or the US losing 3,000,000. The object of the war, launched by the Arabs in the former Palestine and the armies of Egypt, Tansjordan, Syria and Lebanon (with help from other Arab countries), was to "throw the Jews into the sea". In addition, immediately after the UN vote, Arabs attacked their Jewish neighbours in a number of Arab countries, the murders in Syria's Aleppo being the best known.

Bruised and bleeding, Israel prevailed nonetheless.
May our sister-democracy thrive and flourish

* List of participating sites, in alphabetical order of site name

Anti Idiotarian Rottweiler
Arkansas Bushwacker
Armies Of Liberation
Bama Pachyderm
Blog Willy
Blue Rev
Canadian Comment
Cao's Blog
Catholic Friends of Israel
Christian Patriot
Christian Action for Israel
Clarity and Resolve
Crusader War College
Daniel Davis
God Pigeon
Harald Tribune
Heretics Almanac
Hidden Nook
History Nerd
I Love America
Instant Knowledge News
Israel Commentary
Jersusalem Posts
Leaning Right News
Letter from Israel
Mugged By Reality
Mystery Achievement
Mystical Paths
Nice Jewish Boy
Protect Our Heritage
Red Tigress
Spitball Defense
Tampa Bay Primer
Techie Vampire
Tex The Pontificator
The Autism homepage
The Conservative
The Homeland
The Seal Club
Who's Your Rabbi
Yoan Hermida
Weblog of a Wondering Jew

To Go To Top
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, November 29, 2004.

Israel is at war, a war for its very survival. One would hardly know this judging from Israel's Neronian Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Like Nero, Sharon fiddles while his country burns, but unlike Nero, Sharon doesn't know he's fiddling.

Moral cowardice permeates the Sharon government. No outrage by Likud ministers when Sharon reneged on his pledge to abide by his party's referendum on unilateral disengagement - the policy he campaigned against in the January 2003 election.

And of course no public denunciation of Sharon's electoral thievery and political skullduggery. But what can one expect from people that have been conditioned by Israeli governments to tolerate the murder and maiming even of Jewish women and children? What can one expect from ordinary citizens given the spineless character of Israeli prime ministers?

And what about the Israel's general staff? Not a single general resigned from the Israel Defense Forces in protest against Sharon's indefensible disengagement policy, or to the sacrificing of Jewish soldiers to avoid killing anything but innocent Arab civilians.

So I write for another day. Perhaps men will yet rise to take the helm of state. With them in mind I offer, or rather adapt, some guidelines which another author penned for America in its war against an enemy related to Israel's.

I. Accept the fact that Israel is hated, not misunderstood.

A. Israel is hated because

1. Jews inhabit land which Muslims claim, rightly or wrongly, as theirs.

2. Israel is a sovereign and independent state, whereas Jews, according to Islam, are supposed to be dhimmies.

3. A Jewish majority in Israel rules an Arab minority, overturning Islam's moral universe.

4. Israel has defeated Arab armies, thereby assaulting Arab pride - for which affront Arabs must wreak vengeance on the Jewish state.

5. Israel is an outpost of American cultural imperialism, of materialism and hedonism, which may infect and corrupt Islam.

6. Israel is a democracy, a threat to the power structure of Islamic autocracies.

7. Israel's existence places Islam in question as well as Allah.

B. Hasbara - information programs - will not endear Jews to Arabs or Muslims.

1. Better to be feared than loved, for fear depends on you, whereas love depends on the other.

2. Truth has never been the currency of nations.

II. Israel's security depends on its ability to kill its enemies.

A. Daintily applying military power - such as targeted killings and brief incursions into Arab-held territory - only prolongs the war.

1. Moderation or self-restraint in war arouses Arab contempt for Israel

2. Moderation in war undermines martial virtue and undermines the soldier's confidence in the justice of Israel's cause.

B. To secure its way of life, Israel will have to use military force in the way the U.S. used military force in France and on the Pacific Islands, and from skies over Dresden and Tokyo.

1. Progress in war must be measured by the pace of killing and, sorry to say, by body counts.

2. Among Israel's enemies the dead will include as many or more civilians as combatants because most of Israel's enemies wear no uniforms or provide havens for those who do.

3. This bloody-mindedness may not be admirable, but it will shorten the war and reduce casualties on both sides.

III. Cant will kill more and more Jews

A. Cease trying to make war civilized.

1. Enough of this deadly nonsense that :self-restraint is strength"!

2. Stop the moral clap trap about "purity of arms."

B. Israel, to repeat, is in a war for survival.

1. Stop moralizing by saying "we do not want to stoop to the level of our enemies" - which is sheer cant, the language of moral cowardice and defeat.

2. War is hell, hell, hell. American ferocity in World War II did not damage the nation's moral fiber.

3. Don't worry about world opinion. Israel is condemned for killing one terrorist. Kill as many as possible in the shortest possible time, but do not stop until the enemy is completely disarmed and utterly incapable of waging war another day.

No doubt some readers will be outraged by these guidelines. Would that such rage would erupt among Jews whose fellow-citizens were reduced to human debris.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, who writes on Israel's need for a constitution as substrate for government. He is founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached at: eidelberg@foundation1.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, November 29, 2004.

This was written by Etgar Lefkovits and appeared today in The Jerusalem Post.

An al-Qaida attack on the US with non-conventional weapons is virtually "inevitable," and the organization is likely "tying up the knots" for such an attack, Yossef Bodansky, former director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

"All of the warnings we have today indicate that a major strike - something more horrible than anything we've seen before - is all but inevitable," he said.

Bodansky, here for the second annual Jerusalem Summit, an international gathering of conservative thinkers, added that "the primary option" for the next al-Qaida attack on US soil would be one that would use weapons of mass destruction.

"I do not have a crystal ball, but this is what all the available evidence tells us, we will have a bang," Bodansky said.

He said that al-Qaida has not carried out a second major attack on the US until now for internal psychological and ideological reasons, but after the reelection of President George W. Bush, it has gotten "the green light" to do so from leading Islamic religious luminaries, as well as from "the elites of the Arab world."

According to Bodansky's reading of Osama bin Laden's mind-set, after the elaborate attacks of 9/11 there was no need for the "bin Ladens of the world" to carry out a second major attack in the US, both because the target audience of the attacks - the Arab and Islamic world - had gotten the message that America could be penetrated, and because a second attack would necessarily have to be more grandiose.

Following the attacks and the US-led war on terror, a debate started within the operational arm of the organization over the potential use of weapons of mass destruction, Bodansky said.

If, in pre-9/11 days, the theme used by bin Laden was that perpetual confrontation and jihad against the US was the only way to protect Islam, the argument now used is the ability to punish American society, Bodansky said.

"Just as the West was challenging the quintessence of Islam by means of the globalization era, there was a parallel need by Islamic extremists to strike at - and hurt - the core of American society, this time with weapons of mass destruction," Bodansky said.

A subsequent theological debate emerged within the organization, and its supporters in the Arab world, he said, over whether the mass killing of innocents is permissible.

While bin Laden and his associates argued that by virtue of their participation in US democracy, US citizens were enabling their rulers to fight, other Islamic luminaries contended that this does not permit such massive attacks, Bodansky said. The reelection of Bush in November, he said, was viewed by bin Laden and his cohorts as a decisive answer to this deliberation, with Americans now "choosing" to be the enemies of Islam. In bin Laden's mind-set, he said, the stage was set for a non-conventional attack.

Bodansky said that while there may still be some vestiges of debate and doubt within Islamic circles, he believes that planing for such an attack is finished. "They got the kosher stamp from the Islamic world to use nuclear weapons," he said.

Moreover, Bodansky said that America is losing the war against terrorism, noting the number of recruits bin Laden is able to count on, as his call to arms gains widespread support throughout the Muslim world.

In the pre-9/11 world, Bodansky said, jihadists could count on 250,000 individuals trained and willing to die, and 2.5 million-5 million people willing to help them in one way or another. He cited intelligence estimates from this summer that suggest that as many as 500,000-750,000 people are willing and trained to die, 10 million are willing to actively support them, short of killing, while another 50 million are willing to support such a movement financially.

To Go To Top
Posted by David Ben-Ariel, November 29, 2004.

I just question "where does it stop?" Israel thought if they gave Sinai it would be enough. It wasn't. Israel thought if they retreated without firing a shot in self-defense from Bethlehem, Jericho and other Arab-occupied biblical territories it would be enough. It wasn't. Czechoslavakia was sold out, given to appease Hitler, and it didn't work either. Sharon is very aware of that analogy and has used it himself.

All these "painful" concessions are slitting Israel's own throat and bringing us all closer to the end: the demand to divide Jerusalem and bring in foreign "peacekeeping" troops.

I'm afraid the Bible foresaw this folly and we've rejected its warning, based on our limited sight and vain hopes for peace with a warlike people who won't rest until Israel rests in peace and they've "liberated" all of "Palestine." They seem to care more for the land than too many Jews and Israelis, as Rabbi Kahane said, sadly.

God save us all.

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall". He can be reached at http://www.pushhamburger.com/david.htm

To Go To Top
Posted by Ken Heller, November 29, 2004.

Crisis in Israel!

Widespread civil rights abuses....Constant harassment....Mass arrests...Forced expulsion from homes...Detention camps...

Is this the future of the Jewish State?

If Prime Minister Sharon has his way, it will be!

Sharon has placed 8,000 Jews in Gaza in the position of being forcibly expelled from their land, homes, synagogues, farms and their biblical heritage by next summer. The same holds true for several communities in the Northern Shomron, just as a start. This diabolical plan rewards terror and is nothing more than capitulation, treachery, acquiescence and surrender.

If permitted to happen, it obviously would be devastating for Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael.

The people of Gush Katif have to continue to get their message to all the homes in Israel mainly because the leftist-media refuses to tell the truth and supports Sharon's plan. The only way the Big Lie can lose is if great numbers of honest people refute it with the BIGGER TRUTH!

We have to help them and enable them to continue their valiant and desperate struggle against the Prime Minister's treachery.

Several ways you can help include:

1) Contacting the Israeli consulates with emails, faxes and phone calls urging Sharon to halt his madness. Sharon can be contacted directly at webmaster@pmo.gov.il

2) Contacting the White House and urge President Bush, who claims to be Israel's friend, not to support the "unilateral disengagement", to withdraw his support for a "two-state solution", to urge him to stop funding the PA and to urge that he move the U.S embassy to Jerusalem. To reach the President:

Phone (202) 456-1414
Fax (202) 456-2883
Email president@whitehouse.gov

3) Sending letters to your local papers and calling the talk shows expressing support for Gush Katif.

4) Distributing this letter to stores, schools and synagogues in your area as well as to friends on your address list.

5) Sending your much needed financial assitance, anything that you can afford, to:

"Friends of Gush Katif"
In care of :
Marc Zwebner, 588 South Forest Drive, Teaneck, NJ 07666

"Friends of Gush Katif" is a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization so your contributions will be deductible.

You may also contact Dror Vanunu, Spokesman for Gush Katif, at gkatif@netvision.net.il, should you have any questions. Also, please visit Gush Katif's english website at www.english.katif.net to keep updated on current events there.

Thank you for your much needed help!

Ken Heller is a pro-Israel activist and a member of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For A Safe Israel. He can be reached at kjhnha@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 29, 2004.


For the first time, Pakistani forces hunting for al-Qaeda, are staying in the Western tribal region during winter. Bin Laden is kept on the run or in hiding, unable to devote himself fully to his war. US commander Gen. Lance Smith likened this military effort to the one in Iraq to keep terrorist leader al-Zarqawi on the run (Robert Burns, NY Sun, 11/19, p.9). I had doubted Paki intent.

It also is similar to Israel's recent efforts that kept P.A. terrorist commanders on the run and less effective. One difference is that whereas the US and Pakistani efforts are praised, Israel's is condemned. The other difference is that Israel is known as a Jewish state.


Modeling itself after Campus Watch in the US, Israel Academia Monitor will expose abuses of academic freedom and politicalization of Israeli campuses by radicals seeking acceptance by Israel's enemies. Propaganda on campus has been anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, and even anti-Semitic. Radical professors who promulgate it often have poor academic records and research credentials, but tenure. Their bias in hiring and promoting deepens the monoculture. They spread their ethnic self-hatred around the world, providing ammunition, though it be false, to countries and parties seeking to delegitimate Israel. They promote insurrection and illegality.

The extremists call all that "academic freedom," but decry criticism of them as abridgment of academic freedom. Whoever criticizes their abuses is called "McCarthyist" (IMRA, 11/21).

If Sen. McCarthy were alive, he would recognize, with pride, his methods in their false accusations.


PM Sharon has taken a new stance towards terrorism. He said Arab "quiet will be met by Israeli quiet." Dr. Aaron Lerner explains that Arab terrorists "may build up their weapons stores, recruit and train illegal militias and make any and all preparations for attacks as long as they do not actually carry out the attacks." He calls this policy the "growing cocked gun." (IMRA, 11/21.) He also supposes that there will be some terrorist attacks.

This policy boosts terrorism. If the terrorists were wise and possessed self-control, they would desist from terrorist attacks. The West would pretend that they have ended terrorism, are ready for peace, and now deserve statehood. The West would demand concessions from Israel, even though the terrorists were, in "quiet," magnifying their potential destructiveness. They would extract Israeli concessions for no sacrifice of their own, not that any concessions ever are due to terrorists. Then they would resume terrorism at greater strength than before.

Imagine Sharon's policy applied in 1944. The Allies had the Nazis on the run, but in return for a period of "quiet," during which Germany would refuel its air force, send supplies to its ground forces, and perhaps develop super-weapons, the Allies would suspend its pursuit. When the Nazis were ready, they would resume the war. Thus the Allies would have given up their advantage to a totalitarian foe that never gave up its imperialism. What would have been the point of that?

In the case of Israel, Sharon's proposal has the usual leftist elements of naivete, fraud, and submission to US pressure. Israel has tried truces with the P.A. before. The P.A. broke them. In violating them, the P.A. feels it is following Islamic law. Israel simply is a sucker. Worse, the government of Israel betrays its people. It is not as if the government does not hear of the fallacies of this policy. The opposition advises it, but the government chooses to ignore it. Ignoring proved advice about national security indicates low intelligence or high treason. TIME FOR DECISION ON IRAN

So well put is this article by Caroline Glick in the "Jerusalem Post" of 11/18 (from IMRA, 11/20), that I append it here, in full.

The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists. To understand why this is the case, we must look into the agreement and understand what is motivating the various parties to accede to its conditions.

The agreement stipulates that the European-3 will provide Iran with light water reactor fuel, enhanced trade relations and more nuclear reactors. In exchange, the Iranians agree that for the duration of the negotiations toward implementing the agreement - including a European push for Iranian ascension to the World Trade Organization - it will not develop centrifuges and will not enrich uranium. At the same time, the Europeans accepted Iran's claim that it has the legal right to complete the entire nuclear fuel cycle - meaning, it has the legal right to enrich uranium. Strangely, in a separate Iranian agreement with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranians announced that they would cease enriching uranium effective Monday, November 22, rather than immediately. This apparently annoyed the Europeans, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

The Weekly Standard this week explained that light water reactor fuel of the type that the Europeans have agreed to give Iran can be used to produce bomb material within nine weeks. Since the IAEA inspectors only visit Iran every three months, it would be a simple matter to divert enough light water fuel to produce a bomb between inspections. And so, the agreement itself holds the promise of direct European assistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

While the Europeans were congratulating themselves for their feckless diplomacy, the Iranians were taking to the airwaves and arguing that they gave up nothing in the deal and received everything. Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said the suspension of nuclear activities would last only until Iran and the Europeans reached a long-term agreement. For his part, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said that enriching uranium is "Iran's right, and Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium."

Iran's interest in making the deal is clear. The IAEA governing board is set to meet next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program. By agreeing to the deal with the Europeans, Iran has effectively foreclosed the option, favored by the US, of transferring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for discussions that could lead to sanctions on Iran.

Aside from that, all along, Iran has been gaming the system. It has pushed to the limits all feasible interpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, to enable it to reach the cusp of nuclear weapons development without breaking its ties or diminishing its leverage over the Europeans as well as the Russians and Chinese. In so doing, it has isolated the US and Israel - which have both gone on record that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons - from the rest of the international community, which is ready to enable Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities.

In the meantime, as Iran has negotiated the deal with the Europeans, it has moved quickly to develop its nuclear weapons delivery systems. Its recent Shihab-3 ballistic missiles tests seem to have demonstrated that Iran can now launch missiles to as far away as Europe. In addition, last week's launching of an Iranian drone, as well as this week's Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel, have shown that Iran has developed a panoply of delivery options for using its nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) arsenals to physically destroy Israel.

For their part, the European powers must know that this deal is a lie. The ink had not dried on their signatures when Iran announced that it wasn't obligated by the agreement to end its uranium enrichment. As well, on Wednesday, just two days after the deal was announced formally, the Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance - the political front for the People's Mujahedeen (which the deal stipulates must be treated as a terrorist organization comparable to al-Qaida) - held press conferences in Paris and Vienna where its representatives stated that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium at a Defense Ministry facility in Teheran and that it bought blueprints for nuclear bombs three years ago from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear bomb store. The Council of Resistance is the same organization that blew the whistle on Iran's nuclear program in 2002, when it exposed satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz.

Aside from this, European leaders themselves have said that in their view there is no military option for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. In an interview with the BBC this week, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop." Straw made this statement the same week that French President Jacques Chirac made an all-out diplomatic assault against British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his alliance with US President George W. Bush. Speaking to British reporters on Monday, Chirac said, "Britain gave its support [to the US in Iraq] but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors." Chirac added that he had told Blair that his friendship with Bush could be of use if the US adopted the EU position on Israel and the Palestinians. Since Bush has refused to do so, Chirac argued, Bush has played Blair for a fool.

From these statements, two things about the European agenda become clear. First, by bringing Britain into the talks with Iran, the French have managed to ensure that the Americans, if they decide to do something about Iran's nuclear weapons programs, will be forced to act without British backing and at the expense of the British government, thus causing a serious fissure in the Anglo-American alliance. Straw's statement is breathtaking in that it shows that on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, the British prefer to see Iran gain nuclear weapons to having anyone act to prevent them from doing so.

Chirac's statement exposes, once again, France's main interest in international affairs today. To wit: France wishes only to box in the US to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism. The French do this not because they necessarily like terrorists. They do this because as Chirac has said many times, he views the central challenge of our time as developing a "multipolar" world. France's obsession with multipolarity stems from Chirac's perception that his country's primary aim is not to free the world from Islamic terror, but to weaken the US.

Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the newest deal with the mullahs has removed diplomacy from the box of tools that can be used against Iran. In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.

What the US needs is plausible deniability regarding an Israeli strike vis-a -vis Britain and Germany, in order to get itself out of the trap that Paris has set for it. An Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will leave Germany in an uncomfortable public position. Berlin cannot condemn the Jews for doing what we can to prevent another Holocaust without losing whatever crumbs of moral credibility it has built up over the past 50 years.

As for Britain, if Israel were to conduct the attack on its own, the British would be hard-pressed to abandon the Americans; thus, the danger that British involvement with the Paris-based multipolarists on Iran will breach the Anglo-American alliance could be somewhat mitigated.

On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.


Student government at Brooklyn College criticized the Administration as lowering academic standards. The College disbanded the student government, alleging that it took office against the rules. The students decried the disbanding as a form of censorship. The Administration denied the accusation, but neither did it specify what was illegal about the election.

The College earlier had denied tenure to a professor who criticized the Dean for Student Life for hinting that the US government knew the 9/11 attack was imminent. The critic quoted the Dean's statement (NY Sun, Jacob Gershman, 11/19, p.5), which I find too vague to warrant his criticism.

The criticism, itself, fails to define what is meant by advance knowledge of the attack. The US knew that terrorists planned an attack, but had no idea where the attack would be made or its method. In that case, having advance knowledge does not mean connivance with the attack, as the Arabs suppose and as the critic implies that the Dean believes.

The College states a generality about 9/11 in self-justification, but refuses to explain it in sufficient detail to be evaluated. If the action were justified, wouldn't the Dean explain it? I find that vague reasons often are unwarranted excuses. They are a form of dissembling.

Where do we stand on this? Nowhere. This is an example of news that is not news, but largely speculation and he says/she says. Key facts are missing. In this case, participants are not forthcoming. When I chose which news to comment about, I usually omit this type.

Many other commentators do not let vagueness stop them. They take the parties and their claims at face value. I find readers of the "NY Times" making all sorts of erroneous assumptions without a factual knowledge of the subject. That is not tenable in this day of advocacy journalism, of which "Times" publisher Sulzberger is a staunch practitioner. Readers take too seriously what they read. They read with credulity instead of with skepticism. Then need more variety in their news sources.


Saddam's insurgents have set up propaganda headquarters in France. The Foreign Minister of France insists that the armed insurgents be included in the political process (IMRA, 11/20 from MEMRI).

France had served as the base for Khomeini to make a triumphant return to Iran. France may be doing this over Iraq, because its foreign policy consists largely of anti-Americanism and appeasement of the Arabs. It hinders the US from defending France, as #13057 shows.

Carried to extremes, "inclusiveness" is as pernicious as multiclturalism. Germany once practiced inclusiveness with the Nazi Party. It proved disastrous. Evil should be defeated, not invited.


Israel's Interior Minister has suggested that Israel should have someone heading the P.A. with whom to coordinate its withdrawal from Gaza, so terrorists don't run wild. He recommends Marwan Barghouti, planner of both Intifadas and an unrepentant terrorist murderer serving several life sentences in Israel. Israel takes him out of jail periodically to groom him for this leadership. So he would not appear as an Israeli tool, he would be exchanged for Pollard. It might be Jonathan Pollard's last chance, but Pollard rejects letting a mass-murderer become head of the P.A., and wants to be released because the US promised to, his sentence was unjustly long, and Israel owes it to its agent and should view Pollard as a human being, not as a trade asset (IMRA, 11/21). Barghouti would not let terrorists run wild, he'd have them directed to greater effect. The prospect of his release argues for the death penalty for mass-murderers.

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 29, 2004.

1. This article appeared in OUTPOST, the newsletter of Americans for a Safe Israel, December 2004 issue.

For the past fourteen years, Israeli governmental policy has been governing by Adgravophilia. Adgravophilia comes from the Latin root adgravo, which means making things worse. The whole word means the love of making things deteriorate and worsen. For fourteen years, Israeli government policy has been dominated by a passionate desire to make things worse.

Adgravophilia was adopted in what, we now know, was probably the most successful moment in Israel's history, certainly the most successful moment since 1973. By 1989 the pogroms and anti-Jewish atrocities that have become known as the "First Intifada" had largely been suppressed. Violent incidents were declining by the month. Arafat and his creatures were off in distant Tunis. Israel's economy was doing phenomenally well and prosperity was growing. A large wave of Jewish immigration from the ex-Soviet states was boosting Israel economically, morally, and socially. The PLO leadership were persona non grata, not only for Israel but also for the U.S. There was agreement with Washington that the PLO would never be a partner in any future negotiations, and that the most Palestinians would ever get would be fully-demilitarized "limited autonomy". In retrospect, it was among the happiest and most secure times in Israel's history.

But by 1992, into this near idyllic situation came the Adgravophilia of the Israeli Labor party. It insisted that things were just god-awful bad in the Middle East. After all, there were Palestinian guttersnipes throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip and in some parts of the West Bank, and injuring soldiers. Sometimes other acts of violence would occur, knifings and shootings. "Things could not possibly be worse!" it insisted. So children throwing rocks at troops in Gaza were swapped for buses full of Israeli children being blown to bits in Haifa and Jerusalem.

Adgravophilia feeds on human ignorance and on the human weakness that always finds it so difficult to imagine things getting any worse than they already are. But the inability to imagine things far worse than they are is a symptom of the poverty of the human imagination and not a rational way for dealing with the world.

For many years, people have been trying to represent the Middle East conflict as a manifestation of assorted games of strategy, from chess, to "chicken", to Indian wrestling. The Israeli Labor Party decided to deal with the situation via Fifty-Two-Card-Pick-Up. Fifty-Two-Card-Pick-Up is where a player unhappy with his cards simply throws them all on the floor. The problem, of course, is that there is no reason to think that this improves things. In the case of the Oslo version of the Fifty-Two-Card-Pick-Up, it turned a near-idyllic situation having some unpleasant wrinkles into the twenty-first century version of the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Now, in 2004, one thousand five hundred Oslo-murdered Israelis later, and Israel's very existence under greater threat than ever, we sit and rub our eyes in disbelief at the astronomical stupidity of Israeli leaders in 1992, thinking that things could not possibly get worse.

Rabin and Peres tossed all 52 cards onto the floor and launched the greatest round of Adgravophilia in Israeli history, and possibly the worst in all of human history. They turned Arafat and his storm troopers from distant pariahs into legitimized players and holders of an acknowledged claim to statehood. They armed and bankrolled the terrorists and set them up in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. They placed PLO missile crews within shooting distance of Ben-Gurion Airport. They rewarded every atrocity by the PLO and its affiliates with new offers of Israeli generosity.

In part, the Laborites persuaded Israelis to play Fifty-Two-Card-Pick-Up by arguing that it was simply a revocable or reversible experiment. One of the hardest lessons we have all learned over the past 14 years has been that there are no such things in Israel as "experiments". Any "experiment" is in fact an irreversible set of concessions and capitulations, which establishes faits accompli that Israel will be prevented from renouncing.

Adgravophilia invariably produces a ratchet effect, by which things that used to be unthinkable get "tried" in a temporary "experiment" and then can never be recalled. As soon as they are "tested", the United States decrees that no backing off from the "experiment" is permissible. No matter how many times the PLO has violated its Oslo commitments, no matter how many atrocities the PLO rank and file carry out under the direct orders of the PLO leadership, the United States will take the full range of previous Israeli unilateral gestures as the starting point for demands for new Israeli concessions in the next round. And every goodwill measure by Israel, every generous concession or act of Israeli restraint, will immediately trigger European attacks and attempts to delegitimize Israel altogether and undermine Israel's right to exist.

Labor Party Adgravophilia was accompanied by other political innovations as well. Every act of tomfoolery by the Labor leaders was accompanied by massive media manipulation, large billboards springing up all by themselves, bumper stickers flooding the country, and huge ads by non-existent leftist "peace groups" financed by overseas ill-wishers, all proclaiming that there is no just alternative to adopting the proposal on the table that would of course make things worse. Then, as soon as the public was seeing things actually getting worse, the Labor Party would insist that this is because their plan had not been fully implemented skillfully enough yet, or that those murderous anti-Oslo inciters were creating obstacles.

If Adgravophilia was first introduced as a Labor Party innovation in the Oslo game of Fifty-Two-Card-Pick-Up in 1992, the Likud was not far behind in buying into it, with all 52 of its cards. Now, in late 2004, the Likud under Ariel Sharon is advocating and implementing policies that, 16 years earlier, were solely endorsed by the Israeli Arab-dominated communist party, and unambiguously opposed by the Zionist consensus stretching from Right to Left. Every symptom of the Adgravophilic disease has been aggravated, as the Likud has followed the Labor Party lead in making things worse. Resenting this up-staging, the Labor Party and the Left keep trying to come up with newer plans, even more dramatically Adgravophilic, such as the Beilin "Geneva Plan" or the Ayalon-Nusseibah "Plan". Leftists even more Adgravophilic than the Laborites are now touting the "one-state solution", under which a single Arab-dominated state will encompass all of Israel and "Palestine", and the Jews will be invited to experience a second Holocaust.

But the Likud of Ariel Sharon refuses to be left behind. The latest manifestation of the Likud's Adgravophilia is the Sharon plan for unilateral "disengagement" in the Gaza Strip. Now in fact the Sharon plan is identical to the Mitzna Plan, against which Sharon and the Likud ran in the last elections. Sharon and his people were elected by voters precisely because they claimed to oppose the Mitzna plan. But within months of the election, Sharon was announcing that he had always believed that a Palestinian terror state was the way to go, and unilateral eviction of the Jewish population of the Gaza Strip was the only effective way to make peace. Once the Gaza Strip has been made Judenrein, with no Israeli soldiers left behind there, without a doubt the Gaza population will take up quilting and transcendental meditation. Joan Baez disks will be all the rage. And do I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!

The Sharon round of Adgravophilia was accompanied by all the accoutrements familiar from Labor Party days, the large "spontaneous" ads in the papers endorsing the plan by civilian rank and file, the billboard blitz, the endless repetitions that there is just no alternative, the pie in the sky promises, the denunciation of opponents of the plan as irrational haters of peace, as people driven by fanatical religious prejudice, greed, and blindness.

Like previous rounds, the Sharon Plan chapter in Adgravophilia will make things far worse. The hundreds of rockets already fired into Jewish civilian areas, even while the Israeli army is in control of Gaza, will morph into thousands and then tens of thousands. Sderot will be obliterated and then Ashkelon. The Oslo death toll will jump by an order of magnitude, and maybe by two. Israel's pre-1967 area within rocket range of Gaza will be emptied of Jews, turned into a no man's zone, hailed as yet another victory by the Palestinians in driving out the Zionist Untermenschen. Bands of suicide bombers will emerge from Gaza in numbers far exceeding what Israel has known.

The tunnels through which weapons were smuggled from Egypt even while the Israeli army controlled the ground will become uninterrupted super-highways of terror. Missiles will be brought in that threaten Israeli air space. The range of rockets will be upgraded until they strike Tel Aviv. All the while, just like in all previous deteriorations following previous rounds of Adgravophilia, the same politicians will pout before the cameras and insist that none of this could have possibly been foreseen, that it was entirely unexpected, that no one at all had predicted this could happen.

No matter how many times Ariel Sharon swears on the heads of his children that the Gaza Plan is in fact a wily tactic by him to allow Israel to retain control of the West Bank indefinitely, no one should believe him. And no matter how many times the Likud apparatchiks insist that the Gaza capitulation is not a precedent for a similar unilateral "disengagement" in the West Bank, they are lying. The demands and pressures for an identical West Bank capitulation will come even before the last Jewish "settler" has been evicted at bayonet point from Gush Katif. Now that his Ugliness Yasser Arafat has been dispatched to the great hijacked airplace of the sky, pressures will build for Israel to show its goodwill to the new Palestinian "moderates" who take Arafat's place. Since the circus of Arafat's funeral, the media are discovering peace-loving moderates behind every cactus bush, and the United States and United Kingdom are escalating demands for Israel to meet these "moderates" more than half way.

But the Sharon Adgravophilia is disastrous for another reason. It is a one-sided population transfer. Sharon's argument is that Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip need to be moved to another part of their homeland to reduce tensions and remove confrontation. So why is this eviction not balanced and even-handed? Why is it not accompanied by, say, a plan to evict the population of Jenin and move it to the Gaza Strip in order to reduce tensions and remove confrontations? Why aren't these two fully integrated halves of a single plan? Why is it that only Jews need to be shifted and moved to reduce confrontation? This lack of balance establishes a clear precedent that will haunt Israel in all future "negotiations".

One interesting twist in the Sharon round is the clear demonstration of how utterly unpopular Adgravophilia is among Israelis in general. When Sharon tried to provide "his" plan with the Likud party household seal of approval in the party referendum last year, Adgravophilia lost by a huge three-to-two majority, despite intense lobbying for it by the Likud party machine. Sharon has had to fight a long series of battles, accompanied by naked threats against his own cabinet ministers and backbenchers. In fact, every time Israeli voters have actually been allowed to express their opinion over Adgravophilia, they have rejected it. Understanding that they would do so again is what motivated Sharon's people to prohibit any ballot referendum on the plan. This was accompanied by Labor Party-like trotting out of "experts" to lecture the public about how anti-democratic ballot initiatives are. Tell that to Californians. I have always believed that politics are a lot like medicine, and that the first obligation of all leaders is simply to avoid making things worse, to avoid doing harm. Part of maturity is understanding that not all problems in life have solutions and that not every unpleasantness can be removed and eliminated. Ugliness and discomfort are often an unavoidable part of life. This does not make death the preferred alternative.

For fourteen years, Israeli politicians have been attempting to resolve the complexity of the Middle East conflict by making things worse.

2. News From Tel Aviv University:
Subject: Mosque Opened in Tel Aviv University
Round-Up American Yated Neeman November 12, 2004

Mosque Opened in Tel Aviv University

The administration of Tel Aviv University has announced that they will do all they can to accommodate the religious needs of Muslim students on campus. They permitted opening a mosque in the student dormitories for the sake of Muslim students.

Their consent on behalf of Muslim students caused a storm in Israeli society. It was discovered that 1,000 Muslim students are studying in Tel Aviv University and the mosque would serve as an activity center for all 1,000. The administration had tried to keep the number quiet, knowing it would cause a ferment. It defended itself that it wasn't the first university in the country to permit Muslim students to pray in a mosque.

After the establishment of the mosque was announced, university employees appealed to Uzi Landau to prevent it. They feared that the mosque would quickly become a magnet for radical Arabs, and a nest of terrorism and forbidden political activities. Rabid speeches inciting against Israel are heard in mosques all over the country. The universities in the PA are constantly whipping up anti-Israel sentiment and promoting terrorism to their students, so why would the Arab cells in Israeli universities be any better?

An official in the Students Association warned, "In the past we came across Arabic posters noting the Naqba day which speaking about destroying and conquering the Zionist enemy. The distance between these and incitement is very thin."

Several years ago, dati students of the university tried to open a synagogue in the university where lectures and prayers could take place, but the university administration adamantly refused it.

Free speech and free worship is given liberally to the Arabs, who use it to incite against Israel and Jews, but is withheld from Jews in typical liberal fashion because it is "incitement" and "racism."

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 29, 2004.

"If only the national leadership were to pay attention to Da'at Torah everything would turn out right", religious people frequently declare. Does the root of the problem lie in the fact that politicians ignore the views of rabbis? What should be the attitude of statesmen to talmidei hachamim at the present time?

Before attempting to address the question let's try to put some order into the terminology and facts. Let's address the concept of Da'at Torah first.

Those who use this expression mean the opinion of the rabbis they have chosen. This is OK as far as Halachic questions involving an individual, his family, or at most a community accepting the rabbi's authority, are concerned. If I choose a specific rabbi, then for me his opinion represents Da'at Torah.

But national leadership is not private or community leadership. Since there does not currently exist a national Torah leadership comparable to the political one, the concept of Da'at Torah does not currently exist in the national context. There is the opinion of the Yesha rabbis, the opinion of the rabbis of religious Zionism, the opinion of rabbis of Agudat Israel, etc. With G-d's help the Sanhedrin will be renewed in our time. Until then there is no such thing as national Da'at Torah.

Apart from misleading concepts, the assumption that if rabbis get involved in politics all the problems will be solved doesn't fit the facts.

Even in the case of a political leadership that is not national, such as Shas or the Mafdal, that attempted to involve its community Da'at Torah in its decisions, this frequently became farcical, or even a desecration of the Holy Name. What actually happened was that instead of this elevating the politicians, it caused the spiritual level of the rabbis to drop.

When the political hot potato entered the ballpark of the rabbis, it made them part of the political game, whether they liked it or not. What precisely does the broad public think when it hears on the news that the rabbis of Shas have ruled that their party should remain in the coalition (because of Da'at Torah, of course) while the rabbis of Agudat Israel have ruled that their party should leave it (Da'at Torah, naturally)? What do they think of the Torah in general and religious people in particular?

We recently saw Minister Zevulun Orlev recruiting important rabbis from the religious Zionist movement in support of a move, that it subsequently transpired caused Likud ministers to support Sharon. It seems that the rabbis were not aware of all the facts, and that Orlev didn't want their support but to exploit them cynically for his own purposes. In that case the role of the rabbis should have been to emphasize fundamental principles.

The damage was caused because the rabbis didn't discern the danger and entered Orlev's political arena.

So what should we do? Should we leave national decisions out of the grasp of rabbis and talmidei hachamim until we establish the Sanhedrin? It's quite clear that not only is the model accepted by the Haredim unsuitable for us, but that it is equally wrong to ignore the views of talmidei hachamim.

It seems that the best solution lies in reciprocal relations of another kind. The model to which we should aspire is relations of respect, trust, and mutual stimulation. Talmidei hachamim should play a part in the political leadership, but as politicians and not as rabbis. They should represent the Torah approach to reality, and guide the day-to-day activities so that they do not conflict with the Torah, giving warning if such a conflict seems likely.

An on-going dialog should be held between the politicians and the group of rabbis outside politics. Naturally we refer to rabbis who are interested in participating in such a dialog, and are involved in events happening in society, in the country, and on the political scene, and who identify with the fundamental aims of the group. The rabbis need not regard themselves as the Kashrut inspectors of the politicians but as people who can help them find the right path from a Torah viewpoint, outside of politics.

Both sides, the politicians and the rabbis, are called upon to display tremendous moral strength. The moment one of the participants in the dialog is diverted from the common objective by considerations of power and honor, the entire structure will collapse. A real common aim, as ongoing dialog, and avoidance of personal interests, will create the positive energy required.

The situation may be compared to an electric motor rotating rapidly between two magnetic fields. As long as the motor is positioned precisely between the poles of the magnets, it is fed with current and produces energy. The moment distortion takes place and the motor sticks to one of the sides, it will jam. To try and define the authority to be assigned to the sides is like learning to play a musical instrument by correspondence.

Some parties may be doing so, but we are already familiar with the quality of the music produced.

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 Go To Top
Posted by David Wilder, November 29, 2004.

In Israel, today is known as "kaf-tet b'November. 'Kaf-tet', two letters of the Hebrew alphabet represent, in Hebrew, the number 29. In other words, the 29th of November. That's today's date, so what's so special about it? As far as I know, there aren't any other days in the Gregorian calendar, known by their Hebrew equivalent. Gregorian dates are known numerically - the first of December, or April 15th. Dates on the Hebrew calendar are recognized Hebraically, 'kaf-tet Kislev - i.e., the 29th of the Hebrew month of Kislev. However, today's date is a mixture of the two - 'kaf-tev' of November.

Why? Exactly fifty-seven years ago today, one of the most unusual events in world history occurred. The United Nations voted to partition Eretz Yisrael, thereby granting the Jewish people an opportunity to declare a Jewish state, the first sovereign Jewish state in two thousand years. This, coming only two and a half years after the conclusion of the Holocaust. Today is almost a mini-independence day - recognition by the international community of a Jewish right to its homeland.

This wasn't the first time such acknowledgement was forthcoming. Almost exactly thirty years earlier, on November 2, 1917, Arthur James Balfour, then the British Foreign Secretary, issued the famous 'Balfour Declaration, a letter to Lord Rothschild, which said, "I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The major difference of course, between the 1947 partition plan and the 1917 Balfour Declaration is that the later was strictly British; the former construed international recognition.

The 1947 UN decision precipitated the declaration of Israeli statehood, in May, 1948.

Looking back at these historic decisions, different questions can be posed. For example, how would the UN vote today? Would they readily accept creation of a Jewish State? Should the Jews then have accepted partition of the Land of Israel? What would have happened had the Arabs accepted the partition plan? While Jewish leaders in Israel reluctantly accepted the arrangement, the Arabs rejected it out of hand and their reaction was an immediate declaration of war.

However, in my opinion, perhaps the most significant question to be broached is: Was it worth it? Did we do the right thing? In other words, should a Jewish state have been created and recognized?

Why do I ask this question? There are those in Israel today, both on the right and on the left, secular and religious, who doubt the wisdom of the leaders of yesteryear. Looking at the state of Israel from different angles, there are those who arrive at the same conclusion: the State of Israel was a mistake. It should be dismantled, allowing others to start again. Those on the left view supposed Israeli 'apartheid,' or treatment of Arabs as an excuse to do away with the state. So I was told by Israeli 'historian' Teddy Katz, back in September. "If I had a choice between this (i.e., - removing Arabs from their homes and villages), or giving up, I would give up", i.e., relent on the idea of a Jewish state." 2) Israel is the second largest ethnic-cleansing country in the history of the world, second only to Nazi Germany. (See: A Glorious Past, Present and Future - http://www.hebron.org.il/articles/articles1.htm).

Those on the far left aren't the only ones who have despaired. There are people on my side of the coin have also given up on the current State of Israel. Some advocate creation of an additional new state, calling it 'The State of Judea,' while others believe that the original state of Israel is totally 'impure,' due to the fact that the primary movers in the 1940s were secular, thereby bringing about creation of a secular state.

In truth, it's not difficult to comprehend the lost hope. Israel's current situation is far from rosy. The latest escapades of our Prime Minister, who has single-handedly annihilated the Israeli right, betraying his own philosophies and moving over to 'the other side' is deplorable. Perhaps Israel's greatest error is the continued revival of ninty-nine percent dead terror organizations.

By the time Yitzhak Rabin was elected Prime Minister in 1992, the PLO was a virtually impotent organization. Israel defeated the 'first' intifada, and Arafat was both broke and broken. Rabin, Peres, and Co. brought him back to life with the infamous and cursed Oslo Accords.

Again, we have seen history repeat itself. The second Arafat war was also lost. Following massive Arab terror, leaving over 1,500 Jews dead and thousands wounded, Israel pinpointed the multiple heads of the snake and one by one, destroyed them. For all intensive purposes, the Palestinian authority ceased to exist. Arafat was internationally recognized as a murderous thug, and his organization corrupt, unstable and totally irresponsible. The state of Israel could basically follow any path it so desired.

Ariel Sharon, rather than officially declaring Oslo a failure and decrying the creation of a poisonous palestinian state, accepted and followed the path of the 'roadmap,' much the surprise of its initiator, George W. Bush. Sharon's willingness to accept a Palestinian state, followed by the expulsion plan from Gaza is nothing less than true 'revival of the dead.' So it's not surprising that despair has reached new heights, despair leading to gloom and anguish. And a willingness to watch the state crumble to pieces.

I fully agree - the situation is not good. We are facing different types of terror, from without and from within. But our state of affairs is certainly not as serious as it was in November, 1947. How many hundreds of millions of Arabs, surrounding the not-yet created fledgling state announced their intentions to 'throw the Jews into the sea?" There weren't even a million Jews in Israel at the time. Much of the international community didn't care whether Israeli 'lived' or 'died.' And those that did care, well, most of them weren't on our side. The chances of survival weren't very good. But here we are today - still here.

The November 29th UN decision was nothing less than miraculous - so too was the Israeli military victory during the War of Independence. Today too, we are fighting a war - this time on many fronts, some of which definitely shouldn't exist. But we cannot live in a dream world of 'what should be.' This is the way it is, for whatever reason, and we have no choice but to deal with it. I won't try to relate to the despair of the far left - but I can give a word of advice to those closer to me. Should you manage to take apart the current state of Israel and start again, what will you do with all the Jews who don't agree with you - send them back to Europe, or put them in camps, or send them out to the sea? Of course not! So you will still be here, and they will still be here, and then what? If they don't like what you do, they will have learned from your precedent - they will have a good reason to attempt to destroy whatever you manage to create, just like you did.

In other words, the problems within will still exist, as will the problems from outside - you will not have solved anything.

So, what can we do? I can't speak for everyone - but I know what I have been taught and what I believe. Our job is to try as hard as we can for that which is right and just, without attempting to destroy the framework which already exists. We cannot be held responsible for failure, because much of the results are not dependant on our actions - there are many other factors involved. We can only be held responsible for trying - as hard as we can. The final result isn't in our hands.

Those listening to the vote in the UN, on November 29th, 57 years ago, could barely have expected victory - who would have thought that Russia would vote in favor of the partition plan? They could easily have delayed the vote, or cancelled it altogether. The chances of victory were virtually nil. Yet the unexpected became reality and again, after 2,000 years, the Jews held their fate in their own hands. That day - today, should be a lesson to us all - to expect the unexpected, never to despair - to keep the faith.

With blessings from Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 28, 2004.

Even the Europeans, well known for artful avoidance of facing approaching calamities are frightened by Iran's dash at break-neck speed in developing a nuclear capability. The U.S., Israel and, surprisingly, the slackers at the U.N. appear to be half opening their eyes at the risk in Iran's development activities. There are several problems - each important on its own.

The possibility of Iran obtaining operational nuclear warheads with the capability of mounting them on modified North Korean, Chinese or Russian missiles has been well explored.

There is another risk equally as important. Iran is speeding the process of developing a nuclear fission device. We have seen what happens with poor technological development, even when it comes out of a technologically advanced nations, such as the Soviet Union/Russia. We all remember with dread the Chernobyl accident meltdown which spread its contamination across parts of Russia, Finland, Sweden and even crossed the Mediterranean when Israeli scientists found contamination on the hills of the Carmel Mountain.

Iran is rushing forward with numerous technologies obtained from different nations which makes the probability of a nuclear accident highly probably. In order to hide their nuclear development, they have spread their nuclear-making facilities across 330 sites. As any manufacturer of highly complex technology can tell you, things must be unified, controlled with excellent communications. This is not common in the Arab world. So, as the Iranians dash forward in the most risky technology on the planet, they could too easily create a Chernobyl, even dozens of Chernobyl, spreading nuclear contamination well beyond their borders. Such an event would shock the nations.

Should there be such an accident, the U.N. - having artfully avoided an embargo of fissile material, technology and scientists - will be fully to blame. Naturally, the suppliers such as Pakistan, Russia, China, North Korea, France and many others would try to deny their role as nuclear proliferation enablers. In predictable embarrassment, they would, of course, cease shipping while denying complicity and pull back their scientists but, it would be too late.

Let us hope that Iran's rush to atomic bombs first accident causes them to pull back and cease their craving for an Islamic Nuclear Bomb. Perhaps the too little - too late United Nations will act before a first accidental release of nuclear contamination into the atmosphere as happened from Chernobyl.

For those who though Chernobyl has come and gone...you are wrong! The grass is still coming up in Sweden, Finland, Russia and is still leaching Strontium 90, among other radioactive stuff. Their cows eat the grass; their milk, cheese and meat carries the radiation. In Russia, loads of vegetables are checked for unacceptable levels of radiation and, if too high, the load is mixed with non-irradiated produce, so the average radiation is somewhat lower but is deemed acceptable "to their bureaucracy".

Chernobyl will be with us for years to come. Chernobyl children are still being sent abroad to be treated of their disease-causing radiation saturation. Many of those children are being hosted and medically treated in Israel, funded by humanitarian organizations. Cancers in the countries mentioned will rise exponentially as the years pass, depending on how dense the fallout in their area.

I will not depress you with the full life span of various radiological materials from an accidental release. It get even worse when it comes in the form of a Nuclear Bomb. Let us hope that Iran's first accident is small or better yet, not at all.

This just in: John Loftus, interviewed on FOX NEWS November 28th at 6:30 PM Israel time, was asked if the U.N. could trust Iran in its negotiations to stand down their manufacture of nuclear devices. Part of the FOX interview was on the centrifuges which Loftus explained emitted a static electricity which could be detected by certain satellites. Iran claimed it wanted to maintain at least eight experimental centrifuges operating merely to cover for the many centrifuges since electronic discharges of the few would mask others. He also spoke of a secret tunnel being dug to by-pass facilities which the U.N. had never bothered to set foot in to inspect. The full story is being released in the German journal Der Spiegel tomorrow, November 29.

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by David Ben-Ariel, November 28, 2004.

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 28, 2004 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II returned the relics of Sts. Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom to the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, hoping the gesture would serve to "reinforce our path of reconciliation."

When will the pope release the Temple treasures, stored in the vaults of the Vatican, and restore them to the Jews and to Jerusalem (where they belong) in a gesture of peace and goodwill towards Israel?

"During the meeting, a letter was read addressed by the Pontiff to the patriarch...in which he said that the return of the relics to Constantinople is "a blessed opportunity to purify our wounded memories, to reinforce our path of reconciliation."

During his pilgrimage to Israel the pope asked the Jewish people for forgiveness, but such restorative acts as returning the Temple menorah, vessels and treasures pillaged by the Roman wolves could signify a more credible repentance on the part of the Catholic Church and offer a glimmer of hope that papal hostility towards the Jews is past.

"Following the reading of the Pope's message, Patriarch Bartholomew I publicly thanked him, expressing the "happiness and joy" that this gesture causes in the See of Constantinople and in the whole Orthodox community. The see is in Istanbul, Turkey."

Imagine, if you will, the transcendent happiness and joy that the return of the Temple treasures could cause among the faithful in Jerusalem, Israel and around the world!

"A sacred act is celebrated today, which repairs an ecclesiastical anomaly and injustice," the patriarch said.

With this act, the patriarch concluded, the Pope has given "a luminous example that must be imitated."

May the same be said soon when the pope follows this example and instructs the Vatican to release the silver and set free the gold, those holy items sanctified to serve the holy God of Israel, according to His Word and Will, in His holy Temple in Jerusalem, soon to be fulfilled!

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall". He can be reached at http://www.pushhamburger.com/david.htm

To Go To Top
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, November 26, 2004.

"Now is the time to promote aliya... I sense an opportunity... People are starting to go to Israel for the right reasons. Years ago aliya was for people who were running away from something. They weren't successful. They didn't have a successful marriage. They were coming because there was a reason. They weren't role models... But today I see really successful people. Young people. Doctors, lawyers, business people, finance people, who are giving it up not to come here to starve. Not to schnorr from their parents."

Like the weather, the above declarations, which appeared in a Jerusalem Post interview, made a few waves last week. They were uttered by the new president of the Orthodox Union, Stephen J. Savitsky - and the words of the "the blue-eyed, clean shaven", "successful businessman" served as a slap in the face to some of us veteran olim. But like the guy from that old Mennen skin bracer commercial used to say, "Thanks, I needed that." Statements like that of Savitsky's remind those of us who made aliyah years ago of how far we've come and how far those stuck in the Diaspora still have to go.

Sure, a lot of us ran - in the best of Jewish tradition, like Avraham Avinu, Yaacov Avinu and Moshe Rabbenu - we fled the Diaspora and ran towards something better. Some, like me, came here as happily married, young idealists without college degrees. Others, both happily married and single lawyers, doctors, rabbis and business people, came here years ago knowing they would face incredible personal and national challenges. All of us ran because we knew it was time to come home and because we couldn't wait to play an active, hands-on role in building our nation. From what I understand even the most brilliant professionals among us have had to "schnorr" from their parents on more than one occasion, because being an observant Jew and raising a large growing family in Eretz Yisrael is no easy task. Stephen Savitsky should know that, and if he doesn't, then he doesn't belong at the helm of a large and influential organization like the OU.

It's a bit uncanny that Savitsky's words fell between the Torah portions of VaYetze and VaYishlach. Some commentators find fault with Yaacov's decision to delay his return to Israel in order to garner additional wealth in Lavan's house. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh, among others, find the cosmic wrestling match which Yaacov had with the man (angel?) on the banks of the Yabbuk river to be an internal struggle that the partriach had within himself in an attempt to rid himself of deceptive business practices, material drives and other base priorities that had prevented him from returning to himself, his G-d and his homeland.

That clean-shaven, successful businessman Savitsky senses making aliyah now as "an opportunity" for the professional smells a bit deceptive to me. In this age of divestment, when major boycotts and a freezing of Israeli assets may be around the corner, anyone who makes aliyah would do well to pack their bags with lot of idealism, faith and determination - the cash and investment skills will only go so far.

Perhaps the new head of the Orthodox Union would like to grow-up, grow a beard and issue and apology to those of us who had the good sense and faith not to delay our aliyah.

Years ago many of us chose life and ran toward something good. We can only hope and pray that our brethren in America don't miss the boat. When you finally do wake up and smell the coffee, I can assure you that it neither has the aroma nor taste of Starbucks. We welcome you home with or without a wedding ring or college degree, and whether or not your pockets are lined with gold.

Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter and columnist for Israelnationalnews.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 28, 2004.

This is of course total nonsense. They didn't know, they didn't suspect? Whom are we talking about? These are Generals and not Boy Scout Troop Masters. It is simply not possible for someone to be so stupid or naive and reach such a senior position in any organization, let alone an army. They knew, they suspected and they wanted!

They knew exactly what Arafat and the PLO would do given a territorial base in Israel. Just to be sure, they armed and trained them and gave them easy access to intelligence gathering on Jewish communities. Whatever they might of missed was no doubt supplemented by the CIA liaison Israel's Generals set up for them.

The same gang of criminal also knows fully well what will be the consequences of the Gaza and Shomron extermination plan. They know, they want and they will help.

The summary is by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA), whose website address is www.imra.co.il It is archived at http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=22947

"Disengagement's architect Brig.-Gen.Gilady reveals plan is faith based" by Dr. Aaron Lerner.

Brig.-Gen.Gilady's replies to Jerusalem Post editor Horovitz [excerpted below] regarding how Israel would handle the post retreat security situation in Gaza serves as an important warning that preparations for the morning after seem to be following the traditional Oslo-era "faith based" approach:

1. He assumes that the Gazans, enjoying improved anti-aircraft capabilities and exploiting the presence of international observers/human shields won't be able to create a situation that seriously handicaps Israel's ability to address Gaza security challenges from the sky.

2. He hopes the Egyptians, who until now have consistently acted in a way that supports the view that they want Israel to be tied down by a low-scale ongoing war of attrition, will for some reason seriously and permanently stop the flow of weapons across their border.

To his credit, Brig.-Gen.Gilady is honest enough to admit that he "didn't recognize at first that Arafat was not a leader with whom we could make peace." But unfortunately, instead of engaging in some healthy introspection to consider if his own political views may seriously impair his analysis, he allows the same political orientation to drive him to push for retreat with the hopes that rewarding Palestinian violence with a massive retreat will somehow be "an incentive to the moderates".

"Disengagement's architect" by David Horovitz, The Jerusalem Post, 26 November 2004. It is archived at www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/ JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101356023183

... Brig.-Gen. [Eival] Gilady [until recently the head of the IDF's Strategic Planning Division] is the man who, well over two years ago, initiated what Ariel Sharon came to adopt as his disengagement plan, and has continued to play a central role in its development...

The Oslo process, Gilady began, was predicated on the notion that peace would bring security. It was an erroneous premise: The assessment that the prospect of peace and a process of economic improvement for the Palestinians would reduce the motivation for terrorism proved false. ... "I didn't recognize at first that Arafat was not a leader with whom we could make peace," Gilady acknowledged.

I put to Gilady the assertion by many critics of disengagement that after Israel pulls out, Gaza will turn into a safe haven for terrorism, with the terrorists emboldened by what they will hail as Israeli capitulation. Specifically, increasingly devastating Kassam rockets might fly across the border. Israel would have to send troops back in.

"If there are Kassams," he responded, "that doesn't mean we'll have to go in on the ground. We can work from the air."

What about the dangers of more potent weaponry being smuggled into the Strip, particularly across the border with Egypt? Gilady acknowledged the concern but assessed that security cooperation with Egyptian would ultimately prove beneficial.

And overall, he believes, "The fact that we'll be gone will mean that the Palestinians will have real motivation for reform." He cited an incident earlier this year when members of a Kassam cell shot dead a young Palestinian who had come out of his Gaza home to urge them not to fire from the area. The hope, Gilady said, is that this kind of atmosphere, the Palestinian public's desire for change, will intensify after Israel's departure. "Also, the fact that we'll be pulling out of a small part of the northern West Bank will be proof to the Palestinians that this is not 'Gaza only' and represents an incentive to the moderates."

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 Dafna Yee, November 28, 2004.
Whenever I hear someone talk about a "new era" or "new possibilities for peace" since Arafat's death, it brings to mind the old saying about those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. Try and remember that Arafat was NOT killed by "moderate Palestinians" who wanted to change the regime to one of peace. As his funeral should have shown, he was loved and admired by the very people whose hopes for a better life he was destroying. All his followers want to continue his "heritage"! Never in the entire history of the "Palestinians" -- all 40 years of it -- have they ever wanted peace. They don't want peace now. (Don't bother pointing to individuals and saying how they want peace -- the hard truth is that these people wanting peace does not matter as they will never lead those who do not!) How many more Israelis will have to die before their supporters stop giving them more chances to "prove" their intentions? I shudder to contemplate the answer to that question.

This was written by Steven Stalinsky, who is the executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Ir appeared on November 24, 2004 in the New York Sun. It is archived at http://www.nysun.com/article/5325

Yasser Arafat's death has created an unprecedented amount of optimism in the West regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state and the possibility of peace. Yet amongst Palestinian Arab officials there is little talk of peace, as numerous officials have endorsed the continuation of Arafat's "jihad" against the Jewish state.

Some members of the Palestinian Arab establishment close to Arafat are now stating in public that he never really wanted peace, and instead used the peace process as a strategy to destroy Israel in phases. The Palestinian ambassador in Iran, Salah Al-Zawawi, explained in an interview on Iranian Al-Alam TV on November 12 that Arafat "knew that this path is the path of martyrdom and jihad. He knew that this great cause requires martyrs, not leaders...He fought the jihad and we saw him in many battles...If you ask me what will surely be the end of this Zionist entity, I will say to you that this entity will disappear one of these days... It's a matter of time...Our phased plan, which I already mentioned, is to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital..."

Similarly, Palestinian Arab analyst Yunis Udeh told London's ANB TV November 11: "When we told him that the road to Oslo would mean the termination of the Palestinian cause, he said, 'I am hammering the first nail in the Zionist coffin.'...I asked him how. He said: 'I will go to Gaza, I will return to Palestine...'"

Fatah Supreme Council Member Abu Ali Shahin also hinted in an interview on November 13 on Lebanon's Al-Manar TV that Arafat considered the Oslo Accords a strategic move to destroy Israel: "Yasser Arafat led a revolution, a revolution of a barrel of gun powder alongside a barrel of petrol...But when Yasser Arafat saw that the U.S.S.R....collapsed without a single shot being fired...Arafat understood this great international game. He made a 180-degree turn...He accepted...Madrid, and after it Oslo..."

Countless Palestinian Arab officials have also spoken about continuing violence against Israel. Fatah leader Hussein Al-Sheikh spoke to Al-Arabiyya TV on November 11: "The gun Yasser Arafat raised...will be raised by...the Palestinian people, so they continue to believe that the gun is the way to get rid of this occupation, the shortest way to get rid of this occupation. This is Abu Ammar's promise and this is his will, and we will continue to be true to them."

Also on November 11, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade leader Raid Al-Aidi said on Al-Arabiyya TV, "We call from here to all the heroes...strike this occupier anywhere, with no holds barred. We...will direct our painful blows against this monstrous entity. The Palestinian state will be achieved only by strengthening the resistance...This occupier understands only the language of gunfire and gun powder and we will teach this occupier, Allah willing, a lesson as we have taught it in the past, in Tel Aviv, Hadera, and everywhere. We will escalate our blows against this occupier..."

In the same program, Fatah Central Committee member Hani Al-Hassan explained that, "In Fatah we have a rule: The armed struggle sows and the political struggle reaps...Therefore, when Oslo didn't bring results, the sowing came in the form of the Intifada...We will see now whether the political situation allows us to reach political results and to bring about a change in our favor. Otherwise, we will go back to sowing."

Quoting former Egyptian president Abd-Al Nasser, "what was taken by force will be restored only by force" is how the new leader of Fatah, Faruq Al-Qaddumi, described the Palestinian Arab strategy against Israel on Al-Arabiyya TV on November 14. Mr. al-Qaddumi has considerable popularity on the Palestinian street for never accepting Oslo. With his naming as leader of Fatah, Mr. al-Qaddumi is openly challenging Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmad Qurei to be Arafat's successor. As he stated, "Anyone who thinks that I have abdicated my authority is mistaken."

He explained Fatah's position about Hamas: "The Hamas movement is our friend. It is a...movement of heroes. It is part of the national Palestinian movement. No...Fatah member could possibly harm Hamas." Mr. al-Qaddumi is also close to Hezbollah, and during a meeting with Sheik Nasrallah on September 4, 2003, they discussed "a cohesion between the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance." He has also called for an attack on American interests throughout the world. U.S. officials intimately involved in the Oslo Accords now publicly state that more attention should have been paid to the issue of Palestinian Arab incitement, and what the Arabs were saying amongst themselves in Arabic. With Arafat gone, we should be paying close attention to his heirs to understand their true intentions.

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net).

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, November 26, 2004.

In learning that the suburb of Somerville was considering divesting from Israel, I was first struck with the hypocrisy of such an action. The divestment proponents cite 'human rights abuses,' yet fail to equate similar 'human rights abuses' by their very own country.

So let's examine these putative 'human rights abuses' in the clear light of facts, reality and law, and also compare them to US actions under similar circumstances.

Fact:  Israel has been and continues to be under attack for four years by Arabs occupying Jewish Palestine -- land Israel had originally been granted by the unabrogated Palestine Mandate, and then won in a defensive war of aggression by the surrounding Arab countries.

Fact:  Every sovereign nation has the right to self-defense.

Fact:  According to the Geneva Conventions, any group or country that uses civilians as human shields is responsible for any injuries or deaths, or even inconveniences suffered by the civilian population.

Fact:  The Arabs, under the banner of 'Palestinian' use their own civilians to hide among. They launch their attacks from civilian areas and frequently use even children to carry out mass murders of Jews or to assist in these mass murders by being mules to transport weaponry.

Fact:  There is no such thing as a bloodless, politically correct war where only combatants are the losers.

In our war to destroy the Taliban, America was the aggressor. The Taliban did not attack us, al-Qaeda did. The Taliban merely maintained a refuge for al-Qaeda. But we, the US, attacked the Taliban. In the process, many non-Taliban Afghanis were killed or injured despite our best efforts to prevent such from occurring. At the same time, the non-Taliban Afghanis had their lives disrupted and their livelihoods destroyed or interrupted.

Where were the Somerville divestment proponents? They were silent either out of hypocrisy or because they realized that there were no 'human rights abuses' occurring. 'Human rights abuses' occur only when a sovereign nation singles out a peaceful and non-threatening group of people to maltreat. It does not occur when there is a war -- especially a defensive war, as in Israel's case -- and the defending party makes every possible attempt to minimize collateral damage. The US did this in Afghanistan, is currently doing this in Iraq, and Israel is now doing this against the Arab aggressors.

If the Somerville divestment proponents are so keen on 'human rights abuses,' why has no mention been made of blatant human rights abuses against Israeli citizens? Blowing up busloads of Israeli civilians, murdering Israeli mothers and children with poison-dipped shrapnel launched in homicide bombings, knifings and axe attacks against Israeli teens because they are Jewish and Israeli are all human rights abuses perpetrated on a continuing basis by the Arabs.

Israel, in her defensive war against an entity determined to commit genocide upon an entire people, has been extremely restrained -- to the point of endangering her own civilian population. If Israel wanted, she could carpet bomb the Arab aggressors and be done with it. If Israel wanted, she could close her borders to an aggressive and combatant population and cut her own civilian casualties to almost nil. Yet Israel, one of the most humanitarian countries in the world, refuses to punish the few Arabs who are against the genocidal intents of the majority of their people.

Majority of their people, you ask? A poll by the Palestinian JMCC showed that a majority support suicide/homicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

Meanwhile, Israel is one of the few countries in the Middle East that allows equal rights to all its citizenry, including Arabs and others who want to see Israel destroyed. All are allowed to vote, all are allowed to live, earn a livelihood and practice whatever religion they choose.

Does a Jew have the same rights in Arab lands? In the territory occupied by the Arabs whom the divestment committee want to 'protect' through divestment, a Jew who dares walk there is literally torn apart by the crowds, their decapitated heads rolled down the street. This very thing happened to two Israelis who got lost there a few years back.

In truth, this whole issue of divestment from Israel is an economic war waged by Islamists whose goal is the destruction of Israel. Three wars of aggression, with Arabs outnumbering Israelis 100 to 1, could not achieve this goal, so the Islamists have resorted to an economic war to destroy the legal and sovereign Jewish homeland. The Islamists are hoping that mass divestment might achieve what murder and genocide has failed to do.

Apparently, those Somerville divestment proponents are either hypocrites, Islamist toadies, or -- even worse -- ignorant. Too bad Somerville cannot disengage itself from them.

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles. Or visit her website: http://hometown.aol.com/bgoodtree/

To Go To Top
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, November 26, 2004.
This article is by Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent.

What a great way to set yourself up for serious trouble! Keep believing Arab promises. Leave Gaza to your enemies. And then - according to Sharon's mouthpiece, Ehud Olmert - Samaria and Judea. The Arabs will of course continue to try to destroy you in any way they can. This includes interfering with your water supply. Now that doesn't just affect the "settlers"; that even affects Israelis who are are ready to give up Gaza and Samaria and Judea.

What are the Jews to drink? Imported seltzer water?

The Palestinians have conducted hundreds of unauthorized drillings for water in the northern West Bank, in the area from which Israel is planning to withdraw under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. Israeli sources have voiced concerns that following the withdrawal from the area, the problem will intensify.

If the drilling is not stopped, as the Palestinian Authority promised in an interim agreement with Israel, the northeastern aquifer, which provides water to the communities in the Jezreel Valley, the Gilboa, and the Beit She'an Valley, will be harmed.

Israeli officials believe that following the Israel Defense Forces' withdrawal, the Palestinians will step up the pumping of water, both in terms of the quantity of water drawn and in terms of the depth from which it is extracted. This is likely to be facilitated by the use of heavy equipment, which the Palestinians are unable to use at this time because of the IDF.

Hundreds of drilling operations were carried out in the Jenin area, contrary to the water accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that requires anyone seeking to drill a new water well to apply to the joint Israeli-Palestinian water committee for a permit.

On the basis of the water agreement between the two sides, Israel provides water to Ramallah and also significant quantities of water to the Gaza Strip.

Thus far, Israel has taken no action to prevent the unauthorized drilling. At the start of the Intifada, in the fall of 2000, it was agreed that 17 illegal wells in the area would be blocked, but this was not carried out.

The Water Commission estimates that the number of unauthorized drillings ranges between 150-260, but officials at the General Staff believe that the numbers are much greater and may be as high as 300.

The northeastern aquifer is considered very important for the agricultural communities inside the Green Line. The Harod Water Association has expressed concern that overuse of the aquifer will increase the salinity of the water, making the growing of crops impossible.

The issue has been taken up with Sharon, and Defense Ministry have discussed the option of imposing sanctions on the Palestinians in order to prevent the continuation of the illegal drillings.

International law experts have also been consulted on the matter.

If the disengagement goes ahead on a unilateral basis, as has been planned by Sharon originally, Israel may find itself in a position of having to exercise force in order to prevent the unauthorized drillings.

On the other hand, if Sharon approves coordinating a number of different issues with the Palestinians in anticipation of the disengagement, the water issue could be a central point of discussion between the two sides.

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2004.


Towards the end of the battle of Fallujah, fatalities were estimated at 38 Americans and 1600 rebels. The "Jordan Times" interprets that as "scary" and as high US losses. It warns that, with some of the insurgents slipping away to other places, the revolt will arise elsewhere, so the government should treat with the apparently well-organized rebels and settle the war by diplomacy. The US should cooperate with Iran, which could reduce the conflict.

IMRA interpretation: "Figures indicate US victory. A few more such events and the "holy warriors" will be finished." Let Jordan keep its own Islamists from joining the rebels! (IMRA, 11/18.)

I think that both are right. US military action wears down the rebel forces. Nevertheless, so long as neighboring countries let through fanatics turned out by the madrassas that Iran and S. Arabia are allowed to subsidize, the war will persist, even if at a lower level. It is the nature of Islam to war on infidels in their region, however benign the arrivals' intentions. There is a growing taste for beheading people, even innocent foreign workers and ones dedicated to aiding Iraqis.

Diplomacy does not work with Iran, as the negotiations over its illicit development of nuclear weapons show. Iran is too fanatical. It is part of the problem, seeking to spread jihad.


The Administration is planning to: (1) Treat power plant pollution by mercury as non-hazardous, although mercury is very dangerous, especially to children's nerve function. 1,100 coal-fired plants would be allowed until 2025 to disseminate mercury in tonnage that is illegal and excessive under existing law. (2) Water treatment plants would be permitted to dump practically untreated water into waterways, including drinking water supplies. The plants would not have to remove most viruses and bacteria, so long as they mix such water with fully treated wastewater. The idea is to save factory owners money. (This savings of money at one end of the drinking chain, while multiplying costs at the medical end, is not a desperate but understandable measure to spare US companies from foreign competition.) (3) The US Forest Service is preparing a final ruling depriving 58 million acres of wild national forests, including the Tongass rainforest, of protection from road building, logging, and energy development. (4) The Forest Service will seek the power to open all 155 national forests to logging, mining, and drilling without regard to survival of native wildlife. (5) Natural salmon is a very healthful food. Fatty farm fish are much less so for humans and sometimes sickly, themselves. The National Marine Fisheries Service will rule that hatchery-bred salmon would be counted in decisions to accord protection to wild salmon under the Endangered species Act. This means that corporate farmers may inject domestic fish into the streams, thereby polluting the streams and destroying wild salmon habitat, and claim to be conserving wild salmon (Nature's Voice by Natural Resources Defense Council, 11/2004).

Bush's common tactic is to allow pollution if the polluters also do some purifying. Net result: pollution persists. Killing is called conservation. These policies, injurious to health, are presented deceitfully as beneficial to health and healthy for the forests. Do Americans welcome disease, so big business can profit at their expense? Why did Democrats, who were vague about their environmental complaints, let the GOP monopolize the morality issue and not counter with this? Deceit is not moral. Promoting disease is not moral, it is the very class warfare that the Republicans accuse the Democrats of waging, and it causes casualties.

That is how government works. One must greet its announcements not with belief or disbelief but with skepticism. Deception is employed in the Arab-Israel conflict. Things are not as described, and public figures are not as depicted. A US President and an Israeli Prime Minister may be reputed as pro-Israel, but promote policies harmful to it. Of you don't know the subject, you won't perceive the biased media pulling the wool over your eyes. Seek a diversity of sources.


Former Ambassador Indyk praised Abu Abbas, new leader of the P.A., for telling his people that terrorism is wrongful. Indyk misrepresents Abbas. Abbas suggested freezing terrorism during negotiations, but NOT ending armed struggle (IMRA, 11/18).

In addition, the Arabs define terrorism so as to excuse what they do and incriminate Israeli defense against it. Indyk is disingenuous with the American people about his pro-Arab ideology.


Secretary-General Annan pleaded with the US and Iraq to desist from an offensive against terrorist strongholds in Fallujah. In Bosnia, the UNO generally sympathized with the Serb aggressors and criticized their Muslim victims. In Rwanda, the UNO was neutral between the Hutu genocidists and the Tutsi. The UN working in tandem with the Intl. Court of Justice, insisted that Israel dismantle its security fence in Judea-Samaria, but not that the P.A. dismantle the terrorist organizations that prompted erection of the fence. The UNO is ineffective in Sudan. The UNO takes a perverse moral view, usually to restrain action against aggressors (Dore Gold, former Israeli UNO Ambassador, NY Sun, 11/19, Op-Ed) and with Iran.

The story of Bosnia is mixed. The Bosnia Muslim minority started out to dictate to the Serbs and Croats


Britain claims its agents are advising only for civil policing. However, these agents are not police but intelligence personnel. Israel trusts Britain on security matters (IMRA, 11/19).

Why use intelligence agents to train ordinary police? Israel trusts Britain? Britain was complicit in the Holocaust, an undeclared belligerent in the War for Independence, and appeasement-minded.


The US is demanding that Israel negotiate under fire. It argues (as was predicted) that the new P.A. leadership may not have much power, so Israel should be "more flexible" (i.e., weaker) in negotiating with it. (How generous the US is about giving away Israeli national security assets!)

Formerly, the Bush Administration had required, as does the Road Map, that first the P.A. disarm terrorist organizations. Nominated Sec. of State Rice states that the new leaders of the P.A. all find terrorism counter-productive. She is manipulating their words. All support violence against Israel. Nominated Natl. Security Advisor Hadley specializes in dismantlement of Jewish settlements and not Arab ones.

PM Sharon seems to have given in. He no longer requires that the P.A. first disarm terrorists, only that it stop incitement against Israel, a somewhat amorphous condition.

ZOA upholds the original demand that terrorist regimes be defeated, not rewarded. Among the actions that Abu Mazen could take are: (1) Stop funding the PLO's Al-Aksa Brigades terrorists; (2) Fire all P.A. officers involved in terrorism; (3) Outlaw Hamas and Islamic Jihad; (4) Change the names of streets, parks and schools named after terrorists; and (5) Honor Israel's requests for extradition of terrorists (IMRA, 11/19). He won't. Denial of extradition violates the Oslo accords.

The State Dept. continually erodes and eliminates US assurances to Israel. The US makes one-way demands upon Israel. Israelis flatter themselves that it can trust the US. Is it crazy?


An untainted Likud leader, MK Landau, vied for Party leadership against PM Sharon's nominee. A poll found the pair evenly matched, but Landau probably had the lead, because his supporters, as dissidents, were less likely to reveal their position (in view of Sharon's penchant for retaliation). Landau's side has asked a Party court to allow poll-watchers at the Party election. Sharon's side objects. It would deprive him of his chief opportunity to win, by vote fraud. The Court ruled to allow poll-watchers (IMRA, 11/20). Landau lost. His opponent faces indictment for giving Party members, such as the ones who voted for him, government jobs (IMRA, 11/21).


Columbia University is responding to complaints of students' intimidation by proposing to improve their opportunities to complain (Sun editorial, November 19, 2004) but not by addressing the basis of the complaints. We learn that the Middle East department ignores "oppression of women, gays, and minorities, and the challenges of democracy, human rights, civil society, and modernity" in the Muslim Middle East, issues that would reflect badly vis-?-vis Israel.

The problem is broader than Columbia University. A jihad is taking place at many US colleges, where Arab and other anti-Israel professors intimidate students and repress dissent. They are using American colleges to promote anti-American values in a dictatorial way, and citing American values of academic freedom in defense of their denying academic freedom. The hypocrisy in that should be emphasized, so our Constitution stops providing cover for its subversion.

The menace is exacerbated by Congress, which subsidizes Middle East Studies. Congress hoped the universities would advise how to fashion foreign policy of better use for the US. Instead, it gets propaganda in behalf of policy that would benefit foreign enemies of the US. The Studies programs project an ignorant, warped, and biased view of the Middle East. They fail to predict trends that the US might act on early enough to useful effect. This has been pointed out by your columnist, Daniel Pipes.

An even broader issue here is the utility or futility of government aid. Liberals are too satisfied with appropriating subsidies. Unfortunately, such subsidies may become counter-productive. Similar to the failure of subsidies of Middle East Studies is the subsidy of National Public Radio and National Education Television, both of which are biased and often anti-American. Foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) helps the Arabs sink roots there, in their struggle to uproot the Jews. US aid to Egypt has built a formidable military, training for war on Israel. How wise is it to underwrite Egypt and the P.A., whose official media teach their people to loathe ours and, in the P.A., to kill Americans? We spend a lot on the UN. How much of it is stolen or put at the service of dictators? We must audit subsidies and regulations. Keep them hewed to constructive purpose or chop them down if counter-productive.


A former associate of Arafat said that Arafat confided in him that he signed the Oslo Accords partly in the hope that it would cause thousands of Jews to flee. The associate points out that under the influence of events set in motion by the accords, Israel, itself, now is preparing to expel thousands of Jews from Yesha (IMRA, 11/20). That would be just the start. The world is demanding more than Sharon's plan would remove.

Oslo offered the Arabs an opportunity to launch extensive terrorism against the Jews, while it restrained the Israeli response. The restraint was partly by the Accords' lack of recourse for Israel and partly by the uplift it gave to the vain hope of appeasement-minded Jews. When moderate states deal with totalitarian entities that tend to violate agreements, the moderates hesitate to void agreements in which they have invested their reputations and hopes. Arafat outwitted Israel, suffering mightily from his fraud, but lacking the courage to extract that painful splinter, Oslo.

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, November 25, 2004.

This past Tuesday, Women in Green held a meeting of members in which we detailed our plan of action as to how to stop Sharon's deportation plan. Our campaign is starting this coming Sunday morning, November 28th, at 9:30 A.M. at the Central Bus station in Jerusalem. We will be signing up reservists on the "I refuse to participate in the uprooting of Jews" petition. We urge you to come and take part.

Some explanation and background: Up until the vote in the Knesset, the focus of the struggle was the parliamentary scene. Moetset Yesha and the Gush Katif Council organized very large and successful demonstrations, like the Likud Referendum victory, the Human Chain, the 100-City Protest etc,. The purpose of those protests was to remind the politicians that - as the elections had proven - the majority of the people in Israel oppose a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the Shomron, and also strongly oppose the idea of destroying Jewish communities and deporting Jews from parts of Israel, in order to hand it over to the Arab enemy.

Unfortunately, some of the Likud Knesset Members betrayed the Likud platform and their constituency and, in order to keep their Volvo and their seat, stabbed a knife in the back of the National Camp and voted in favor of Sharon's plan. Today, we are at a point where the Knesset has voted in favor of Sharon's plan and has even passed, in the first reading, the "law of uprooting ".

What do we do now? Is the battle lost? The answer is a clear "NO". We can still prevent this plan from being implemented! But now the focus of the struggle has to change. Even though we must continue to try and convince the Knesset Members to bring down the government, the parliamentary battle has become a side issue.

The name of the game now is DETERRENCE. We must show the world that even though Prime Minister Sharon wants to uproot us, he simply will not be able to do so. The campaign that Women in Green is launching, is a joint campaign with all the extra-parliamentary organizations.

The campaign is called 'Chomat Magen" (Protective Shield) and has been started by Noam Livnat (ironically the brother of Limor Livnat, Minister of Education). Noam Livnat lives in Elon Moreh. The idea is to build a protective shield around those who are meant to be uprooted, so that the forces who are meant to uproot them will never reach them. It is important that we succeed in preventing the order from ever being given! If, G-d forbid, the order is given, there hopefully will be so many soldiers and policemen refusing orders, and so many tens of thousands of supporters surrounding the communities, that it will be impossible to implement the uprooting.

The main focus of Women in Green in the upcoming weeks will be to call upon all reserve soldiers and regular soldiers to listen to their conscience and not to give a hand to the crime of uprooting Jews from the Land of Israel. Noam Livnat has succeeded in already gathering over 3000 signatures. Dr David Matar, son and husband of the signatories of this letter, has even gone one step further and has returned his reserve card. We must join forces and get at least 20,000 signatures over the next few weeks!.

To those who feel uncomfortable with the idea of calling upon soldiers to refuse the order of deporting Jews, we will remind them that this order is patently illegal. To deport Jews, to brutally drag Jewish women, men and children from their homes against their will, to destroy entire Jewish communities, to raze synagogues, to desecrate Jewish cemeteries by disinterring the bones of their loved ones, is morally reprehensible. The IDF is meant to fight the Arab enemy, not to fight their fellow Jews.

Therefore, a soldier refusing to do all the above will actually be preserving the IDF's honor and will be preventing civil war. Yes, the propaganda saying that refusing the order will cause civil war and will destroy the army, is a lie. It is exactly the opposite! Refusing to attack your brothers and sisters, refusing to fight your fellow Jews, will keep the army united.

Those refusing to uproot Jews are not to be compared to those on the "left" who refuse to serve in Yesha. Those on the "left", who refuse to fight the Arab enemy, endanger the lives of all Israeli citizens. Those on the right, who refuse to fight their own brothers, actually preserve unity.

This campaign is very important! Prime Minister Sharon is not fazed by any "love campaign", nor by quiet tent city demonstrations. He is a bulldozer, who, like a true dictator, wants to raze the entire settlement enterprise. Against a bulldozer one does not fight with a campaign of love and flowers. We must do battle by means of DETERRENCE. We learn from this week's Parsha in Vayishlach that when Yaakov gets ready to meet Esau, he believes that Esau seeks his destruction. He therefore prepares his camp with "tefila, doron and milchama" (prayer, gifts and war).

Prayer we do everyday. Gifts have been given out by the Gush Katif people ad nausea. (As one Neve Dekalim lady told me: how many tomatoes and lettuce I have given out!!! How many quiet demonstrations have I gone to? Now we must prepare for WAR!.

Let it be clear that when we say "WAR" we do not mean violence. We mean non-violent civil disobedience and an all out call to our security forces: "Do not give a hand to the crime of deporting Jews from parts of Israel. Do not give a hand to the handing over of our G-d given Biblical Homeland to the enemy." If we succeed to pass on the message to Sharon that he simply has no army to carry out the crime of deportation, then, please G-d, the order will never be given.

We urge you to come on Sunday, November 28, at 9:30 A.M.to the Central Bus Station to sign up people. In addition, we will be sending, by regular mail, the petition to our whole Membership List. Ask your friends, relatives and neighbors to sign this Petition and then fax it to us (02-624-5380.) For those who do receive this letter, please advise us of anyone who may be interested in signing our Petition.

Shabbat Shalom,
Ruth and Nadia Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Dror Vanunu, November 26, 2004.

Almost two weeks have passed since the Disengagement Authority launched its website, which features a compensation calculator and all the forms necessary for receiving advanced compensation. So far, not one resident has applied for the early compensation, which would require residents to leave their homes almost immediately.

The acceptance of advance compensation payments to residents slated for expulsion is the critical core of Sharon's disengagement plan. Then-Minister Effie Eitam, chairman of the National Religious Party (NRP), said this two months ago in the name of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's advisor, Dov Weisglass. "[Weisglass] met with me just days ago," Eitam said at the time, "assuring me that there would be no need for a large-scale expulsion of Jews from Gaza, because, he said, 'We will buy them all out with money - only a few isolated crazies will stay, and we will deal with them.'" Although approximately four residents of the threatened communities have appeared in the media expressing their satisfaction with being removed from their homes and being compensated, even they are apparently not confident enough that the expulsion will actually take place and are therefore refraining from signing up for advance compensation.

The Evacuation Authority is headed by Yonatan Bassi, who has frequently reported on supposed "widespread interest in compensation" expressed by residents. Officials of the Authority have stated that they would not release information regarding the number of people who have applied for early compensation (www.a7.org)

Shabat Shalom From Gush Katif

Dror Vanunu lives in Gush Katif and is spokesman for the Gush Katif community.

You can support Gush Katif financially by contacting Katif Region Development Fund, Neve Dekalim, D.N Hof-Aza, 79779, Israel, Tel: 972-8-6840846, Fax: 972-8-6840863

In the U.S.A. contact Friends of Gush Katif, 588 South Forest Drive, Teaneck, NJ, 07666. Tel: 201-8951323

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 26, 2004.

Dear Friends, Yassir Arafat taught Muslim children from the age of 3 year old and up, "Jews are to be hated and killed"; "Christianity is a practice of infidels (non-believers in Islam). Now there is a concentrated effort to introduce Islam in the American school curricula.

This article is by Dr. Daniel Pipes and appeared on www.FrontPageMagazine.com on November 24, 2004. It is archived at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16094. It can also be read at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2236. The original version has dynamic links that contain additional information.

To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2236#comment To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org

Please bring this article by Dr. Pipes to the attention of principals, teachers and city Boards of Education wherever you live. If any history of Islam is to be taught, let us speak of the Muslims cruel treatment of all non-Muslims, all women (including Muslim) and the book used for the class rooms in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Arab Muslim Palestinian schools paid for by UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Association) which teach blood-curdling hatred. Yes, indeed. Let's take a close look at the most hateful religion on the planet.

By the way, Dr. Daniel Pipes is listeed as first of 150 listed speakers, thinkers and statemen for the First Major Israel Conference in Post-Arafat Era as the Second Jerusalem Summit, November 27 to 30 at Jerusalem's King David Hotel with the theme: "New Ideas from the Old City" - key challenges facing the Middle East and Western Civilization in the wake of Yassir Arafat's death. See www.jerusalemsummit.org for more information.

Not only do Islamists want to censure the handling of Islamic topics at U.S. universities, as I noted in "Islamists Police the Classroom [at the University of South Florida]," but they also wish to do the same at grammar schools. More ominously yet, they wish to transform public schools at all levels into venues for spreading Islam.

An undated posting at www.SoundVision.com posts a page titled "18 Tips for Imams and Community Leaders." The 15th tip, "Establish a parents' committee to monitor public schools," has special interest. It starts by asking if the local public school is teaching 10-year-olds that Muslims are terrorists and misogynists? If so, parents are advised to set up a committee "to monitor public school curriculum and developments" and arrange for Muslims to deliver talks about Islam and Muslims. For instance, as Ramadan approaches, a parent should explain the holiday to the school or in a social studies class. When a high-profile "incident of terrorism where Muslims are the perpetrators" takes place, the committee should ask to discuss Islam and terrorism. More broadly, the committee should lobby on behalf of Muslim concerns.

Another website points to a far deeper agenda, that of da'wa, or using taxpayer-funded schools to proselytize for Islam. www.DawaNet.com's goals are summed up by an article it hosts: "How to Make America an Islamic Nation." But what concerns us is a page, "Dawa in public schools," that portrays public schools as "fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students. Muslim students should take ample advantage of this opportunity and present to their schoolmates the beautiful beliefs of Islam." This, the website asserts, is best achieved through both direct and indirect steps. Direct means overt da'wa:

* Host Islamic exhibitions.
* Start an Islamic newsletter.
* Set up "Dawa tables" offering Islamic literature.
* Carry "Dawa flyers" from the Islamic Circle of North America and pass them out to non-Muslims.
* Place advertisements in the school paper with a toll-free telephone number for non-Muslims to call to learn more about Islam.
* Establish one-to-one contacts with non-Muslim students (along gender lines: "It is advised that brothers work with non-Muslim boys and sisters work with non-Muslim girls").

Indirect partially means creating a good image for Islam:

* Found Muslim groups that portray Islam "in a positive way," such as a Muslim Students Association, Islamic Circle, or Quran Study Group.
* Engage in "simple actions that reflect living Islam," such as saying "Insha Allah" (God willing), praying, and wearing Islamic-style clothing.
* Take advantage of disasters to set up a disaster relief assistance booth to give "a very positive picture of Islam and Muslims."
Or indirect means increasing consciousness of Islam:
* Make use of the school newspaper: "Being a writer will give you ample opportunity to provide Islamically oriented articles which will Insha Allah [if God wishes] open the hearts and minds of readers." Ideally, an article on Islam should appear in each issue. If the school does not allow overt preaching, "Alhamdu lillah, there are ways to circumvent this problem," such as reporting on Islamic events or writing about Islamic holidays. "This way, you are still presenting an aspect of Islam without coming across as a preacher." DawaNet.com also coyly instructs its adepts "to have a good rapport with the editor and the writing staff of the paper."

* Lobby to include Islamic dates on the school calendar.

* Add books and magazines on Islam written by Muslims to the school library; if the library does not purchase them, raise the money to donate them.

* Incorporate Islam into class projects. For example, "for a speech class, if there is freedom to choose a topic, an Islamic topic should be selected. Similar opportunities can be created in history, social science, writing and other classes."

DawaNet.com concludes by reminding Muslims that the will of Allah, faith, and Muslim creativity combined to win victories in the past and can again in the future:

Schools and campuses are no exceptions as places where Islam can be victorious. - We should use every opportunity to sensitize non-Muslim peers and school staff to Islam and to establish an environment in which everywhere a non-Muslim turns, he notices Islam portrayed in a positive way, is influenced by it and eventually accepts Islam.


(1) This is a total perversion of the American public space, a blatant effort to suborn it to serve Islamic missionary purposes.

(2) Such an attempt by Islamists hardly comes as a surprise but rather complements their already in-place campaign to exploit textbooks and curricula supplements for da'wa purposes.

(3) The "multikulti" spirit so prevalent in American schools today means that too many parents, teachers, and administrators find themselves virtually helpless to stand up to this assault on the traditional values of the public school.

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 26, 2004.

Move over Nigerian scammers. Here comes the real pros!

Dear Friend,

This mail may not be surprising to you if you have been following current events in the international media with reference to the Middle East and Palestine in particular.

I am Mrs. SUHA ARAFAT, the wife of YASSER ARAFAT, the Palestinian leader who died recently in Paris. Since his death and even prior to the announcement, I have been thrown into a state of antagonism, confusion, humiliation, frustration and hopelessness by the present leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the new Prime Minister. I have even been subjected to physical and psychological torture. As a widow that is so traumatized, I have lost confidence with everybody in the country at the moment.

You must have heard over the media reports and the Internet on the discovery of some fund in my husband secret bank account and companies and the allegations of some huge sums of money deposited by my husband in my name of which I have refuses to disclose or give up to the corrupt Palestine Government. In fact the total sum allegedly discovered by the Government so far is in the tune of about $6.5 Billion Dollars. And they are not relenting on their effort to make me poor for life. As you know, the Moslem community has no regards for women, more importantly when the woman is from a christian background, hence my desire for a foreign assistance.

I have the sum of 21 million dollars with a financial firm in Europe whose name I can not disclose for now for security reasons until we open up communication. I shall be grateful if you could receive this fund into your bank account for safe keeping and any Investment opportunity. This arrangement will be known to you and I alone and all our correspondence should be strictly on email alone because our government has tapped all my lines and are monitoring all my moves.

In view of the above, if you are willing to assist for our mutual benefits, we will have to negotiate on your Percentage share of the $21,000,000 that will be kept in your position for a while and invested in your name for my trust pending when my Daughter, Zahwa, will come off age and take full responsibility of her Family Estate/inheritance. Please note that this is a golden opportunity that comes once in life time and more so, if you are honest, I am going to entrust more funds in your care as this is one of the legacy we keep for our children.

In case you don't accept please do not let me out to the security and international media as I am giving you this information in total trust and confidence I will greatly appreciate if you accept my proposal in good faith. Please expedite action.

Yours sincerely,
Suha Arafat

To Go To Top
Posted by TheRaphi, November 26, 2004.

This was written by Harry W. Weber. Weber is a C.P.A. (U.S., Israel) and a political commentator whose articles appear in the Hatzofeh newspaper.

Now that President George Bush has won re-election by a solid majority, he has an opportunity to put his mark on history in a unique way. His mark on history will likely reflect the fact that not only is the president the most religious man ever to sit in the Oval Office, but he has at his side the daughter of a minister as Secretary of State.

From time immemorial, geopolitics has been conducted on the basis of narrow, usually short-term, national interests. In his first term, President Bush has shown great moral leadership in his decision to forego that approach, and virtually go it alone in declaring war on Saddam Hussein. Why? So that democracy can take hold in Iraq, and through it, greater security will be afforded to the West. Putting aside short-term political expediency, the President bet his career on an effort to create a model out of Iraq for the entire Middle East, a model in which democratic institutions will lead to freedom, peace and prosperity. The future of the Middle East in large measure depends on the success of the president's bold initiative.

There is, however, another part of the Middle East, where another conflict rages, as it has for the past one hundred twenty years -- the Arab-Israeli conflict. In attempting to solve that problem, the president has laid out a "Roadmap" calling for the creation of democratic institutions by the Palestinian Authority, the cessation of all terrorism in the territories and finally, the creation of a Palestinian state in parts of Judea and Samaria.

On the face of it, the plan looks bold and equitable, just as the Iraqi plan does. However, if the president is to embark on a new type of foreign policy, one not based on narrowly defined, short-term national interests, so very ineptly promoted by the State Department ever since World War I, it must have at its bedrock one key platform -- truth. Absolute truth. The kind found in the Bible, a book the President is apparently very familiar with. Any foreign policy initiatives by the President that ignore Biblical truths will not stand the test of time, and will be relegated by history to the same status as those of his predecessors. They will fail miserably, as they contradict God's will and His directive for the flow of human history.

One can see the liberals who lost the US election cringe in horror. However, the president, vice-president and millions of God-fearing Americans surely know what I'm talking about. Specifically, the concept of a Palestinian State, although flawed because there really is no such people, can only be accommodated justly, in our time, for the time being, with God's blessing, if it does not come at the expense of the Jewish people, who were sent home by Him after two thousand years of exile.

The Jewish people's home, at the very least, must be the entire Holy Land west of the Jordan River. That territory comprises only twenty-four percent of the original Palestine Mandate that was granted to the people of Israel by the League of Nations. In 1921, Britain ripped off seventy-six percent of the Jewish People's birthright and gave it to an Arabian prince, and called him the king of Trans-Jordan. Today, Jordan sits on that seventy-six percent of Palestine and its population is over seventy percent "Palestinian". Thus, the truth -- God's truth -- is that Jordan is Palestine.

Ariel Sharon used to say that loud and clear, about fifteen years ago. Now, for personal, non-ethical reasons, and for political short-term expediency, he has abandoned God's truth. Instead of His blessings, today Sharon turns to the media oracles of the Left for their blessings for his mad plan to turn Gaza and northern Samaria into two terrorist states. He wants to abandon those areas without a peace agreement, without any security arrangements. With nothing in return. Israel's one-time war hero has gone utterly soft on terror. The US president should disassociate himself completely from this weak limb of the West's war on terror, for Sharon no longer knows what's good for Israel, nor for the West, just what's good for Sharon -- short-term, of course.

One of the principal rules of geopolitics is akin to the three rules of real estate: location, location, location. The "Palestinians" ought to get a state, but where? It's obvious -- geographically, historically and morally -- in Jordan. Another rule of real estate and geopolitics is that good fences make good neighbors. With the Jordan River separating Israel and Palestine, peace will be much easier to maintain. Any Arab living west of the Jordan River will remain a resident of Israel, but a citizen of Jordan.

The above is a divinely acceptable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. How do I presume to make such a claim? It's simple. God says so in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is a necessary correction to the president's "Roadmap", that will bring peace and justice to the Middle East. It will earn the president kudos -- if not immediately from the Arabs and Europeans (what else is new) -- at least from the one source that really counts.

TheRaphi (http://www.theraphi.com/archives/oldindex.html) is a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site; it provides news articles and essays.

To Go To Top
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, November 25, 2004.

Please read and sign the petition to deny the use of the University of Wisconsin Campus to supportors of terrorism. Click here.

Ask your friends to sign. These supporters of terrorists who openly declare their goal is to destroy Israel have been allowed at Duke and at Michigan. They started small. They want to coopt American campuses. THEY MUST BE STOPPED.

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, November 25, 2004.

Now this is what I call balanced. Sharon fawns over Bush's people; he makes nice to Arabs who have murdered Jews and do murder Jews and will continue to murder Jews; he is willing to make a part of Israel Judenrein. But see how well he balances all that. He can be brutally nasty and vindictive against helpless Jewish women, whose major crime is that they believe Israel is a Jewish state and it should protect its widows and orphans.

This was a news item from today's Arutz-7 (www.Israelnn.com).

Three Hevron women say they will sit in prison rather than acknowledge the crime of which they have been convicted: "neglecting their children" in the course of a protest. The women were protesting against security officers' treatment of a widow and her orphan children.

The story began 17 months ago when Nati Ozeri was murdered in front of his wife and five children by an Arab terrorist during their Sabbath meal. The family lived alone in a caravan on Hilltop 26, outside Kiryat Arba. When the weeklong "shiva" mourning period ended, the widow Livnat Ozeri and her children returned to live on the hilltop. Two months later, without prior warning, IDF forces surprised the family in the middle of the night and forcibly evicted them from the area, destroying all signs of Jewish presence there. Livnat said the next morning, "My children will now forever remember the traumatic murder of their father during Shabbat dinner, and the second attack on our home by our own government. They have both 'murdered us and inherited us.'"

Livnat's father Sha'ul Nir said, "To wake up five orphans in the middle of the night, and put them into police wagons as they're rubbing their eyes, with giant bulldozers around their home, only two months after they lost their father - and then to destroy their home with [much of] the contents inside - there are no words to describe this other than pre-meditated evil."

Livnat Ozeri later said that the soldiers broke down the door, did not speak or produce a warrant, and began searching: "[The police] told me that I had to enter the car immediately. I told them that I could not leave the children alone in the house. They forcibly pushed me into the police car. And then the soldiers went to bring the children from their beds.... 11 years old and younger - and there is no need to explain the trauma that a child experiences when his father has recently been murdered, and strangers take him out of his bed to a police car in the middle of the night.... [A]lmost midnight, in the freezing Hevron cold, with my five children - dressed in pajamas, without socks, without shoes, without a coat, and without a sweater. They forbade me to bring warm clothing or blankets for my children. We began to drive. I asked them where they were taking us. 'You will know later on, we have a long drive,' they replied...." They were dropped off in the middle of a Jerusalem street at 3 AM near her parents' home.

Later that day, many Hevron residents arrived at the site and were shocked at what they saw. "The State of Israel came, in the middle of a cold night, and took out from their home the widow and orphans of a murdered victim of terror," Elishva Federman told Arutz-7. "We simply could not stand by and do nothing in the face of this terrible crime. We came to the site, and were very shaken by the destruction on the hilltop. We - three other women from Hevron and I - found an old car that for some reason the army had not taken. People were standing around with the army trying to evict them, and we went into the car, with our babies, for protection from the freezing rain. When the police came and told us to leave, we told them that we were not leaving in protest of this terrible crime; we demanded that the widow and orphans be allowed to return and rebuild their home and their lives."

Finally, several hours later, the police forcefully removed them from the car, dragging them, with their babies, through the mud and into a police wagon. "Suddenly we found ourselves accused of a crime," Federman said, "as if we had done something wrong - when in truth, the real criminal was the State of Israel..."

The women were, in fact, charged with three crimes: refusal to adhere to a lawful order, interfering with a policeman in the line of duty, and negligence in caring for minors. One woman, who refused to even relate to the charges at all, was acquitted of all three, while the others were convicted of the latter two counts.

Federman said she appeared in court at the beginning of the trial only to protest her innocence and announce that she would not take part in further proceedings - and in fact she did not. "The judge therefore accepted all of the prosecution's claims, and we were found guilty. How ironic it is that we are convicted of negligence in caring for our children, who were able to come back to a nice warm house - but what about the Ozeri orphans? What did they come back to after being thrown out of their beds in the middle of the freezing night just two months after their father was murdered?!"

Asked what punishment she expects, Elisheva said, "I heard that the prosecution has asked that two of us carry out some months of public service. But I can tell you that we will refuse to do it. We refuse to acknowledge that we committed any crime - and we will sit in prison if we have to. We expect people to sit in prison rather than evacuate people from their homes in Gush Katif, and therefore we are willing to do the same. It's clear that the timing of this case is in order to deter those who wish to protest actively against the expulsion - and so we say that we are not afraid, and they will not scare us. I was taught that in times of war, we must be willing to give our lives for the Land of Israel, and so the least that we can give now is our freedom. If the price is to sit in prison, so be it."

A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Jan. 2.

In the meanwhile, Elisheva's husband Noam continues to serve his house-arrest sentence. He was imprisoned under "administrative detention" - with no evidence presented - in September 2003. After being released this past June, he was immediately placed under house-arrest, permitted to leave his home only twice a day, for morning and afternoon/evening prayers. The sentence ends two weeks from now, but the Federmans are not optimistic that the orders will not be renewed. Back to Headlines Comment on this story

To Go To Top
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 25, 2004.

This is the English translation of the latest full page ad, which was published on Friday, November 12 in Ma'ariv's news section. The layout of the Ad - with a specially designed map - and previous ads are posted at www.acpr.org.il/hatikvah (Hebrew, English and Russian editions).

The full page ad campaign has been the ONLY Educational, Sustained, Focused, Targeted and Long-Term campaign on the consequences of the proposed Palestinian State and of the proposed plan of disengagement. The Ads constitute the most comprehensive compilation of data and assessments on these two critical issues.

Each Ad has been mailed to some 3,000 political players in Israel, faxed and e-mailed to over 5,000 movers, shakers and multipliers in the Washington, DC area and throughout the US. A PowerPoint presentation has been posted on www.acpr.org.il/hatikvah, combining a few Ads, and presenting the most comprehensive case for the security irreplaceability of Judea & Samaria. More presentations will be shortly produced.

Each Ad costs $10K. Contributions may be made through the Houston-based Hatikvah Educational Foundation (c/o Steve Finkelman, 8020 Blankenship Dr., Houston, TX 77055-1018) or through a foundation of your choice.

Wishing you a tasty turkey and a pleasant Thanksgiving, and appreciating your constructive criticism, or your positive consideration of the request for support,

FACT:  In October 1946, Kfar Darom (a current settlement in the Gaza Strip) and ten other Jewish communities were established, in order to avert the British plan of disengaging the Negev from the Jewish State.

FACT:  Kfar Darom was established on the site of the 3rd-4th century Talmudic Jewish town of Kfar Darom. The Jewish farmer, Tuvia Miller, planted an orchard in Kfar Darom, which was destroyed during the 1936-39 anti-Jewish pogroms. The newly established 1946 Kfar Darom was uprooted following the 1948 Egyptian military invasion. Would the 1967 rebuilt Kfar Darom be uprooted by the Jewish State?

FACT:  Gaza and Tiberias substituted for Jerusalem during 135-600 AD - as a pilgrimage site ; following Jerusalem's decimation by Rome.

FACT:  Gaza's Jewish community was uprooted during the 1929 anti-Jewish riots, which annihilated the Jewish community of Hebron.

FACT:  The Castil family headed a large of Jewish refugees from Spain (1492), who bolstered the Gaza Jewish community. The traveler Ovadia of Bartenura documented the 1488 Gaza Jewish community.

FACT:  The Ottoman Empire facilitated settlement of Jews in Gaza.

FACT:  The 17th century Gaza Chief Rabbi, Israel Najarah, composed the hymn "Ya Ribon Olam" and was buried in Gaza.

FACT:  The eerie Shabtai Zvi declared himself a Messiah at the Gaza synagogue.

FACT:  The Gaza synagogue was located on the hilltop, which is currently named by Arabs, Khart Al-Yahood (the Jewish neighborhood). The synagogue was destroyed, in 1831, by Egypt's Ibrahim Pasha.

FACT:  The known travelers Georgio Gucci (1384) and Meshulam of Voltera (1481) praised Gaza's Jewish community for its wine production and wealth.

FACT:  The Old Testament refers to Gaza as an integral part of the Land of Israel: Abraham was punished for his disengagement from Grar (today's Dir Al-Balakh, Genesis 21); The tribe of Judah inherited Ashdod, Ashqelon and Gaza (Joshua 15:47, Judges 1:18); King Solomon and King Hezekiah controlled Gaza (Kings A 5:4 and 18:7). Jonathan the Maccabee liberated Gaza in 145 BC, Simon the Maccabee settled Gaza and King Alexander Yanai-Janeus renewed Jewish presence there in 96 BC.

FACT:  Rome's Constantinus The Great failed to convert and uproot Gaza's Jewish community (4th century).

FACT:  Rarely have nations agreed to trade away land for peace. Never have nations agreed to disengage themselves from their Cradle of History in return for peace. Can a nation disengage itself from its roots without dooming its future?

Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli liaison to the U.S. Congress, is a consultant on US-Israel relations.

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Yee, November 25, 2004.

When I first heard of Sharon's "disengagement plan", my biggest worry was not for the increased terrorism that such a move would undoubtedly cause because I believe that Israelis can survive outsiders trying to destroy them. It was that it would split the country so that one Israeli would consider another Israeli the enemy and stop trusting the IDF to defend all Israelis equally. I'm sorry to say that this seems to be coming to pass.

While I admire this unknown doctor who did his duty, I also admire Dr. David Matar who refused to serve in an army which is making plans to turn against its own people. That is why the "disengagement plan" is even more dangerous than Oslo. With Oslo, people were still dealing with the "Palestinians," whereas now some Israelis have turned against the "extremist settlers" -- who didn't exist until Sharon named them as such -- as the cause of the violence. This is a tragedy of epic proportions. The only solution that I can see is to scrap the "disengagement plan" and have all Israelis join together to build all Israel into the Jewish nation that it was always meant to be.

This article was written by Sharon Kahn. It appeared November 21, 2004

He stands before me in his dusty green uniform, rifle over the shoulder, one of his five children clinging to his neck. We are in the parking lot near his home, where he's just arrived on a short leave from his reserve duty. He's in his early forties. His medical history includes a spinal injury and asthma, and he's a bit overweight (not to mention balding). He's not as strong and fast as he used to be, like most middle-aged guys. Obviously, he's not your typical commando. So what was he doing last week, running around Arab cities to arrest terrorists, in an elite unit with recruits who weren't even born yet when he was first drafted?

It's a good question. For one thing, it's partly his fault for not having updated his fitness profile in a very long time. But as an expert in emergency trauma medicine, his usual reserve duty is teaching army medics, and you don't need to be in top shape to teach in a classroom. Usually, younger men go with the combat units; however, this time there was no "someone else" to send. The commando unit had to have a medical officer while engaged in an extremely difficult and dangerous mission, and there was no one else to fill this vital role. For unknown reasons, many doctors hadn't shown up for their reserve duty this time.

So, the "doc" did his duty, as he always does, doing his best to protect his family, his people and his state from the destruction so desired by the explosive vest makers, the human bomb senders, the missile throwers, the snipers. How could he refuse?

This is what always happens when someone fails to fulfill his responsibility: another person has to step up in his place. And sometimes, as in this case, the one who accepts the responsibility isn't the most fit person for the job. Very often, there is no suitable "someone else", and the committed make do with what is available. The cost cannot be calculated - would a younger, faster doctor have been able to treat the wounded more effectively? - but that doesn't mean there is no cost. And it doesn't mean we are exempt from the analysis of how well we are fulfilling our responsibilities, or not, and at what cost.

This accounting of the soul is a private matter that each individual must do for him- or herself. Nevertheless, to describe the relevant facts and name the questions to be asked is a communal responsibility. Members of the community have both the right and the imperative to open discussion of significant matters -- and nothing is more significant than survival.

One tiny Israel, surrounded by Arab states who wish to destroy it. Vilified by the press, loathed by Europe, censured and undermined by the UN, bullied by the US State Department and overwhelmingly outnumbered - this is a dismal picture most Jews would agree is an accurate assessment of the situation. What is a Jew's responsibility in such a case?

First and foremost, to consider these questions:

1. Is having a Jewish State an imperative for World Jewry?x Is the Jewish People ready to go back to the days when there was no Jewish State, no IDF, and Jews had to depend on Diaspora governments to treat the Jewish population with kindness, or at least benign neglect?

2. Is having a Jewish State a religious obligation? Did God command us to establish a nation at Mount Sinai and did he send us to Israel to do it? Is this command still valid or did He change His mind?

3. If Israel as a state is a practical or religious necessity, who is responsible to sustain it? All Jews, all Jews except for the ultra-ultra-Orthodox, all Jews living in Israel, all Israelis plus Jews living in places of impending danger, as in Europe?

4. What is the level of responsibility of individuals in these groups? To donate money, make phone calls, write letters, go on missions and solidarity marches, send their children, maybe even make aliyah themselves? How much effort is enough?

5. Who is competent to advise people in wrestling with these questions? Any family member or neighbor, any educated Jew, any accredited rabbinical authority, any community leader? Can someone whose livelihood depends on staying in a stable community in the Diaspora give unbiased advice? How difficult it must be for synagogue and school rabbis to advocate aliyah, thus calling their own conduct into question and undermining their own livelihoods!

These questions absolutely positively must be faced now, because an extremely dangerous time has come to us. The death of "He Who Will Not Be Missed" does not presage a time of relief and expanded possibilities of peace with Islamic moderates. In fact, the factional fighting in the PA-controlled areas has already begun, and we definitely will not like the winner. Here's why:

The most ruthless and barbaric of the potential leaders is the one who will win. There is no other mechanism for the transfer of power there except through force, intimidation and assassination. Whoever is most skilled in those areas will come out on top.

The disgustingly polite and politic eulogies we witnessed in recent weeks indicate that the world is not only willing, but longing, to forgive and forget the atrocities that were that man's life's work. So there is no reason for any of his potential successors to deviate from his path.

On the contrary, the unruly mobs we saw at his funeral want his successor to be just like him -- another terrorist to lead a million martyrs to conquer Jerusalem. Those people want exactly what he promised them -- the murder of Jews, the destruction of the Jewish State, and a new Arab Palestinian State to replace it, and they'll shred anyone who even thinks of compromise.

So why is this time more dangerous than previous times? Europe, with its growing minority population of radical Islamists, is anxious to buy local calm with the coin of Jewish blood. It will pressure Israel to appease and retreat before the terrorists, and will pressure the US as well. After Iraq, the US also may feel obliged to repair its relations with Europe and the Islamic world by arm-twisting Israel. An unsympathetic world will dismiss all that Israel has suffered to this point as part of a closed chapter of history that ended with the dead terrorist's funeral. It will be Oslo II: Israel will be coerced into making more and more painful concessions as a way of strengthening the winner of the Palestinians' selection process. After all, we cannot prove murderous intentions on the part of the "new regime" until we have a significantly large enough tally of newly murdered Jews to attribute to it.

Remember Rabin's obscene phrase "sacrifices for peace"? We will hear it again.

If Israel were strong enough, it could stand up to the pressure, point to the suicidal absurdity of giving in to Palestinian demands and insist on reciprocity:

Peace for peace, war for war, and land for land. Let the Arabs give up their occupied territories and their illegal settlements, then we can talk about Jewish ones. Refugees? There are Arab countries (22 of them!) for Arab refugees, and Israel for Jews. Reparations? Sure, let me calculate how much the Arabs owe to the Jewish refugees they abused and robbed and expelled from Arab lands in 1948, and then we can negotiate for Arab losses -- the ones not caused by Arab rejectionism, wars of aggression and terrorism.

If only Israel were strong enough ...

We are commanded to be a Nation that will be a light to all the other nations, and we are not strong enough. We are making do with what we have, but our hearts are breaking over what we don't have -- the rest of World Jewry. You who don't see yourself as significant, nay, vital, to our struggle - when will you come home? When is it your turn to be responsible?

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net).

To Go To Top
Posted by Ken Heller, November 25, 2004.

This was written by Gary Cooperberg of the Project Shofar Organization. He can be reached by email at gary @projectshofar.org

Both Great Britain and the United States have sent emissaries to Israel to "encourage" the Jewish State to withdraw from Arab populated towns in order to enable a smooth election process for the PLO. Israel, of course, needs no such encouragement as she is very desirable to see a new PLO leadership to whom it can surrender more Jewish land.

It boggles the mind to consider that a nation which came into being against the will of the majority of the nations of the world; which faced a war on all of its fronts when it had almost no ability to stand up to any army; which, at that time had no defensible borders, yet took on the entire world rather than accept defeat; would today, when it has one of the greatest armies in the world, stand on its head to surrender to a non entity which seeks her destruction!

Why did we let Arafat die a natural death when we should have tried and executed him?

Why are we still active accomplices in the perpetuation of the lie of a legitimate Arab nation called "Palestine"? Especially in the face of an outright war of terror which has taken the lives of so many innocent Jewish civilians by Arabs who chose to become human bombs, how is it thinkable that we still treat such monsters as having legitimate claim to any part of our homeland? Menachem Begin thought he was expressing an exaggeration when he asked, "What are we to negotiate, the terms of our self destruction?" Yet that is precisely what we have been doing and are continuing to do.

And how is it that the likes of an Ariel Sharon could be leading us down the path to self destruction? One needn't be a genius to see the madness here. It is a madness of our own making because we have refused to recognize the G-dly nature of the Jewish State. We have been working feverishly to prove to the world, and to ourselves, that we are just like all the other nations of the world. This is not only a waste of time and energy, it is the source of the tragedy which we have been suffering. The Arabs are not the problem. They are merely our punishment for failing to act like Jews.

If we had a truly Jewish leadership the first thing they would do would be to declare the Oslo agreements illegitimate. No Jewish leadership has the right to negotiate Jewish Land with anyone. .. . much less a non-entity. Secondly he would physically redeem those parts of our homeland which are under PLO control and use the full power of the IDF to obliterate any resistance with no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. The concept of "Palestine" or "Palestinian", other than in historical context when it once referred to Jews, should be made illegal. Anyone claiming such identity would be subject to execution.

It is we who taught the USA and Great Britain and the nations of the world that there is legitimacy to such an entity. And it is we who must reeducate the world to the reality that such an entity is nothing less than a strategic effort to destroy the Jewish State by creating a new "legitimate" people by which to replace it with an Arab state. The Jewish State will never agree to be an accomplice to our own destruction, nor can we tolerate efforts by "friendly" nations to interfere with our legitimacy by making nationally lethal demands of us. We don't need a Jack Straw or a Colin Powell to tell us how to conduct our internal affairs. And we certainly will not accept their suggestions to give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Where are the Jewish voices screaming out, "Not One Inch!"? Where are the enraged cries of "There is no such thing as 'Palestine'!" Have we forgotten our two thousand year dream of Zion? Have generations of Jewish martyrs given their lives so that we can help the PLO take our homeland from us? Why can we not see the madness?

Ken Heller is a pro-Israel activist and a member of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For A Safe Israel. He can be reached at kjhnha@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Max Yas, November 25, 2004.

Canadian Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and serve until the compulsory retirement age of 75. Many Canadians think that the Senate is a largely a sinecure for aging party loyalists. Their influence is minor.

This is Canadian Senator Marcel Prud'homme's speech in the Senate 16/Nov/04 Some will find this speech difficult to read. Please persevere. My editorial comments follow in italics. Prud'homme can be contacted by email at prudhm@sen.parl.gc.ca


Honourable senators, Mr. Palestine is dead. But as I told the Montreal newspaper La Presse, there are tens of thousands of Arafats among the children in refugee camps all over, who are just waiting for the right moment to take on the cause of freedom and true justice for this nation that has been scorned, mistreated, robbed, humiliated, terrorized, isolated, and stripped of its dignity."

EDITORIAL COMMENT. Will there be enough money for tens of thousands Arafat clones to deposit in numbered accounts? Will there be enough airliners and cruise boats for each of them to highjack? Will there be enough Palestinians to man tens of thousands terrorist groups? Please Senator, think carefully before you wish. Your wishes may come true!!!!!

"One day this proud and noble nation must be given back what has largely been taken from it, with the complicity or agreement of Canada, since November 29, 1947.

On that day the United Nations adopted a resolution dividing Palestine into two states, one for the Palestinians and one for the Jews, and making the holy places international. The votes were 33 in favour, 13 opposed and 10 abstaining. This resolution was well- prepared and written with the help of a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Ivan Rand. Canada's Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, was one of the main suppliers of the votes needed to adopt resolution 181."

EDITORIAL COMMENT: You got this one right, Senator. Israel was established by a large majority VOTE in the United Nations, but you forgot to mention that contrary to resolution #181, the Arabs refused to obey the resolution and five Arab armies attacked Israel. They lost.

"Soon, before the Senate adjourns for Christmas and the New Year, I shall present a notice of inquiry into Canada's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thirty years ago, on November 13, 1974, I was present at the United Nations for the speech by President Arafat who was reaching out to us, but we let him down. I was appointed as a delegate by Pierre Elliott Trudeau who always honoured me with his trust.

Yasser Arafat has left us, and his brother, Dr. Fathi Arafat, president of the Palestinian Red Crescent - which parallels the Red Cross - has gone to join him as well, for he died yesterday.

Honourable senators, I invite you to reflect upon all that my country, Canada, could have contributed to attain peace and justice in that region of the world. Why we were unable to play a true leading role in the resolution of this immense tragedy? Those who have obstructed this role over the years must be named.

I shall conclude by reading what I said to La Presse on Saturday, November 13, from page A18:

We will have to pay if we do not settle the Palestinian situation. I have always compared it to a cancer that will spread over the earth and bring nothing but problems.

I said that in 1970 in Egypt at the conference of parliamentarians for peace in the Middle East, and I repeat it today. Rest in peace, dear friend - Palestine shall live!"

Dear Senator:

Charity begins at home. First let us consider the proud and noble members of First Nations scattered over 100's of reserves. They too have been stripped of their dignity and freedom, scorned, abused, robbed, humiliated, terrorized and turned into alcoholics by our noble ancestors.

Then consider the plight of conquered people in Europe, forced to leave the countries of their birth and abandon their homes, land and other properties. This would include 6,000,000 East Germans, and large numbers of Poles, Rumanians, Hungarians, etc. And why is there no equal concern for the 70,000 Darfurians killed and the 1,800,000 still scattered in the desert after their villages were destroyed by government financed militias?

According to the UN there are 17,000,000 genuine refugees to-day.

Other nations have absorbed their refugees: 6,000,000 by Germany after World War II when all of East Germany was ceded to Poland, 800,000 Jews forced to abandon their homes in Muslim countries resettled in Israel after the War of Independence, about 150,000 Greeks forced to leave eastern Cyprus after the Turkish Invasion, to name just a few. WHY DO YOU FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON THE PLIGHT OF A PEOPLE WHOSE BROTHERS HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE GREATEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH IN HISTORY FROM THEIR OIL REVENUES??

Shalom from Max.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth Matar, November 25, 2004.

Dear Friends,

The candidates waiting in the wings to succeed the late Arafat are the same kind of terrorists as he was. They may speak in a more cultured way. They may not walk around with a three day stubble. They may give smooth interviews to the non-Muslim world, designed for Western ears - but underneath they are all killers with one goal in mind - to annihilate the Jewish People and the Jewish State.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2004, Yasser Arafat's three top successors - PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, and interim Palestinian Authority Chairman Rouhi Fattouh - spoke at a special session of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to commemorate Arafat.

All three of these candidates vowed to continue in Arafat's footsteps:

1. Not to compromise on the right of return for all refugees. (According to statistics, 600,000 Arabs fled Israel, urged to do so by the leaders of surrounding Arab states. They were promised that they would be able to return within a couple of days, to take over Jewish homes and possessions. The Arabs now insist that there are more than 4 million refugees!)

2. Not to compromise on the establishment of a Palestinian State on the entire West Bank and Gaza. (Biblical Judea and Samaria were dubbed the "West Bank" by the late King Hussein of Jordan.)

3. Not to compromise on Jerusalem being the capital of a Palestinian state.

There are additional candidates: Jibril Rajoub, Mahmoud Dahlan and even Marwan Barghouti, who is serving multiple life sentences in an Israeli prison for murdering Jews.

(Permit me a disturbing digression: lately there have been persistent media leaks that Israeli top officials have had secret meetings with Barghouti to groom this convicted killer to become the next Palestinian Authority leader. Somehow, the Sharon government feels that Barghouti is someone it can work with, someone who can control the Palestinian street.

I have often thought that the Sharon government cannot reach a further nadir of immorality. But apparently they are able to do this.

Israeli Interior Minister Avraham Poraz speculated last week: "We are looking for a partner for the Gaza withdrawal. It seems that this will have to include releasing prisoners... [Perhaps even] including Barghouti."

To think of releasing a convicted multiple killer of Jews in order to get a "partner" for the goal to expel Jews from their homes? I believe that this is as immoral as anyone can get.)

In this Letter from Jerusalem, I will concentrate on the background of Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), since he is the current frontrunner, having been elected by the Fatah Central Council as its candidate for Palestinian Authority Chairman in the January 9 elections. If the situation warrants, I will focus on some of the other candidates in a subsequent letter.

* ABU MAZEN co-founded the Fatah terror group with Arafat.

* ABU MAZEN does not actually differ from Arafat on any major position. He insists on the right of four million of Palestinian refugees (this imaginary figure supplied by the Arabs) throughout the Middle East to "return" to Israel - which would swamp Israel demographically - and spell the end of Israel's existence as a Jewish State.

* ABU MAZEN wrote his PhD dissertation and later a bestselling book explaining why the Holocaust is a complete hoax. He said that not only did the Holocaust never happen, but that the Jews invented this story to make the world feel sorry for them, so that they could go ahead and steal Arab Land.

* ABU MAZEN was involved in the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes, including American citizen David Berger, in the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. Abu Mazen was responsible for the financing for this operation.

* ABU MAZEN denies that there ever was a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, the holiest site of the Jewish People. He states that he might consider the right of Jews to pray after a peace settlement has been reached.

* ABU MAZEN urged Arafat to reject Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer in 2000 at Camp David saying it was "a trap by all standards... and we managed to get out of it." Even Yossi Beilin said at the time that Abu Mazen was more extreme than Arafat.

* ABU MAZEN has overseen terrorist attacks for the past several decades, including the last four years of terror war against Israel.

The Women in Green Movement has been aware of Abu Mazen's true nature for some time. I found a photograph in my files printed in the Jerusalem Post of June 4, 2003, of a Woman in Green holding a placard at a demonstration with the picture of Abu Mazen and Yasser Arafat. The captions read "Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen Blood Brothers" and "Birds of a Feather Kill Jews Together."

On June 24, 2002, President George W. Bush pronounced that "the first prerequisite for progress is for the Palestinian people to produce 'regime change'. I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders not compromised by terror. The Palestinians must have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements."

Surely President Bush cannot believe that Abu Mazen meets these criteria?

Surely President Bush cannot believe that any of the other candidates meet these criteria?

This brings me to a very serious question, which should be of interest to all Americans. Why is the United States government anxious to financially help, to the tune of 20 million dollars, this crew of terrorists to stage an election on January 9, 2005? Why grant U.S. tax payer money when Arafat and the PA have billions, not millions, stashed away in secret accounts in Switzerland, when it has been proven that the Palestinian Authority used the majority of aid funds not only for their own luxurious lifestyle, but also for terror attacks against Israel? 20 million, by the way, is peanuts for the Palestinian Authority. They have just granted Suha Arafat a generous 22 million dollars as an annual stipend.

Fortunately this plan has met with serious resistance on Capitol Hill, led by majority leader Tom DeLay.

Let us not continue fooling ourselves! Let us face reality! The candidates for the leadership of the Palestinian Authority waiting in the wings are the same terrorist killers as the late Arafat.

After Hitler was defeated, did the Allies look for his successors amongst the rest of the Nazis? No, they did not! They worked hard to denazify Germany. They held lengthy trials for the top Nazi leaders at Nuremberg between 1945 and 1949. They punished these leaders for their horrendous crimes against humanity, most of them even received the death penalty.

Does it make sense to put a new set of terrorists in charge to continue their Jihad against the Jewish State, and against the rest of the non-Muslim world?

Does it make sense to reward these terrorists with a state of their own, illegally carved out of G-d's covenant Land?

With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Frankfurter, David, November 25, 2004.

British traditions are so quaint. Every year, at around this time, the government writes a speech for the queen to deliver, in which she declares her government's program for the coming year. Each short item is supported by a short statement by the relevant government department, explaining what it really meant.

In the last sentence of yesterday's annual speech, Her Majesty declared: "My Government will continue to support efforts to build peace in the Middle East, to promote democratic reform and reduce conflict and extremism." A noble and balanced goal. One that all sides will see as even-handed, from a fair and honest broker, who can nudge the other toward the goal of peace they all aspire to.

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office explains in a carefully worded statement that Britain supports a two state solution. Viable Palestine and Secure Israel. The way to get there is the Roadmap. For each and every criticism or demand from one side, there is a balancing criticism or demand of the other. It is violence and tension that has stopped both sides from implementing it. But the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians want their leaders to work for peace.

This desire by the vast majority of both sides for peace is the logical glue that sticks the whole policy together. Both sides want peace. Just push their leaders a little in the right direction and they will meet in the middle.

As an Israeli, I have the tools to verify that the overwhelming majority of us want our leaders to work for peace. I read it in the papers. I see it on TV. I hear it in the cafeteria at work. I hear it in Synagogue and when I stand at the supermarket checkout. The desire for our leaders to do everything possible for peace with our neighbours is about the only issue that wins close to 100% agreement amongst the Israelis I know. We may disagree on the strategies or tactics to get there. The thing one person thinks as critical to achieve peace, a second person thinks will lead to the destruction of the State of Israel. But at least the objective is the same - secure peace.

I have no way to directly judge whether the vast majority of Palestinians want their leaders to work for peace. Their TV and newspapers are in Arabic and not accessible to me. On the basis of my religion, I am excluded from traveling in their cities and villages for fear of my life, so I can't talk to those many Palestinians who speak English.

So I have to rely on English language reports of what Palestinians think.

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research asks sophisticated questions, and paints a complex picture. In September 2004, their survey showed that each question about the acceptability of Palestinian violence against Israelis, no matter how worded, gets majority support - sometimes up to 90%. Even after full Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian society is split down the middle on support for violent attacks emanating from Gaza.

The bright point is that 82.5% of Palestinians support a mutual cessation of violence. Should the Palestinian leadership reach a full peace agreement, 75% of the Palestinians would support reconciliation between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel. Even so, 47% think that reconciliation, even after peace, is impossible.

And these are exactly the contradictions that many analysts think push Israeli public opinion toward tactics of warfare hoping to achieve a strategy of peace. The argument is that in the face of 86% of Palestinians saying that their security and safety, and that of their family, is not assured, Palestinians would like a temporary cease fire or hudna while they take breath and rearm. They are not willing to give a mandate for their leadership to negotiate real long-term peace, and if the leadership were to take the initiative, a sizeable minority do not believe long term reconciliation with Israel is possible. According to this view, the best case Israel can look forward to is a simmering, porous border, requiring a constant state of high military alert . Full-scale warfare just waiting to erupt. A similar situation to that with Lebanon - but without the natural terrain providing some protection. Constant skirmishes, abductions, rockets into civilian areas and occasional casualties.

The Birzeit University's Development Studies Program survey of June 2004, which surveyed Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and claims a +/- 3% accuracy, asked more direct questions.

To the question "Do you support return to negotiations with the Israelis?" 53.2% of Palestinians said "No".

To the question "Do you think that there is a chance for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis on the basis of justice (according to UN resolutions)?" 54.3% of Palestinians said "No".

So, it would seem that 50% of the Foreign Office's underlying assumption is correct. The vast majority of Israelis want their leaders to work for peace. The Palestinians are less clear.

There is much work to be done in reeducating a whole population toward peace before the assuming that with a bit of pressure on the leaderships peace will magically appear.

If the Foreign Office had paid attention to these nuances, they may have added the Roadmap initial requirement of a cessation of incitement to hatred of Israel and Jews to their demands of the Palestinians. Before questions of achieving peace can posed, televisions, schools, newspapers, summer camps, political speeches and mosques must stop being filled with Jew-hatred and idolisation of terrorists.

To subscribe to Frankfurter's 'letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@iname.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/

To Go To Top
Posted by Laureen Moe, November 24, 2004.

This was written by Patrick E. Tyler and Don Van Natta, Jr. and was published in the New York Times April 26, 2004. Patrick E. Tyler reported from Luton, Slough and London and Don Van Natta Jr. from London. Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Germany.

The person who sent this article to me wrote: "This cult of death is propagating at our doorstep. We coddle them with freedom in the West and that is what they use to try and kill us...".

UTON, England, April 24 - The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered, counterterrorism officials say.

In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.

They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.

On Thursday evening, at a tennis center community hall in Slough, west of London, their leader, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, spoke of his adherence to Osama bin Laden. If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden's offer of a truce - provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months - Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said.

"All Muslims of the West will be obliged," he said, to "become his sword" in a new battle. Europeans take heed, he added, saying, "It is foolish to fight people who want death - that is what they are looking for."

On working-class streets of old industrial towns like Crawley, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester, and in the Arab enclaves of Germany, France, Switzerland and other parts of Europe, intelligence officials say a fervor for militancy is intensifying and becoming more open.

In Hamburg, Dr. Mustafa Yoldas, the director of the Council of Islamic Communities, saw a correlation to the discord in Iraq. "This is a very dangerous situation at the moment," Dr. Yoldas said. "My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States."

Hundreds of young Muslim men are answering the call of militant groups affiliated or aligned with Al Qaeda, intelligence and counterterrorism officials in the region say.

Even more worrying, said a senior counterterrorism official, is that the level of "chatter" - communications among people suspected of terrorism and their supporters - has markedly increased since Mr. bin Laden's warning to Europe this month. The spike in chatter has given rise to acute worries that planning for another strike in Europe is advanced.

"Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.

And recruitment is paired with a compelling new strategy to bring the fight to Europe.

Members of Al Qaeda have "proven themselves to be extremely opportunistic, and they have decided to try to split the Western alliance," the official continued. "They are focusing their energies on attacking the big countries" - the United States, Britain and Spain - so as to "scare" the smaller states.

Some Muslim recruits are going to Iraq, counterterrorism officials in Europe say, but more are remaining home, possibly joining cells that could help with terror logistics or begin operations like the one that came to notice when the British police seized 1,200 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a key bomb ingredient, in late March, and arrested nine Pakistani-Britons, five of whom have been charged with trying to build a terrorist bomb.

Stoking that anger are some of the same fiery Islamic clerics who preached violence and martyrdom before the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Friday, Abu Hamza, the cleric accused of tutoring Richard Reid before he tried to blow up a Paris-to-Miami jetliner with explosives hidden in his shoe, urged a crowd of 200 outside his former Finsbury Park mosque to embrace death and the "culture of martyrdom."

Though the British home secretary, David Blunkett, has sought to strip Abu Hamza of his British citizenship and deport him, the legal battle has dragged on for years while Abu Hamza keeps calling down the wrath of God.

Also this week, over Mr. Blunkett's vigorous objection, a 35-year-old Algerian held under emergency laws passed after Sept. 11 was released from Belmarsh Prison. The man, identified only as "G," suffered from severe mental illness, his lawyers told a special immigration appeals panel, which let him out of prison and put him under house arrest.

Mr. Blunkett insisted that that should not be the final judgment on a man already found by one court "to be a threat to life and liberty."

In an interview on the BBC over the weekend, Mr. Blunkett advocated a stronger deportation policy, initially focused on 12 foreign terror suspects held without charge since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Despite tougher antiterrorism laws, the police, prosecutors and intelligence chiefs across Europe say they are struggling to contain the openly seditious speech of Islamic extremists, some of whom, they say, have been inciting young men to suicidal violence since the 1990's.

One chapter in Sheik Omar's lectures these days is "The Psyche of Muslims for Suicide Bombing."

The authorities say that laws to protect religious expression and civil liberties have the result of limiting what they can do to stop hateful speech. In the case of foreigners, they say they are often left to seek deportation, a lengthy and uncertain process subject to legal appeals, when the suspect can keep inciting attacks.

That leaves the authorities to resort to less effective means, such as mouse-trapping Islamic radicals with immigration violations in hopes of making a deportation case stick. "In many countries, the laws are liberal and it's not easy," an official said.

At a mosque in Geneva, an imam recently exhorted his followers to "impose the will of Islam on the godless society of the West."

"It was quite virulent," said a senior official with knowledge of the sermon. "The imam was encouraging his followers to take over the godless society."

While such a sermon may be incitement, recruitment takes a more shadowy course, and is hard to detect, a senior antiterrorism official said. "Believers are appealed to in the mosques, but the real conversations take place in restaurants or cafes or private apartments," the official said.

While some clerics, like Abu Qatada - said to be the spiritual counselor of Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 hijacking team - remain in prison in Britain without charge, others like Sheik Omar, leader of a movement called Al Muhajiroun, carry on a robust ideological campaign.

"There is no case against me," Sheik Omar said in an interview. Referring to calls by members of Parliament that he be deported, he added, "but they are Jewish" and "they have been calling for that for years."

Among his ardent followers is Ishtiaq Alamgir, 24, who heads Al Muhajiroun in Luton and calls himself Sayful Islam, the sword of Islam. He says there are about 50 members here but exact numbers are secret.

Most days, he and a handful of his followers run a recruitment stand on Dunstable Road much to the chagrin of the Muslim elders of Luton.

Mainstream Muslims are outraged by the situation, saying the actions of a few are causing their communities to be singled out for surveillance and making the larger population distrustful of them.

Muhammad Sulaiman, a stalwart of the mainstream Central Mosque here, was penniless when he arrived from the Kashmiri frontier of Pakistan in 1956. He raised money to build the Central Mosque here and now leads a campaign to ban Al Muhajiroun radicals from the city's 10 mosques.

"This is show-off business," he says in accented English. "I don't want these kids in my mosque."

Other community leaders look to the government to do something, if only to help prevent the demonization of British Muslims, or "Islamophobia," as some here call it.

"I think these kids are being brainwashed by a few radical clerics," said Akhbar Dad Khan, another elder of the Central Mosque. He wants them prosecuted or deported. "We should be able to control this negativity," he said.

In Slough, Sheik Omar spent much of his time Thursday night regaling his young followers with the erotic delights of paradise - sweet kisses and the pleasures of bathing with scores of women - while he also preached the virtues of death in Islamic struggle as a ticket to paradise.

He spoke of terrorism as the new norm of cultural conflict, "the fashion of the 21st century," practiced as much by Tony Blair as by Al Qaeda.

"We may be caught up in the target as the people of Manhattan were," he told them.

And he warned Western leaders, "You may kill bin Laden, but the phenomenon, you cannot kill it - you cannot destroy it."

"Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity," he said.

Laureen Moe is a Christian Zionist and lives in Canada. She can be reached at her website, http://www.laureenmoe.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 24, 2004.

For many years there has been both a deliberate effort to divide the Jewish people as well as utilize the age old natural differences as written about by Josephus in his War of the Jews. It is the deliberate malevolent effort which most concerns us.

Let us begin with the present and work back.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, has made an effort to relinquish Jewish settlements - villages, farms, towns and cities - in the Gaza Strip/Gush Katif area to the Arab Muslim Palestinians. One of Sharon's method has been to stimulate a "Hate the Settlers" campaign in the hope that the rest of the Jewish nation will turn against them on the presumption that they are saving themselves. This appeal is to the lowest and most ugly instincts in human nature.

He has utilized the Shinui Party of Tommy Lapid (now Justice Minister) to go against the hard working Jewish pioneers of Gush Katif with the territories of Judea and Samaria to follow. Lapid, like others mostly in the Leftist Labor political party has a visceral dislike of anything remotely religious.

If one backtracks to the Rabin-Peres-Beilin troika, here too one finds efforts to attack the pioneering settlers in the territories. They also mounted a "Hate the Settlers" campaign, in order to push through the secretly contrived Oslo Accords.

Who can forget Rabin's infamous comments on the resistance of the settlers to his Oslo Plan and the hand-over to Yassir Arafat of areas which the settlers correctly forecast would be launching sites for Terror. Rabin ridiculed them and said: "Let them spin like propellers." In effect, telling all of Israel that opposing opinions meant nothing. And that he, Peres and Beilin would do what they wanted to - without consulting the Cabinet, the Knesset or the people of Israel. They introduced the lesson of a Dictatorial Democracy which Sharon has raised to a higher level.

As it turned out, Oslo both as a concept and as a contract, failed with the resulting massive Terrorist attacks. Nothing of the Oslo Accords were kept by Arafat - just as predicted by the Pioneering Settlers who lived so close to the Arab Muslim Palestinians. The Oslo Plan, born in corrupt secrecy, was a direct extension of the illegal meetings in the early 1980s between Arafat and the same leaders of the Left who secretly pushed through Oslo in early 1990 with the help of the Norwegians.

Always saturating these plans of "divide and conquer" was the PR campaign to make the non-observant Jews in the cities and the Leftists believe that Terror only came because there were Jews who Arafat claimed irritated the mix of Arabs self-named "Palestinians". Arafat's "Final Solution to HIS Jewish Problem" was to assign suicide bombers to blow up cafes filled with teenagers. But, the Osloids invariably promised the nation that, if the Settlers were NOT there, the Arab Muslim Palestinians, the Arab nations would cease their Terror and live peacefully with the non-Muslim Jew of Israel.

Of course, none of this happened, thousands of Jews were killed (more than 1500 Jews were murdered since Oslo was signed in September 1993 including some 55 Americans, with tens of thousands wounded, many maimed for life). None of the Osloids went to prison - they just rose higher in their political positions. Neither did the Leftists Osloids apologize for their deadly plan which killed so many. They were quick to tell all that the failure was due to not abandoning more territory - which is why they now support Sharon's efforts to engage in Oslo 3. This is called Sharon's "Disengagement Plan".

Sharon is implementing his scheme to evict 8,500 men, women and children from their homes, farms, schools, synagogues, businesses and even their dead from their cemeteries. Interestingly, in an article by Gil Hoffman, titled: "Yahad Sends Condolences Over Arafat" he quotes Yehoshua Mor-Yosef spokesman of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Mor-Yosef accused Yahad (extreme Leftist Party led by Yossi Beilin) of "disengaging from the Jewish people in favor of the Palestinian people."

The idea promulgated time and again is that: by removing Jewish Settlers and gifting the Land to Arafat's Arab Muslim Palestinians would be sufficient appeased to enter a process of sincere negotiations. That this never happened before but it didn't stop the so-called "idea people" from regurgitating the slogan "Peace Process".

We remember when then Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu gave up 80% of Hebron to Arafat, hoping to pacify both Arafat and solidify support from the American Government/State Department. They immediately pocketed Netanyahu's gift and then said: "What else are you willing to give up?" Bibi was laughed at by the U.S. pro-Arab State Department. Netanyahu, like Rabin, Peres, Beilin and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak was certainly a part of the future dismemberment of Israel.

Barak also carried forth the ideology of the Labor Left to de-Judaize the only Jewish State of Israel and pacify the grandfather of Terrorism - Arafat. Barak made an offer of Israeli land of insane proportions - 97% of YESHA (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) with a major chunk of the holy sites of Jerusalem and surrounding land. Granted this little man, with no worldly experience, tried desperately to please then President Clinton who needed a political win in the Middle East for his re-election.

In defiance of the protests by the Settlers and the political Right, Barak offered to literally divide Israel. In re-partitioning Israel he, like Rabin and now Sharon, had to make the Settlers the hated enemy of peace. As you know, Arafat even rejected the offer and the "idea" of one temporarily empowered Prime Minister to gift half of Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, most of Israel's water resources and much more. Again the Settlers were the only clear thinkers and the Prime Minister showed himself to be a simpleton driven by an insatiable ego.

Sharon in some sick relationship with Shimon Peres and the Left has dusted off the Oslo Plan, now in its third iteration, which included demagoguery against what may be the very best of the Israeli people. The "Hate the Settlers" campaign is being conducted at every possible level. Nationally, the three Leftist Hebrew newspapers, TV stations and news radio pour out diatribe daily of how the Settlers stand in the way of Arab Muslim Palestinians eager for peace. Sharon is building a Wall or Fence intended to keep the Arab Muslim Palestinians from surging into Israel to hug Israel to death.

While Sharon and his gang with Peres and his gang vomit out the slogan of unity, in real terms, they both are working to divide the Jewish nation and the Jewish people. Both fuel the "Hate the Settlers" campaign while telling those who live near the sea how Peace would be almost upon them if only they rid themselves of those "Pioneering Settlers". ###

P.S. Does anyone think the incoming plague of locusts are carrying a message?

1. "Yahad Sends Condolence Over Arafat" by Gil Hoffman Jerusalem Post November 23, 2004

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, November 24, 2004.
Let me share with you what I cherish most of all in life. It's how much it resembles Hollywood movies. Like movies, life is full of subtle little hints tactfully disseminated throughout the action by the director. Thanks to those hints, life remains as pleasantly predictable as any suspense thriller. Tom Cruise will survive. Glen Close won't. She will sit up in the bathtub and Michael Douglas will have to drown her again. The cute little child will never be killed or disfigured. Isn't it comforting?

Let's say, a new character appears on the screen. He may look perfectly inoffensive. He may look as presidential as Walter Mondale, as grandfatherly as Jimmy Carter, and as cuddly as Bill Clinton - all at the same time. But the very first thing he does immediately unmasks him as a villain. Most likely, it won't be anything illegal or unethical. He betrays himself with something small, simple, perfectly innocent, something that's easy to overlook. For instance, he may light a cigarette. Any intelligent, educated moviegoer knows that good guys don't smoke unless, of course, played by John Travolta. But John Travolta looks neither presidential (his mouth is almost as excessive as Mick Jagger's), nor grandfatherly (too young), nor cuddly (too muscular). Obviously, you won't jump to conclusions at the first whiff of smoke. But you will watch the guy a bit more carefully, and, dollars to donuts, before the movie is over, he will prove himself as oblivious to morality as pubic lice are to oil prices.

In real life, it's not much more complicated than that. Consider, for example, the recent rumor that Bill Clinton is aspiring to replace Kofi Annan in 2006. At first glance, it is just another indication of our ex-president's well-known addiction to limelight. There is nothing wrong with it, really. Bill Clinton was a lousy president, but he is a brilliant politician, and what's a better place to play politics without substance than the UN? It's interesting though that the idea of the next career move came to him at the moment when the unbelievable scale of corruption at the UN is finally being exposed to the public. It's like watching the surfacing of a nuclear submarine in slow motion. Every moment, more of it comes in sight, and every moment you think that now there can't be much left, but the huge thing just keeps growing huger and huger, slowly rising from the dark depths like a Japanese movie monster, making you wonder whether you really want to be there for the final splash.

There are several ways Mr. Clinton could address the problem of corruption at the UN. For instance, he might have denounced its current practices and declare his firm intention to ruthlessly weed out everything that's rotten there. He could've promised that under his enlightened guidance the UN will no longer be supporting terrorism, whether ideologically or practically. On the other hand, thanks to the UN's support of terrorism, the Secretary General's office is less likely to be hit than even the Eiffel Tower. In addition, an entrepreneurial mind can easily predict that Saddam Hussein is not going to be the last genocidal dictator the UN will be supporting for fun and profit. Of course, Secretary General is not in a position to personally receive his fair share of the proceeds. He is however in a position to decide who will handle the money, and, therefore, we are bound to see Willie-the-Pooh happily smacking his sticky lips, no matter how far from the honey pot he seems to be positioned.

Which way will Mr. Clinton go? It would have been hard to predict had he himself not admitted to smoking. It doesn't matter whether he inhaled or not. Never mind Wag the Dog; he is no John Travolta. Besides, now we have allegations of gross sexual misconduct by the UN staff in Kenya. Come on, people! Be realistic! How much temptation can a red-blooded American ex-president withstand?

Then there is the inevitable question, why a former president of the United States would want to lead the second (after the Arab League) most anti-American organization in the world. I say, his next career move, if he does decide to make it, will be perfectly consistent with his entire presidency.

When I heard that Jimmy Carter was about to speak at the opening ceremony for Clinton's library, I found it perfectly expectable. Jimmy Carter is forever indebted to Bill Clinton. Without Clinton, Carter's presidency would have gone down in history as the most spectacular failure of its kind. What other president left behind the legacy of a double-digit inflation and an embassy full of people kidnapped by a bunch of savages? Those savages, by the way, wouldn't be able to put up even a token resistance if the United States decided to defend itself against their aggression. But the Coward-in-Chief never considered doing the right thing, and so the savages won. If I were looking for someone on our side to blame for 9/11, I would, without a slightest hesitation, point my finger at Jimmy Carter. After being forced out of the White House, Jimmy Carter developed a Jesse Jackson-like tendency to crawl without KO Jelly into every stinking crevice, never missing a chance to do harm to his country. For that he was awarded his Nobel Peace Prize. Ever since the Nobel Committee forever dishonored itself by awarding it to Yasser Arafat, I have been waiting for someone decent to publicly reject the prize, but decent people apparently never receive it. Jimmy Carter used his acceptance speech to bitterly attack his own country, proving that he was perfectly worthy of those who preceeded him on the list of laureats.

Obviously, being a worse president that himself was an uncommon achievement, but he couldn't possibly thank Bill Clinton for that! At least, not in public. He had to praise Clinton's accomplishments. Clinton's accomplishments were many, but not of the kind that would be appropriate to mention under the circumstances. Arming Communist China with our nuclear secrets, failing to take out bin Laden, bombing Yugoslavia out of existence, uselessly and needlessly appeasing our enemies, or arrogantly interfering in the Israeli elections did not seem fit for the occasion. Guess what? Carter praised Clinton for presiding over the historic handshake between Barak and Arafat. He didn't bother to explain how that event was an achievement rather than a photo-op. From my own perspective, that handshake crowned one of the worst failures of Clinton's foreign policy, outstanding even on the generally dismal background of his presidency. As soon as the photographers left, Arafat flatly, without explanation, rejected everything that was offered to him and hurriedly fled the premises. He had an intifada to run. A much less agile Madeline Halfbright followed him in desperate pursuit. She miserably failed to catch him, but gloriously succeeded in creating a brilliant metaphor for the American policy in the Middle East. Upon his return to the occupied Israeli territory, Arafat started a new war that marked new heights of inhumane cruelty even for Arabs and killed more than a thousand Israelis, most of them civilians, many of them children. That's by the way where all similarity between real life and Hollywood production abruptly ends. That cute little child is running a serious risk of being killed or disfigured if he is an Israeli, and most people on this planet believe that it is the child's own fault and cheer the murderers on.

According to newspapers, despite the rainy weather, tens of thousands of people attended the ceremony and heard Carter's outrageous claim. Nobody booed. They couldn't have sent a clearer message if they all lit up at the same time. At first glance, they all appeared impeccably human; their contented silence showed them to be a huge swarm of lice.

Some states seem to be infested heavier than the others. You probably heard about the guy from California who drowned a woman pregnant with his baby. He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail. But a guy from Massachusetts who also drowned a woman pregnant with his baby is going to spend the rest of his life in the US Senate. When an American soldier, God bless him, killed a wounded jihadist in Fallujah, they screamed for his blood; they would've probably lynched him had he not been serving in a hostile country, way out of their reach. When another American soldier needlessly killed a wounded Vietnamese teenager, they gave him a medal, sent him to the US Senate, and tried to make him President of the United States. Sounds crazy? I assure you there is method in their madness.

Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction were an idiotic excuse for our perfectly just war against Iraq. We didn't need an excuse, since 9/11 was neither a crime nor an isolated incident. It was one of the many battles of jihad, and we lost it. Osama bin Laden did not invent jihad; Mohammad did. It has been around as long as Islam itself. It is enjoying enthusiastic support of every observant Muslim in the world. Therefore, after 9/11, no military action by the United States of America against any Muslim country could be considered preventive. Too bad we didn't conduct a truly preventive war. Three thousand people would've been alive today, and the New York skyline would not have been scarred forever. The truth is, our war against Iraq is a defensive one, and you have to be a louse, both morally and intellectually to think that it constitutes an aggression.

Our lice call themselves liberals. They say they defend civil liberties. In fact, they are busily destroying this country, along with every liberty its people enjoy. Take the freedom of religion, for instance. When Muslims swarmed France, the French government outlawed headscarves in public schools. That measure was about as logical as freely admitting Nazi soldiers into the country provided they change into the French army uniforms before crossing the border. Well, maybe this is not such a good analogy, since the French admitted Nazis into their country unconditionally.

Take modern-day Germany. Concerned with propaganda of hatred incessantly spewing out of the mosques, the government is considering forcing the imams to deliver their sermons in German, instead of Arabic. From any reasonable perspective, this is a blatant violation of God only knows how many basic human freedoms, including the freedom of religion. The Germans are doing it because they know they cannot trust anyone who can speak Arabic, but they are not yet prepared to officially designate Muslim immigrants their enemies and kick them out of the country.

Peaceful, liberal, tolerant Holland, responding to the murder of Theo van Gogh, is contemplating just that, and I hope their common sense prevails, so they can take their little country back before it's too late.

Is the United States immune to these problems? You wish. A very similar murder was committed in this country 14 years ago, on November 5, 1990 when an Egyptian terrorist El Sayid Nossair gunned down Rabbi Meir Kahane of blessed memory in front of dozens of witnesses. Theo van Gogh was murdered for telling the truth about the abusive treatment of women in Islamic societies. Meir Kahane was murdered for telling the truth about the Arab war against Israel. Unlike Holland, the United States didn't arise from its slumber; it didn't even stir. El Sayid Nossair was acquitted of murder. Apparently, none of the witnesses actually saw the bullet leave Mr. Nossair's gun and enter Mr. Kahane's body. That's because the jury was composed of lice rather than men. However Mr. Nossair was jailed for gun possession. Piles of documents in Arabic confiscated at his residence remained untranslated and unread until the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Only then Nossair's participation in Islamic terrorist organizations was proven in court. The murder of Meir Kahane had been explained away by his alleged extremism, which made his demise, in essence, his own fault. Interestingly, neither the extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane nor his extremist followers ever killed anyone, attempted to kill anyone, or advocated killing anyone. They were simply telling the truth about the unending Arab war against Israel, and that truth was making Jewish lice as uncomfortable as Arabs. Fourteen years after Meir Kahane's murder, Arafat was eulogized as a freedom fighter. Lice win again.

And what about the freedom of religion in the United States? It forges ahead. We are removing the Ten Commandments from all public places. More and more municipalities outlaw public performance of Christmas songs. More and more municipalities outlaw public display of the nativity scene. No, I am not a Christian. But somehow, I feel that as long as Christians in this formerly Christian country are free to openly celebrate Christmas and Easter, I will be free to openly celebrate Hanukah and Passover. Ramadan is a totally different matter, for it is inevitably Islam that fills the vacuum left by the ongoing erosion of Christian traditions.

Thanks to the lice, 9/11, instead of causing the United States to outlaw Islam within its borders, resulted in its further proliferation. They assure us that Islam is an Abrahamic faith, a monotheistic religion. Folks, Abraham wouldn't dream up such an abomination even in an acid-induced nightmare. Islam has nothing to do with Abraham or Judaism. If Muslims believe they worship the same God as Jews do, why aren't Jews allowed to Mecca? And since they worship something entirely different, what does it matter to me whether they are monotheists of polytheists? The only thing that does matter is that forcing every human being on the planet to accept the ignorant beliefs of the most backward people in the world constitutes the very core, the very essence of Islam. Islam is imperialism of the primitive.

Suppose I decide to worship my own navel. I only have one navel; does it make me a monotheist? If I explain that I worship my navel because I expect the Messiah to come out of it one day, does it make my idiocy an Abrahamic faith? Can I now call Abraham the father of four religions? The answer is, you don't care. This is a free country, thank God. You may start caring though if I begin forcing you to bow to my "deity". Unless, of course, you are a louse.

The lice who usually know less nothing about Islam, are interested in it only to the extent that it is a powerful weapon against our country and our way of life. They assure us that Islam is a religion of peace and love. Christianity does not need to advertise itself that way. Judaism does not need to advertise itself that way. What's so different about Islam?

I'll tell you what. I abhor violence in all forms. At the same time, I prefer my steaks rare. Is there a contradiction? Only from the bovine perspective. In my own view, animals raised for food are not entitled for the same consideration as humans and their pets. It is exactly the same with Islam. Just like my rejection of violence, their love and peace are not universal. They embrace only some of Allah's creatures, and if you are not a Muslim, you will be treated like cattle.

I began with lice and ended with the worst enemies the United States has ever had to face. Can there be a connection?

Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/ or email ysagamori@hotmail.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Women in Green, November 24, 2004.
This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg.

the burial of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah had a profound impact on Jerusalem Post columnist Yosef Goell. Suddenly, Mr. Goell found the courage to admit the obvious, that the fictitious Palestinians do not deserve a state! Their use of children as human bombs to reduce Jews to body parts was not enough to awaken Mr. Goell from his dogmatic slumbers; no, it took a few Arabs to kill two Arabs at Arafat's funeral to arouse that somnolent political scientist...

For the past eleven years, Mr.Goell slept while Allah's pagan worshippers'the fictitious Palestinians' murdered more than 1,200 Jews. He slept while the fictitious Palestinians wounded some ten thousand more Jews, many of them maimed for life. He slept while these fictitious Palestinians traumatized many tens of thousands of Jewish children. But at last, he has awakened to say No to the Palestinian state which Prime Minister Sharon wants to bestow upon these murderous "Palestinians."

Of course, Israel's PM wants them to become normal human beings. Well, it's a bit too late for that, Mr. Sharon. It would take at least one or two generations to humanize these monsters. Israel is now confronted by pathological Jew-killers. This did not prevent Mr. Goell from advancing the idiotic solution: let Egypt take over Gaza and Jordan take over Judea and Samaria. Israel would then revert to the halcyon days preceding the Six-Day War!

Never mind that Egypt has been the primary arms supplier of these Jew-killers. Never mind what these killers would do to Jordan. And never mind JUSTICE, the grief and pain these Arab Nazis have brought to countless more Jews in Israel. Go back to sleep Mr. Goell!

So what should be done with these hate-filled Arabs, who elected Yasser Arafat as their leader, and who are therefore responsible for his evil deeds; indeed, did they not support his repeatedly announced jihad, to drive the Jews into the sea, hence to continue Hitler's genocidal solution to the "Jewish Problem"?

Before answering this question, let me cite, as I have in the past, these words of a reputed pacifist, Albert Einstein:: - "The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding."

Einstein's words apply to the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians." Therefore, I propose that the present government be toppled by a general strike, and that its pusillanimous prime minister be replaced by one with sufficient backbone to implement the words of the American Civil War General Philip Henry Sheridan (1831-1888) - I mean a prime minister who would "deal as hard blows to the enemies' soldiers as possible, and then cause so much suffering to the [Arab] inhabitants - that they will long for peace and press their government to make it. ... Nothing [Sheridan concluded], should be left to the people [i.e., these Arabs] but eyes to lament the war." You will then see a steady stream of these Arabs - who will find no jobs in Israel - voluntarily leaving for other climes. That's right, war is hell.

And to Arik's successor I say, loud and clear: "Know that the only way to win the war against the fictitious Palestinians is to make them feel they are descending into hell rather than ascending to heaven where 72 virgins await them." Hey! Did you hear that Mr. Goell?

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 24, 2004.
This was written by Nir Boms and Erick Stakelbeck. Mr. Boms is vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East. Mr. Stakelbeck is senior writer at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counter-terrorism research institute.

With Yasser Arafat's death, Europe has lost its oldest and dearest Arab despot. But the race to replace him as the European Union's favored Middle East tyrant has already begun -- and we seem to have a winner. Late last month, just days before Arafat was flown to Paris to receive medical treatment, the European Commission and Syria signed an "Association Agreement" that strengthened Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad's iron grip on power. Amazingly, this significant development was all but ignored by the Western media.

Over the past several months, a combination of American sanctions, pressure from Syrian pro-democracy activists and a long overdue U.N. resolution (co-sponsored by France and the U.S.) calling for the immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon had seriously weakened Assad's regime. His continued support for Islamist terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq, combined with Syria's struggling economy and high unemployment rate, only made matters worse for the young dictator.

But just in his hour of greatest despair, the EU inexplicably came to his rescue, providing Assad with a much-needed life line. The association agreement between the EU and Syria, signed in Brussels on Oct. 19, completed the EU's "Euro-Mediterranean Partnership" to strengthen economic and political ties in the region. The EU cited Syria's supposedly newfound commitment to fight terrorism and promote human rights to justify the deal with Damascus. The facts, however, don't support the EU's view of things -- Syria's record in these two areas is abysmal.

Although the Bush administration has repeatedly warned Assad to stop the infiltration of terrorists from Syria into Iraq and close the Damascus offices of terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, little has changed in this regard. In recent weeks, American troops stationed along Iraq's border with Syria have complained of mortar attacks directed at U.S. and Iraqi positions from within Syrian territory, presumably by Islamist terrorists. While it's unlikely that the Syrian military is directly involved in these attacks, they could certainly not take place without the military's tacit support. Syria is a tightly controlled police state based on the same Baa'th ideology of Saddam's Iraq -- nothing happens there without approval from Damascus.

Despite repeated American warnings, the Assad regime has chosen to promote chaos in Iraq, with some reports even suggesting that remnants of the Iraqi Baa'th Party are directing the terror and insurgency there from within Syria. The announcement on Nov. 7 by Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara that Syria plans to sign a border cooperation deal with the new Iraqi government in the coming months will do little to allay American concerns. Indeed, American troops reportedly had to close a portion of the Iraq/Syria border due to security issues. And earlier this month, Iraqi government television broadcast the confessions of 19 foreign insurgents captured in Iraq, five of whom were Syrian.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect is a story the Washington Times reported in late October. According to the paper, Russian special forces, working with Iraqi intelligence, had moved a large cache of arms from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa facility to Syria at the outset of the Iraq War. This report followed months of speculation that Iraqi WMDs had been transported to Syria by Saddam Hussein's regime just prior to the U.S. invasion. In addition, a report in German daily Die Welt last month said that Syria, in conjunction with the Sudanese government, had recently tested chemical weapons on Sudanese civilians in the embattled Darfur region, murdering dozens.

This brings us to another serious problem: Syria's WMDs programs. In testimony before the U.S. House International Relations Committee, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said that Syria has one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East, with "a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles." Mr. Bolton also stated that Syria is "continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability" and has developed long-range Scud missiles with which to deliver them. The fight against WMD proliferation is, at least officially, one of the EU's main foreign policy priorities. So there was much squabbling about the precise wording of the clause in the agreement designed to commit the Syrians to the same goals. In the end, however, the parties agreed on very vague language and the agreement itself lacks any monitoring system to verify Syrian compliance. Europe's answer to the threat of WMDs in the hands of ruthless dictators with close ties to terrorists is to present them with a lucrative free trade agreement. In exchange the Europeans receive an unverifiable promise from the dictator to behave and "to take action towards" signing international non-proliferation treaties. The world is still waiting, by the way, for Assad to honor another treaty obligation, the one his father gave 15 years ago to leave Lebanon.

On the human rights front, things don't look much better. Since coming to power in 2000, Assad has often spoken of fostering a more open, democratic society and of respecting the rights of all Syrians. But despite Assad's flowery rhetoric, Syria remains a bastion of repression.

Just last month, Syrian authorities closed down a leading pro-democracy website, www.liberalsyria.com, and arrested its founder, Nabil Fayyed, on the specious charge of "publishing forbidden content." The following week, a prominent Syrian Kurdish pro-democracy activist, Mas'oud Hamid, was sentenced to five years in prison for his alleged involvement in a vaguely defined "secret organization." Of course, neither Mr. Hamid nor Mr. Fayyed received mention in the 1450-page association agreement, which demands from Syria to respect human rights and democratic principles.

From its stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Iraq and beyond, the EU -- in its push to become a global counterweight to the United States -- has proven more than willing to embrace tyrants and terrorists. In helping to revitalize the Assad regime, the EU has not only let down all the courageous pro-democracy activists who are risking their lives in Syria -- it has also made the world less safe.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Norbert Lipszyc, November 24, 2004.
This message comes from the Justice for Jonathan Pollard group (Justice4JP@aol.com). It was issued Sunday, November 21, 2004. It has been translated from the Hebrew. The original can be read at http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1998/051198d.htm

To Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

Re: November 21, 2004 (Chet Kislev)- Jonathan Pollard begins 20th Year of incarceration

Shalom rav!

We the Piduay Shevi, (Redeemed Hostages/P.O.W.s); the Assirei Machteret (Prisoners of the Underground); and former Asserei Tzion (Prisoners of Zion) who have been imprisoned and held captive because of our actions on behalf of the State of Israel, identify with and want to express our support for Jonathan Pollard. On November 21, 2004 (Chet Kislev) Pollard will enter his 20th year of a life sentence for his activities on behalf of Israel.

As you are aware, Mr. Prime Minister, Jonathan Pollard is serving the longest, harshest sentence in the history of the United States of anyone who was ever charged with a similar offense, spying for an ally. The median sentence for this offense is 2 to 4 years, with some receiving no jail time at all. Pollard, a Jew, who worked on behalf of the Jewish State, is the only person in the history of the U.S. to receive a life sentence for this offense.

The State of Israel has never protested Jonathan's grossly disproportionate sentence or his harsh treatment. As his continued incarceration proves, Israel has done little or nothing for the last 2 decades to bring him home.

As you are also well aware Mr. Prime Minister, in response to lawsuits filed in Israel's Supreme Court by Jonathan Pollard, the Government of Israel finally stopped the denials and granted Jonathan Pollard Citizenship in 1995 and recognized him as a bona fide Israeli agent in 1998. These major changes in Jonathan's official status were tools and opportunities for the Government of Israel to secure Jonathan's immediate release, the same way that it did for our agents who were captured in Switzerland, in Jordan, in Cyprus, and most recently in New Zealand. Unfortunately the Government of Israel chose not to act on behalf of Pollard in the same intensive way, and on November 21, 2004 he will enter his 20th year of incarceration for his activities on behalf of the Jewish State.

As Prime Minister, it is incumbent upon you to do whatever is necessary to bring Jonathan Pollard home at once, and thus end the humiliation and degradation of the People of Israel. We urge you to immediately activate the Ministry of Defense and to implement all the necessary resources to secure the release of Jonathan Pollard that you recently expended to bring Elchanan Tanenbaum home. We urge you to take immediate and serious steps so that Pollard can be home in the Land with his wife and his People in plenty of time to light Chanukah Candles as a free man. As the Prime Minister of Israel whose legal and moral obligation it is to rescue an Israeli agent in peril, you can do no less.

Respectfully yours,


Assirei Machteret (Former Prisoners of the Underground Organizations)

Signing on behalf of their respective groups or organizations:
Tuvia Chen Tzion - Head of the the Lechi Fighters Group (Amutah)
Avraham Ben-Har - Representative of Lechi Fighters Condemned to Death
Yitzchak Even-Zohar - Representative of Escapees Who Tunneled out of Latrun
Pinchas Ginosar - Representative Prisoners Exiled to Kenya
Yehudit Ginosar - Beit Lechem Prisoner
Ezriel Livnat - Acco Prisoner; Exiled to Erithria
Geula Cohen - Beit Lechem Prisoner
Baruch Guttmacher - Representative of the Prisoners of Zion of the Etzel Group

Piduay Shevi (Redeemed Hostages/ P.O.WS)

Margalit Cohen - Egypt 1973
Chezi Shai - Lebanon 1982
David Avudraham - Egypt 1973
Oded Zamir -Egypt 1973
Yaacov Gur - Egypt 1973
Uri Aharonfeld - Egypt 1973
Sami Ben Abu - Egypt 1973
Beni Finestein - Egypt 1973
Dudi Biton - Egypt 1973
Rafi Eldan - Egypt 1973
Charley Ben Kassom - Egypt 1973
Yisasschar Ben Daniel - Egypt 1973
Yaacov Bronfeld - Egypt 1973
Ovadia Gavriel - Egypt 1973
Ido Goldhecht - Egypt 1973
Dani Gilboa - Lebanon 1982
Arik Ginosar - Egypt 1973
Fezi Hirshtock - Egypt 1973
Yosef Weiss - Egypt 1973
David Ziv -- Egypt 1948
Yitzchak Carmel - Egypt 1973

Assirei Tzion (Prisoners of Zion)

Yosef Mendelovitch - Jerusalem
Shlomo Dreizner - Jerusalem
Yaacov Soflenski - Jerusalem
David Maayan - Moshav Arugot
Ezriel Kotzoviski - Rechovot
Alexander Razgon - Jerusalem

Organizations and Groups

Amutah Assirei Lechi [The Lechi Fighters Organization] - representing 158 members

Amutah Arim B'Layla -- representing 250 members of the Israel Defense Forces, former Prisoners of War.

See Also:
The Jewish Unity Page http://www.jonathanpollard.org/unity.htm
The Calls for Pollard's Release Page
Document: Official Recognition as An Agent by the State of Israel (1998)
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1998/051198d.htm Hebrew Text: Former Hostages, P.O.W.s, & Prisoners of Zion Appeal for Pollard (PDF format)
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ (coming soon!)*

Norbert Lipszyc can be reached at irl@club-internet.fr. This message was distributed by the Jewish Community of France organization (Communaute-Juive-France-owners@yahoogroupes.fr).

To Go To Top
Posted by Ken Heller, November 23, 2004.

This is a message from Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director of International Christian Zionist Center in Jerusalem.

The U.S. backed and European pressurized Road Map for "peace" may result for Israel in:

1. The surrender of most of the Golan, Gaza Judea and Samaria.

2. Civil war among the Israelis.

3. No true peace but a stage towards the further dismantling of the State of Israel.

4. No secure borders.

5. Gaza, Judea and Samaria turned into terrorist bases like southern Lebanon with all the resulting unnecessary bloodshed.

6. No more land enough of Israel for all the Jews who have not yet emigrated to come back to.

7. A total unwillingness for all Arab Muslim Nations to make peace with Israel without Jerusalem becoming the Muslim Palestinian capital!

If we do not want this to happen we have to fight it now with all our endeavor.

Ken Heller is a pro-Israel activist and a member of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For A Safe Israel. He can be reached at kjhnha@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 23, 2004.

Israel is apparently a democratic country, and those who dispute this are not taken seriously. Every few years we all put a voting slip in the ballot box, the various parties compete for our votes, the elected representatives take up their new jobs, the losers give up theirs. So how can it be argued that Israel isn't a democracy? However, a strong sense of totalitarianism is felt by a broad section of the public.

Some people associate this feeling with external defects in the Israeli method of government, an accusation that is well justified. Israel is one of the few countries in the world in which regional elections are not held, so that the elected representative is not obligated to the voter but to his party. Furthermore, the judicial branch in Israel is in fact an oligarchy far above the people, that appoints and perpetuates itself, promotes values and interests remote from the basic values of the nation, and makes increasing inroads into the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Consequently the gut feeling regarding the real nature of Israeli democracy is well founded.

However, the method of government is only a symptom of the problem. Israeli totalitarianism is not one of people. A far more sophisticated form of repression is involved - totalitarianism of ideas.

Let's imagine a game with dice. Each child in turn tosses the dice, and records the results. To their surprise the children see that they get the same result all the time. They realize that something is wrong, and decide to check the dice. It turns out that the same number appears on all the faces.

This is more or less what happens in Israeli democracy. You can go and vote, or in other words participate in the game and throw the dice. You can replace the people in government, thus allowing the dice to fall in a different way from the previous time. But you can't change the number appearing. On all faces of the Israeli dice the same ideas are engraved.

On four different occasions the national camp has created an alternative leadership to the Left. In the first turnaround in 1977 Menahem Begin came to power.

Begin, an ideologist of the first rank, promised to set up "many Alonei Moreh", and then rapidly handed over all of Sinai, destroyed an Israeli city and an entire region of settlements. He was succeeded by Shamir, who valiantly resisted the continuation of the drift, but was in the end enticed into agreeing to the Madrid Conference, that formed the opening for the Oslo process.

Netanyahu, a gifted person, was elected in order to halt the madness of Oslo. This time also the dice fell on the right side from the personal aspect, and Peres lost the contest - but the result was the continuation of precisely the same process. The last to appear in the gallery of leaders of the right was Ariel Sharon, the great general and builder of the country. He contested Mitzna, who supported unilateral withdrawal. Here also Sharon won personally, but implemented the ideas of his defeated opponent.

These four leaders were not trivial figures. Apart from Ben-Gurion, the Left has never succeeded in putting forward leaders having such ideology, persistence, ability, military record, and capability of getting things done.

It seems that in Israel the voters can choose between people (if only to a limited extent) but not between ideas. We need hardly say that democracy is designed to permit choosing between different people, in order to advance different ideas. The moment this principle was eliminated from Israeli public life, democracy turned into a means of handing out power and benefits. This is the explanation of the despair and lack of trust displayed by Israeli society towards its elected representatives and its democratic system. This is also the reason for the contempt displayed by the Prime Minister for the most fundamental principles of a democratic regime, for the aid he receives from the media and the judicial system for this behavior, and the inability of public opinion to influence this dictatorship.

The Left claims that because the Right is in the end always forced to implement their policy, this proves the correctness of their views. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that not only is the Right unable to act otherwise, but in fact does not possess, and never has possessed, another ideology.

The national camp certainly has different intentions, and has authentic links with Eretz Israel and its Jewish identity. But it has never had an ideological basis permitting it to meet the challenges presented by reality to the Jewish people in this country.

The fundamental tenet of Zionism, based on solution of the Jewish problem by means of a state awarding it entry to the family of nations - that is, by becoming a nation like all the others - is common to both the Right and the Left. The Left has attempted to implement this solution by blurring the distinction between nations ("integration in the region", to quote Shimon Peres). Jabotinsky wished to implement this solution using a diametrically opposed approach - integration in the family of nations by nationalist self-determination.

In one way or another, the people in Israel can only choose a single idea - that of being a nation like all the others.

The religious parties don't even participate in the game, since they propose a religion divorced from history, not a culture acting inside it.

Manhigut Yehudit is currently acting inside the national framework created by Jabotinsky. Obviously this framework is based on a real concept of nationalist self- determination, but the Jewish people is not just another nation. It has an exceptional history, other roots, and a different objective. The Jewish spirit introduced by

Manhigut Yehudit creates a new idea. If the idea succeeds in advancing and presenting itself for real choice, Israel will cast off the chains of the totalitarianism of ideas and become a democracy, or more precisely a state of liberty.

(For more on this subject, view the article Democratic, Because it's Jewish: http://www.zionet.co.il/manhigut/en/view_article_manhigut_en.php3?article_id=425.)

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 Go To Top
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, November 23, 2004.

The popular and outspoken former IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, known as Raful, drowned this morning at the Ashdod port. He was 75. This is one of Raful's last interviews, reported in Arutz-7. It was with the "Iton Tel Aviv" newspaper in January of this year and was reprinted by Ynet today.

My opinion is that all these efforts [referring to Sharon's disengagement plan - ed.] are for naught. With the Arabs, we will never be able to make peace... This is a struggle between civilizations. We are a foreign culture, and in my opinion, Islam will never make peace with our foreign entity, and with the fact that it has political independence and even defeats them in wars. They'll never agree...

"[President Moshe Katzav] is mistaken: Assad's hand is not outstretched in peace. He might be trying some tricks so that the Americans won't do to him what they did to Iraq. Nothing more. What, he'll make peace with us? ... Does anyone really think that we should deposit our fate in the hands of a lone ruler, a dictator, who is alive today and tomorrow he's dead? ... I can prove that whoever thinks that concessions, compromises, 'Geneva,' Ami Ayalon's plan, are what will change the Middle East situation - in my opinion is mistaken. The Arabs, very cleverly, bring our people to think that they have changed their ways... The Arabs wage negotiations with us in three ways: pretense, deception, and violence."

Asked what would have to happen for him to change his mind, Raful said, "If all the Arab leaders say, 'We're sick of you, we're taking some distance from you, we'll give you territories in exchange for peace, and leave us alone.' On that day, I'll admit that I was wrong [in saying that they would never make peace]."

"What, they should give us territories in exchange for peace?" he was asked

"Why not?" Raful responded. "Why should we, who are so small, give land to those who are so big, for something uncertain? We should have said this from the outset. But did anyone ever think that this [Exile-like] leadership would make such a request?... A leadership that does not insist on its honor, and has no national honor. We should pay for having defeated them in wars that they started? Where's the logic, the straight thinking?"

Raful had sharp words for the left-wing and HaShomer HaTza'ir: "I can count 30 kibbutzim of HaShomer HaTza'ir that are sitting on Arab land. You know what, this is the most hypocritical movement that I can imagine... When Stalin died, they lowered the flag in the kibbutzim to half-mast. Sir, this just shows that the true root is missing."

Towards the end of the interview, Raful said, "Forget about politics. Let's just summarize the two most important things for me in this interview. First, that all the people you photographed on the breakwater should appear in the newspaper. Otherwise, they'll tell me, 'They take pictures of us, and we want to show the pictures at home, but there's nothing there.' And second, the seagulls too."

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben-Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2004.


"The wreckers loose in our own society - the arrogant judges, the academic deconstructors, the teacher-union multiculturalists, the media guilt-mongers, the love-the-world pacifists, the criminal-lovers and family-breakers, the inventors of bogus rights and destroyers of cherished traditions, the haters of normality and scoffers at restraint, the enterprise-destroying litigators and pain feelers." (Andrew Sullivan, NY Sun, 11/12, p.15 from John Derbyshire.)

It is interesting that he omits what so-called conservatives do wrong, such as waste energy, pollute, and subsidize big corporations. Neither does he mention how much the Republicans, who are "reaching out" to other groups, favor excessive immigration, quotas and preferences called "affirmative action," etc..

Each side sees only what appears to be the other's excesses, not their good points or one's own bad ones.


When an Arab journalist suggested to Arafat that Oslo would end the Palestinian Arab cause, Arafat countered with the assertion that Oslo was the first nail in the Zionist coffin (IMRA, 11/16).

Since then, there have been more than a thousand Zionist coffins. Arafat saw ahead. So did the anti-Zionist State Dept. Why didn't the Israeli politicians?


They see signs of America's decline. What signs? They did not elaborate (IMRA, 11/16).

I see signs of US over-extension. The US is wasteful. It consumes, gives away, or destroys its natural resources. Americans look for an ever-softer life, though it be harder on their health.

On the other hand, there are signs of economic decline in Iran. Both declines should be discussed more in public, here. They are important.


Charlotte Carson, a member of ISM, was banned from Israel. Israel recently deported her, after she had sneaked in under a false name. It is a common ISM tactic.

She was banned after it was found that during previous visits, she disrupted Israeli Army activities. For example, during a night ambush, she shined a flashlight on the soldiers, endangering them in hostile territory, and foiling their mission. She confronted an Israeli security force attempting to arrest a fugitive in Nablus. She also participated in violent demonstrations against erection of the security fence (IMRA, 11/16).

When she participated in riots, she should have been punished, then deported. When she shone the flashlight on the soldiers, they should have shot her. She was at that time not a civilian but a combatant, assisting terrorists. Israel has been too gentle with foreign auxiliaries of the terrorists.

Some people imagine that Israel has formidable propaganda capability. How did they came to that conclusion about a state that has almost no propaganda capability? Ironically, the Arabs refer to "the Zionist propaganda machine." If Israel understood how to make propaganda, it would have gotten the story out that Rachel Corrie was a terrorist auxiliary, as is ISM, and her accidental death that she induced was deserved. Instead, many think her a heroine.


Think that is a simple question? Then read this news brief. While Sudanese diplomats were negotiating peace, their government sent the Arab militias (and government troops) on a rampage in Western Sudan. The government ignored two UN Security Council resolutions threatening sanctions, and no sanctions were imposed.

Now plans are being made for a Nairobi summit, as the Sudanese government attacks refugee camps. The government not only did not disband the Arab militias, it absorbed them into the official forces to "guard" the camps of the people they had burned out of their homes.

Sudan isn't worried about the UN. China would veto any strong resolution against Sudan. China is interested in keeping Sudan's oil flowing to it. The racist and anti-Christian genocide goes on. Only the US might be able to stop it (NY Sun, 11/12, Ed.).

What do people think negotiations are for, to make peace? Not for Islamists. They are either to get concessions or to stave off sanctions.

Pres. Bush should ask Senate Democrats what they advise. Otherwise, if he doesn't take action, they would criticize him for it. If he does take action, they would criticize him for it. Let him get them to commit themselves.

They would advise getting the approval of the "international community." How? China paralyzes the Security Council. France and Germany would oppose the US, to teach America a lesson, regardless of the lives lost. The UN has exposed itself, the latest time being over the oil-for-food program, as being inept and dishonest. Britain would demand that the US sacrifice other foreign policy principles and peoples, in return for its support. Half the coalition we had in Iraq pulled out its forces, after terrorists struck its people. Many other countries lack military forces. China, Egypt, ad N. Korea, now they possess large armed forces. Use them?


The Israeli media reported Pres. Bush as making formation of another Palestinian Arab state his first priority. IMRA notes that the first goal he stated was to end terrorism (though he stated it in muted form). IMRA went on to remark that granting the P.A. statehood would very likely increase terrorism, the same kind that the US is fighting in the field (IMRA, 11/16). If Pres. Bush were sincere, he'd issue an ultimatum with a short deadline.


They remembered that Arafat celebrated on hearing of the assassination of Egypt's President Sadat. Arafat called Pres. Sadat a traitor and an agent (IMRA, 11/16 from MEMRI). Sadat had taken away most of Israel's strategic depth. Islamists resented that Sadat was satisfied with an Israeli promise for Arafat's Arabs and seemed to have recognize Israel, though he called it a ruse. Almost every seemingly constructive Arab diplomacy turns out to be a ruse.


The Israeli Secret Service regularly spies, and on right wing and religious Israelis. It planted an agent in a yeshiva, to await further instructions. He became heavily involved in the yeshiva's religious affairs, married, and began raising a family. After some years, his handlers contacted him with instructions, but by that time he preferred the religious life. He told them he no longer would work for them. This is not the only such case (Arutz-7, 11/16).

The Secret Service spies on Israelis hardly in order to maintain security, and mostly in order to induce or fabricate right-wing plots, so that it can discredit or stifle opposition to left-wing plots to cede much of the patrimony to the Arabs. Israeli leftists long have been violent and subversive.


So concludes the US. The Assad regime sent insurgents about $800 million dollars, out of the billion dollars in Saddam regime assets in Syrian banks. Most of that money resulted from Iraqi smuggling of arms and oil and from rake-offs from the UNO oil-for-food program (IMRA, 11/17).

What will the US do about Syria? Will it keep [pretending that the key to peace is "resolving" the Arab-Israel conflict, or recognize that it is quelling jihad and ending dictatorship?

What was in the trucks that Saddam's son sent out of Iraq, shortly before, or during, the US invasion? He had just seized a billion dollars from the treasury.


Congress has discovered that Saddam exploited the UNO oil-for-food program more than realized. The previous estimate of how much illegal income he extracted had been $10 billion. The new estimate is $21 billion. Conniving with him were corrupt UN officials and companies protected by Security Council members such as Russia and France.

Some of the illegal income now may be financing Saddam's troops fighting against US forces (as an earlier news brief explained). Congressional investigators have gotten little cooperation from UNO investigators. This debacle makes it questionable whether the UNO can enforce sanctions and administer aid programs (Jamie Dettner, NY Sun, 11/16, p.1).


Oleiros City has erected a sign against PM Sharon, "Let's Stop the New Nazis!" It refers to his forces attacking Palestinian Arabs. It's not antisemitic, says the Mayor -- his sons' two best friends are Jewish (Arutz-7, 11/17). Maybe some of his best friends are Jewish antisemites.

The Palestinian Arabs attack Jewish civilians. Sometimes Sharon lets Israeli forces fight back. In that, the Arabs are the criminals, and the Jews are the victims sometimes retaliating. The sign should refer to the totalitarian Arabs, who admire the Nazis, accept Nazi propaganda, hate the Jews, and are trying to exterminate them. When I read that the sign was intended against PM Sharon, I thought it was for his plans to round up the Jews of Gaza and parts of Samaria and dispossess them, while his government defames them. When I came across the alleged reason, I wondered what news is reported to the Spanish and why they accept it.


NATO has proposed a joint exercise with Israel. NATO would inject its troops into the Territories, ostensibly to maneuver with Israel. NATO has assured Israel that it would not attempt to keep its troops there, after the exercise, the way Syria kept its peacekeepers in Lebanon after ending the civil war there. If Israel accepted the offer, NATO probably would keep its forces there, so as to block Israeli defense against terrorism and enable the terrorists to have free reign and to become an independent country. Israel cannot trust NATO (of known hostility to Israel).

The "NY Times" wonders whether trust can be restored between the P.A. and Israel. Every time Israel was asked to trust the P.A., Arabs murdered Israelis. (Not trust but naivete or treason.)

Israelis cannot trust their Prime Minister, either. He has been advised that his withdrawal plan would enable terrorists to bombard Israeli cities. Nevertheless, he pushes on. When that bombardment starts, he will become the most hated Israeli. How can someone like Sharon, who lacks Jewish ethics, be entrusted with the Jewish state? (Winston Mid East Analysis, 11/18.)


The Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives is a government-subsidized, NGO coalition of churches and religious organizations that seeks justice locally, nationally, and internationally. Like many NGOs, it takes a political stance on the Arab-Israel conflict. It stands with the Arabs. (The Arabs are the aggressors. They commit injustice against the Jews, and, as a dictatorship, against their own people. Those real injustices cry out for NGO attention, but don't get it.)

The NGO objects to Israel's target assassination because, like suicide bombing, it destroys trust between the two sides. The objection posits a moral equivalence between Arab crimes against humanity and Israel's pursuit of those terrorist criminals. It cites as its own the Arab explanation for the conflict -- Israeli "occupation" -- although the conflict preceded Israel's presence in the Territories. (The real source is intolerance, jihad, and imperialism.) "Trust?" Does the NGO mean that the Arabs should be able to trust Israel to let terrorists murder its people?

The group asks both sides to end violence. (There should be more violence by Israel, to destroy terrorism. If the Arabs, who are the aggressors, ended violence, naturally, Israel would. The aggressors are obliged to end violence first, not defenders under threat.)

Those were moral and legal misjudgments by the NGO. Nor does the group get straight the facts on which to base judgment. It claims that the UN requires Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders. (Not Security Council Resolution 242.) The NGO also claims that Israel's neighbors accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Syria and Lebanon do not at all. Egypt and Jordan boycott Israel diplomatically and in other ways. Egypt is preparing for war against Israel. S. Arabia illicitly moved warplanes near Israel. The P.A. is at war with Israel -- it does not accept a Jewish state.)

The NGO denounces other Israeli defense measures, too, such as house demolitions, that it calls a war crime, and to the security fence. In numerous letters to the Canadian government, it pursues its radical ideology in the vocabulary of human rights. One letter criticizes the Foreign Minister for referring to Israeli deaths as due to terrorism and Arab deaths as due to the war. The NGO objects because such wording suggests that the former is criminal and the latter are unfortunate facts of life. (Well, aren't they? The deaths of terrorists are not unfortunate. Deaths of Arab civilians may or may not be unfortunate, depending on how supportive they have been of terrorism, which most are. But that is my own opinion that few people would admit to.)

The group endorsed the long-ago disproved claim that Ariel Sharon was culpable for the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla. (Why doesn't it get angry at the Phalange that committed it or at the PLO that committed worse massacres in Lebanon?) It blames the failure of peace efforts on some imagined feud between Sharon and Arafat. (Sharon only recently came into power after a hiatus of decades. That leaves Arafat fault.) It supposes that Sharon really is scheming to move the Arabs out of Judea-Samaria. (He has gone far with plans on moving some Jews out by force. He gave no indication of planning to move Arabs out.)

The organization tries to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish state by pointing out that 2/3 of Jews do not live in it. (That may be said for Ireland, too.) It tries to drum up sympathy for the Arab aggressors in the 1948 war by falsely claiming that Israel had many more troops than the Arabs. (As if that gives the aggressors a better moral slate! That claim arose from historical revisionists' false use of statistics, counting civil guards who were non-combatants).

The group's educational pamphlet downplays the constant PLO-P.A. terrorism by pointing out that "sometimes" it committed attacks on civilians in Israel. That would seem to approve of attacks on civilians in the Territories. That is the Arab view. (It should not be a Christian humanitarian, Canadian, or international lawyer's view.) The pamphlet reveals its bias most cruelly in its section on psychological damage from the war, which takes up, sympathetically, problems the Arabs have and totally ignores psychological problems for the thousands of Israeli victims of terrorism. (Think of the numerous Israeli orphans!) Then there is the misleading and unsubstantiated claim that Arabs attempting to harvest olives in the Territories are shot at and sometimes killed by Israeli residents (IMRA, 11/17 from NGO Monitor). Terrorists use the groves for cover. When they act suspiciously and seem to be creeping up on the Jews, naturally they draw fire. The NGO failed to mention that.

The church NGO's pro-Arab bias is extensive and total. It favors terrorists against Jews.


Sec. Powell said, "We've got good relations with China, the best, perhaps, in decades, good relations with India, with Pakistan, with the Russian Federation." "And all of this, I think, is the result of our foreign-policy efforts over the last four years, under Pres. Bush's leadership." (Luiza Ch. Savage, NY Sun, 11/16, p.6). He means, under his own leadership.

Relations with China, Pakistan, and Russia endanger our national security. The Bush Administration, which is supposed to be good in foreign policy, allowed some of this problem and fails to recognize some of it. It probably also is lying.

China relentlessly drives towards regional hegemony, and for ill. The US makes no counter-moves. It allows dictatorial, imperialist China to demand US concessions on democratic Taiwan in exchange for its phony diplomatic assistance in curbing N. Korean nuclear proliferation. The negotiations are protracted (a typical Communist tactic by N. Korea and, I believe, by China) over these years of supposed Chinese influence in N. Korea. The US has not been forceful against N. Korea. The only sensible move was the long-delayed pull back of US forces from the Koreas' border, where they served, in a callous US policy, as a "tripwire." The alternatives available to the US are dreadful, but delay exacerbates them.

A major proportion of US imports are from China. That gives the US great leverage with China, for the US is fueling its economic and therefore its military expansion. Other countries would readily replace those imports, if we invited them to.

An inhibiting factor on US policy is multilateralism. The Security Council, where China, Russia, and France possess anti-American vetoes, is the wrong arena for US decision-making on issues vital to US security. Nevertheless, the US government was pressured by its media and political rivals to waste valuable years before that Council, which waters down any hard, effective resolutions, as on Iraq, Iran, and Sudan. It dilutes them, because those three permanent members make money selling to rogue states, France envies the US, and China wishes to overtake the US.

China and Russia continue to spread military technology to other rogue states. Sometimes China and Russia sound conciliatory about it, and sometimes they sound defiant. It is difficult to tell whether Russia's motive solely is mercenary. Nevertheless, the absence of warlike language does not mean that the Cold War is over. Those two major countries are waging one against us. They are setting up other countries to take us down. So much for good relations!

Russia might change, as it suffers from Islamist terrorism. There are some signs that Pres. Putin recognizes the danger of jihad. Whether he will warm up towards the US fight against it enough to stop assisting Iran in it, remains to be seen. Time is running out, on that. Russia may exploit the fear of jihad to recapture for its sphere of influence neighboring Muslims republics. The present and predecessor Administrations missed a great opportunity to dissolve Russia's surplus nuclear weaponry, by giving Russia too little money to do much. Whatever our relations with Russia, Russia remains a source of pilfered weaponry that may get into Islamist hands.

China faces Muslim and nationalist unrest, too, but does not seem likely to be upset by it.

Pakistan does some fighting against Islamist terrorists, but has not curbed its military element that continues cooperating with al-Qaeda. Neither does it close or reform its madrassas, that S. Arabia still subsidizes. It is playing a double game. The US seems unaware of it. The US would rather pretend that there is no problem with Pakistan. Pakistan is a failed country. It may be unsalvageable. The US probably does not have enough money to replace its madrassas' curriculum with education rather than indoctrination.

The election is over. Will the new Secretary of State be realistic or pretend that all is well?


Arafat is gone, his alter ego, Abu Mazen, is in charge, and the powers that be are pretending that this is a great change and an opportunity to make peace. The new head of the P.A. wears a suit, so he must be civilized. Therefore, he proposes the old Islamic ruse of truce with the infidels, knowing that the infidels naively mistake truce for peace, while the believers use the truce to rebuild shattered military forces. Abu Mazen doesn't disarm his terrorists, he just asks them not to display their arms in public (and draw Israeli fire).

PM Sharon does not demand that the terrorists be disarmed either. He is ready to resume negotiations with them if they stop the incitement against Israel and some other long-term irritant. While he is negotiating terms favorable to the Arabs, the Arabs would be extending the range of their rockets and building more of them. When the truce ends, their bombardment of Israel begins. The terrorists would be able to recruit and train without Israeli hindrance, because Israel does not know enough, or care enough, to make recruitment and training a violation of the truce (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/18)

PM Sharon has agreed to let foreign powers retrain and rearm the P.A. army, without P.A. reforms. He must be worth 5 army divisions to the Arabs, now.


All over the world, people are in a state of denial about the menace of jihad. They rationalize that it doesn't exist, their Muslims are different, their neutrality is recognized, and their technology is more advanced. What wakes them up to their danger? Attacks that mock their denial. "Education by murder," Daniel Pipes calls it.

Despite a number of attacks on the US, it took the large-scale 9/11 attack to wake up America. The Bali explosion got Australians to perceive the problem. The bombing of Madrid alerted Spaniards (who nevertheless voted for appeasement). The execution of hundreds of their school children got the attention of Russia (perhaps). Nepalese complacency was overcome by the beheading of a dozen of their workers in Iraq. The particularly gruesome murder of a Dutchman broke the political correctness protecting the Islamists in the Netherlands.

A Dutch woman threatened by Islamists said, "For too long we have said we had a multicultural society, and everyone would simply find each other. We were too naive in thinking people would exist in society together." (NY Sun, 11/16, p.9).

Most multiculturalists insist on theory, facts notwithstanding. They should develop their theory from the facts. That Dutch woman acknowledges that facts trump the prevailing social theory.


6,000 Israeli Jewish women, unaware of the risks, and sometimes finding out too late that their fiancés are Arabs, marry Arabs each year. These Arab court like gentlemen and marry like fiends. They bring in another wife and multiply as if wealthy and then are unable to support the family in Israel, so they move to the P.A.. They insist that the Jews convert. They beat the wives if the women: complain about being beaten, don't prepare something as specified, or a male neighbor leers at them. (They don't attack the male, just the inoffensive and defenseless wife. Some sense of justice and family solidarity!) Constantly nasty, not companionable, and of no help with the children, they want more children. Most of these women are desperate to escape. There is an organization that helps some of them (Arutz-7, 11/18). Why doesn't the government stop being politically correct, start being a Jewish state, and educate the women about pride in their Jewish heritage and the dangers of attempting multiculturalism with Arabs?

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Nadia Matar, November 23, 2004.

Dearest Esther and Jonathan,

I want you to know how incredible the "handcuffed" demonstration was! Countless, endless numbers of our People, youngsters and adults, handcuffed, holding Jonathan's picture and shouting out loud in the streets of Jerusalem "FREE JONATHAN POLLARD".

"FREE JONATHAN POLLARD"!! There were tons of media present, and there were many, many cars driving by, and all were honking in support! In a word: very moving! The Committee to Bring Jonathan Home is doing a great job!

I want to share a thought with you that may seem at first a little out of the ordinary, but I was thinking about it yesterday while being handcuffed and shouting and cheering for Jonathan.

I do not know if you know, but the south of Israel was attacked yesterday by the plague of "arbeh" (locusts). The entire media was only talking about that. How hundreds of thousands of locusts have "attacked" Eilat and were going up slowly to the Arava and to the Negev etc.

The media was pointing out how this has not happened in Israel since the 1950's and what terrible damage could happen to Israel. And I was thinking how we, believing people, believe that everything in this world is done by Hashem and has a reason. And how, especially on the very day we mention Jonathan's 20th year in jail, G-d sends to us the plague of locusts, the plague HaShem sent to Pharaoh when he refused to "Let our people go".

Jonathan represents all of Am Yisrael. When Jonathan is in jail, it is as if we are all in jail. And in order to let Am Yisrael go out at the time from Egypt, there was a need to send to Egypt the ten plagues. Perhsps one should think then that this plague should have been sent to the United States, for Jonathan is jailed there. But no, the plague attacked us here in Israel - in the south.

The south is where Sharon has his Shikmim farm. The south is the area that Sharon wants to abandon (Gaza). And I feel G-d is maybe telling us, today's Pharaoh is Sharon.

He has his heart hardened and does not do a thing to release Jonathan, to 'let Jonathan go". We all know that the keys to Jonathan's freedom are in Sharon's hands. He just needs to ask President Bush, to make the case to him, and Jonathan could be home with us.

I know this may sound a bit far-fetched to a non-believer. But the coincidence, in my eyes, between the plague that attacked us and Jonathan's jail term, was just too amazing. It is simply a fact: the fate of Jonathan is intimately connected to the fate of the Jewish People in Israel.

The conclusion in my eyes, should be the following: At the time of the Egyptian slavery, we had great leaders who believed in G-d and had no fear of saying "Let my people go!" Today, our political leadership is sadly wanting. These leaders have cast themselves in the role of our adversaries, basically abandoning Jonathan. It is the same political leadership that accedes to Arab terrorists' demands and thus abandons the Jewish People.

Today, it is the People of Israel who are strong and believing, and thus it is the People of Israel who will have to act to free Jonathan and themselves. The youngsters like Adi Ginzburgh, who with Nissan Gan Or, organized the demo represents this generation of strong proud Jews who are not afraid to say: "Jonathan is my brother - Let him go!!".

Yesterday's demo was a success and hopefully will cause more and more activities for Jonathan, until, please G-d, we will be able to celebrate his coming here to Jerusalem, as a free Jew, together with you Esther, his loyal and devoted wife.

We love you, continue to be strong!



Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 22, 2004.

Dear Friends, Are we taking the nuclear threat that Iran poses the world with sufficient seriousness? Not yet. Iran is busy building up its nuclear capability while lying to the world about not. When we will wake up? Before it is too late, I hope.

This was written by Caroline Glick, assistant managing editor of the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com). It appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1100751972918&p=1006953079897

The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists. To understand why this is the case, we must look into the agreement and understand what is motivating the various parties to accede to its conditions.

The agreement stipulates that the European-3 will provide Iran with light water reactor fuel, enhanced trade relations and more nuclear reactors. In exchange, the Iranians agree that for the duration of the negotiations toward implementing the agreement - including a European push for Iranian ascension to the World Trade Organization - it will not develop centrifuges and will not enrich uranium. At the same time, the Europeans accepted Iran's claim that it has the legal right to complete the entire nuclear fuel cycle - meaning, it has the legal right to enrich uranium. Strangely, in a separate Iranian agreement with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranians announced that they would cease enriching uranium effective Monday, November 22, rather than immediately. This apparently annoyed the Europeans, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

The Weekly Standard this week explained that light water reactor fuel of the type that the Europeans have agreed to give Iran can be used to produce bomb material within nine weeks. Since the IAEA inspectors only visit Iran every three months, it would be a simple matter to divert enough light water fuel to produce a bomb between inspections. And so, the agreement itself holds the promise of direct European assistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

While the Europeans were congratulating themselves for their feckless diplomacy, the Iranians were taking to the airwaves and arguing that they gave up nothing in the deal and received everything. Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said the suspension of nuclear activities would last only until Iran and the Europeans reached a long-term agreement. For his part, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said that enriching uranium is "Iran's right, and Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium."

Iran's interest in making the deal is clear. The IAEA governing board is set to meet next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program. By agreeing to the deal with the Europeans, Iran has effectively foreclosed the option, favored by the US, of transferring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for discussions that could lead to sanctions on Iran.

Aside from that, all along, Iran has been gaming the system. It has pushed to the limits all feasible interpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, to enable it to reach the cusp of nuclear weapons development without breaking its ties or diminishing its leverage over the Europeans as well as the Russians and Chinese. In so doing, it has isolated the US and Israel - which have both gone on record that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons - from the rest of the international community, which is ready to enable Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities.

In the meantime, as Iran has negotiated the deal with the Europeans, it has moved quickly to develop its nuclear weapons delivery systems. Its recent Shihab-3 ballistic missiles tests seem to have demonstrated that Iran can now launch missiles to as far away as Europe. In addition, last week's launching of an Iranian drone, as well as this week's Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel, have shown that Iran has developed a panoply of delivery options for using its nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) arsenals to physically destroy Israel.

For their part, the European powers must know that this deal is a lie. The ink had not dried on their signatures when Iran announced that it wasn't obligated by the agreement to end its uranium enrichment. As well, on Wednesday, just two days after the deal was announced formally, the Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance - the political front for the People's Mujahedeen (which the deal stipulates must be treated as a terrorist organization comparable to al-Qaida) - held press conferences in Paris and Vienna where its representatives stated that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium at a Defense Ministry facility in Teheran and that it bought blueprints for nuclear bombs three years ago from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear bomb store. The Council of Resistance is the same organization that blew the whistle on Iran's nuclear program in 2002, when it exposed satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz.

Aside from this, European leaders themselves have said that in their view there is no military option for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. In an interview with the BBC this week, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop." Straw made this statement the same week that French President Jacques Chirac made an all-out diplomatic assault against British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his alliance with US President George W. Bush. Speaking to British reporters on Monday, Chirac said, "Britain gave its support [to the US in Iraq] but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors." Chirac added that he had told Blair that his friendship with Bush could be of use if the US adopted the EU position on Israel and the Palestinians. Since Bush has refused to do so, Chirac argued, Bush has played Blair for a fool.

From these statements, two things about the European agenda become clear. First, by bringing Britain into the talks with Iran, the French have managed to ensure that the Americans, if they decide to do something about Iran's nuclear weapons programs, will be forced to act without British backing and at the expense of the British government, thus causing a serious fissure in the Anglo-American alliance. Straw's statement is breathtaking in that it shows that on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, the British prefer to see Iran gain nuclear weapons to having anyone act to prevent them from doing so.

Chirac's statement exposes, once again, France's main interest in international affairs today. To wit: France wishes only to box in the US to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism. The French do this not because they necessarily like terrorists. They do this because as Chirac has said many times, he views the central challenge of our time as developing a "multipolar" world. France's obsession with multipolarity stems from Chirac's perception that his country's primary aim is not to free the world from Islamic terror, but to weaken the US.

Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the newest deal with the mullahs has removed diplomacy from the box of tools that can be used against Iran. In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.

What the US needs is plausible deniability regarding an Israeli strike vis- -vis Britain and Germany, in order to get itself out of the trap that Paris has set for it. An Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will leave Germany in an uncomfortable public position. Berlin cannot condemn the Jews for doing what we can to prevent another Holocaust without losing whatever crumbs of moral credibility it has built up over the past 50 years.

As for Britain, if Israel were to conduct the attack on its own, the British would be hard-pressed to abandon the Americans; thus, the danger that British involvement with the Paris-based multipolarists on Iran will breach the Anglo-American alliance could be somewhat mitigated.

On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by Jerusalem Prayer Team, November 22, 2004.

"Exodus" starring Yasser Arafat as Moses!

Does that sound farfetched? Not when he was once cast in the role of the George Washington of the Palestinian Territory, and not according to an Arab historian who believes that history books will remember Yasser Arafat as a man infected with the Moses Syndrome. The historian defines the disease as one that compels those infected to pursue a goal they are never able to achieve.

For 40 years, Yasser Arafat led the Palestinian people, not to freedom, not to statehood, but to a legacy of intifada, suicide bombings, and internal chaos. He outlasted, and sometimes, outmaneuvered, seven U. S. Presidents and numerous world leaders, including Saddam Hussein. The question begs to be asked: Why did the United States, a world superpower, bow to the will and dictates of Arafat's gang of murderers?

Please ask President Bush today not to sign another waiver on the 1987 Anti-Terrorism Act that would place the PLO on America's terrorist list.

In his attempt to follow in Arafat's footsteps, it now looks as if Marwan Barghouti will attempt to resurrect the "Life of Houdini, the Great Escape Artist" by running for the Palestinian Authority presidential elections from an Israeli jail. Barghouti's followers are naive enough to believe that a win would force Israel to release this murderer of at least four Israelis and a Greek monk.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has quashed that idea by saying that Barghouti was sentenced to life in prison, and there he would stay. Mr. Shalom said that a release of Barghouti would send a signal to terrorists: "Look, you can kill and get away with it."

If Mr. Bush were to allow the 1987 Anti-terrorism Act to become law by not signing another waiver, it would halt a $20 million donation that outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell is set to deliver to Palestinian leadership during his upcoming visit. Powell has been quoted as saying he "hoped to capitalize on new peace opportunities after Arafat." How can we be sure American taxpayer money will not simply line the pockets of another Palestinian dictator?

According to Powell, the U. S. is pleased by the "responsible manner" in which the Palestinian leaders have responded to the death of Arafat. Powell said that President Bush would invest some of his "political capital" to push for new peace efforts in the region.

Please ask President Bush today not to sign another waiver on the 1987 Anti-Terrorism Act that would place the PLO on America's terrorist list.

One of the results of a two-state, Palestine/Israel solution would be the re-division of Jerusalem. Repeated attempts will be made by the Washington movers and shakers to convince the American people that the PLO can be a genuine partner in peace, under the leadership of Arafat's successor. The man behind the smoke and mirrors could be Arafat's longtime deputy and co-founder of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas, the chief architect of the Munich Massacre; he is also known as Abu Mazen. There are a score of other leaders of the various terror factions who will toss their kayfias into the ring.

During Operation: Iraqi Freedom, I wrote the only book opposing the Road Map and mobilized millions of Christians to stand up and speak up. You answered the call, then, and we again must move quickly; this is urgent!

We can reverse this curse. There is still time for President Bush to allow the two Acts to become law. By signing this petition, and asking ten of your Christian friends to do the same, together, we can shut the mouth of hell and open the window of heaven. We must move quickly!

I am certain that a world peace summit co-sponsored by the U.S. and the sponsors of the Road Map - UN, EU, and Russia is being planned even now. Israel will once again be offered as the scapegoat to unify the nations of the world that are disenfranchised because of Iraq and the Arab League.

Please sign the petition today! And, ask 10 of your friends to sign the petition.

"I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee." (Genesis 12:3)

The only purpose of a world summit would be to push the implementation of the Road Map. This plan calls for official recognition of a Palestinian state, East Jerusalem as the capital of that state, and all lands reclaimed in 1967 to be returned. It is imperative that President Bush ACT NOW to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to allow the 1987 Anti-Terrorism Act (which places the PLO on the State Department terrorist list) to become law.

Please sign this petition to the President today! Ask him to allow the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act and the 1987 Anti-Terrorism Act to become law.

Please forward this to your friends, and ask them to sign the petition.

Michael Evans is the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," and founder of America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem, www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org.

To Go To Top
Posted by Israel and Batya Medad, November 22, 2004.


Several weeks ago, Germany announced its decision to stop all arms sales to Israel. Since then, other countries have followed suit. In response, Israel has canceled its annual multimillion dollar contract for its nationwide DAN buses which were manufactured in Germany, and is looking at other bus suppliers in the US, and Japan. The Europeans and their Muslim allies should understand that boycotts works both ways. When we said NEVER AGAIN, we meant it. Europe is stuck in the mentality of 1933 and onditioned to thinking of Jews as defenseless entities. The reality is very different. As long as Europe adheres to and supports its primitive Middle Ages death cult, European products must be off limits.

We continue to call for a complete boycott of travel and products from the following countries France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, and China, due to their support, sponsorship, and/or participation in global Islamic terror. The voting record of the above countries at the UN openly endorses Muslim terror.

Remember, every time you buy a bottle of Evian, a Carlsberg product, a Spanish melon, a Godiva chocolate, a Dior lipstick, a Gucci bag, or a German kitchen appliance, you are financing the next Muslim mass murderer. The European Union gives over $10 million per month to the Palestinian Authority, knowing full well that the money is funneled to buy, import, and train Muslim terrorists and their weapons of mass murder.

We strongly encourage everyone to buy Canadian, American and Israeli products instead. Buy Estee Lauder or Ahava instead of Chanel, Dior, and YSL. Tell the salespeople why. Educate the public when you shop. Europe is underwriting the Arab war to exterminate the Jewish state. We cannot sit idly by while this happens. Make your voice heard and let them feel the sting in their pocketbooks. Let the Europeans know that supporting terror does not pay.

Please send this to at least 10 like minded people. Israel and Batya Medad live in Shiloh.

To Go To Top
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, November 22, 2004.

As the Palestinian media slowly return to their regular routine following Arafat's death, their well-documented hate promotion and incitement are likewise reappearing. One common theme that has quickly returned due to the war in Iraq is the depiction of the US, verbally and visually, as the cruel and inhuman enemy.

A cartoon in today's official PA daily, Al Hayat al Jadida, shows an American soldier raping a young girl, while the Arab world looks on with amusement and even offers support. The most recent Friday sermon on PATV depicts the US as the creator of international terror. In a third example, a vicious cartoons depicts US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the exterminator of Arabs.

Friday sermon on PATV, Sheik Ibrahim Madiras, Nov. 19, 2004 "Fallujah is undergoing ethnic cleansing right now: Thousands of shahids [martyrs], hundreds killed every hour... You've seen with your own eyes the terrorism, the terrorism of the United States, who accuses the Palestinian people, the Iraqi people and all Muslims of being terrorists, while creating international terror. The U.S. is the one who creates terror."

A cartoon shows Condoleezza Rice as "exterminator" of Arab people (see PMW website for cartoon).


VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES ON PA INCITEMENT TO GENICIDE http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html


Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top
Posted by Arlene Peck, November 22, 2004.

You know, folks, sometime I feel that I am banging my head against the wall. I want to think that the world is not so stupid as to think that most of us, who live in it, just do not 'get it.'

Israel? It is not in an intifada; the entire world, everywhere, is in a WAR! A war, damn it, with a savage subculture that I believe, is truly out to kill everyone who is not like it - a war against Islamicist crazies.

As a journalist, I think sometimes I am privy to information and news stories that you folks out there don't see. But, to tell the truth, I mostly think it is matters of you just don't care. And, frankly, it frustrates me.

I kept saying that Israel was the canary in the coalmine. And, that when the rest of us saw on our ver own shores the attacks that Israel had been sustaining for the past few years it would be different. It was not as I predicted, although the dysfunctional culture called Islamicism had begun to march over the horizon and darken our lives on a daily basis.

Each night we are privileged to watch the evening news where we are privy to seeing savage Islamic Fundamentalists sending another ten, or twenty of our American boy's home in body bags from yet another roadside bombing by "insurgents." Well folks, they are not "insurgents", or "freedom fighters". People who live for death and do these despicable things do not represent a peaceful religion, as we would like to believe.

Are you aware that, according to the Koran it is, "incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated" to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world." They are told along with their nursery rhymes that if you are not like them... then you are to be killed... Jew and Christian alike.

This is the stuff that terrorists are made of and they begin to learn this from birth... from birth! I would not be surprised if bombs were strapped on their bodies along with diapers. In an effort to maintain political correctness and not "hurt peoples feelings" our media trys to gloss over the truth - that this is a subculture that has made it "them" versus "us". In addition, Israel has nothing to do with the twenty-one other wars that are raging around the globe now with the Islamicist movement killing and taking over cities and towns at an alarming rate. My neighbors don't want to admit it, but, we are in World War III

Everyday I receive correspondence like the one today from a couple Dave and Nancy Green from Denver, Colorado. They wrote me requesting help in getting their daughter back from Saudi Arabia where she has been held captive for the past eight years. Their story is the duplicate of the movie Not Without My Daughter. Their kid married an Arab husband who wanted to return with her for a few weeks to his homeland to "finish up some studies" ...and the rest is history.

This poor couple has been trying for more than eight years to get their daughter back; she is regularly abused by her Saudi husband. The desperate parents have been told by the U.S. State Dept... "That's the way the Saudi culture is." With President Bush singing the praises of his "good friends, the Saudis" who are supposed to be the moderate ones, I don't expect the situation to change anytime in the near future.

Nobody in that dysfunctional culture that preaches death and thrives on bombs and jihad is moderate. There are over a billion of them and they're multiplying at an alarming rate. How many of you have ten children? Eight? Five? Ok, maybe two, or three. Yet. All of these Islamicist crazies are by law, allowed to have four wives. From them they average ten a piece. How long do you think it is going to take before they take over the voting booths?

Recently, I was out with a friend from Dearborn, Michigan. She was telling me how she went back there recently and was astounded to see that the entire city of Dearborn seemed to be a Muslim city. Where she remembered churches standing, now there are just Mosques. The schools were filled with girls wearing the headscarves and it was not unusual to see women walking on the streets in full garb of burkas... DEARBORN Michigan! They have taken over half of Europe and twenty-two countries are in a war now with this so-called peaceful culture. Tell me? What does Israel have to do with any of that?

I remember a conversation with Rabbi Meir Kahane twenty-five years ago. He told me, "They're not going to beat us with bullets. They are going to gain control by ballots. The Arabs have a plan... we don't." He was right. They've infiltrated our prison system and turned into a training ground for terrorists.

The more educated are telling their children to become more involved with the media and politics when they study. Most times, in our universities. Then they can come back and really take control.

What does it take to realize what is happening? The global terrorist network has a plan. I see it every night on the television when I watch what has become as common as the hi-jackings and suicide bombers they've brought to the world. Welcome to the third Crusade.

They're primitive, they're cunning and they're out to kill us. Five times a day in mosques around the world - this message is hammered home... The message? "Kill the infidels!" And if you're not a Muslim, you're an infidel.

Sure, not all Muslims are violent or want to behead every stranger they encounter? However - tell me - if a Muslim majority thinks that what their brothers are doing is wrong, where is their outcry?

Show me the protest marches... Show me just one full-page ad in a national newspaper, decrying the barbarism perpetrated in the name of Allah? You can't, because there aren't any.

Banging our heads against the wall won't solve this problem... Negotiation, political correctness, "making nice" - doesn't work. How many more victims of "IslamoFascism" before we wake up?

Christians have closed their eyes to the fact that they're targets, too. Why? Because it's convenient for them to condone the Arab version of events in the mistaken belief that this glorifies Christianity - a perverse, revisionist history of biblical Israel which denies the reality of thousands of years of Hebrew civilization and settlement in the Jewish homelands.

Granted, at the moment, the Evangicals may be the only Christian friends that Israel have. And if they want to convert us and help us find Jesus... fine - quite frankly I'll worry about that later. For the moment at least, they seem to be aware of the facts. And most Europeans and Canadians probably are, too. But that still hasn't prevented them from pandering to the radical Muslim minorities demanding influence in their new countries. Fear has entered into their politics and most seem all too willing to make Israel the new Czechoslovakia.

Israel alone is fighting this - and there's the shame, because the crazed culture of militant Islam wants to destroy everything which doesn't fit it in with its world view.

How much higher does the body count have to go before we wake up?

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 22, 2004.
This is by Daniel Doron, Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Nov 11, 2004. pg. 15.
Abstract (Document Summary)

In a Social Activism Day at Hebrew University, almost all the booths enlisting student volunteers were New Israel Fund, pro- Palestinian and anti-capitalist fronts. These "social action" organizations, pursuing the double agenda of anti-Zionism and anti- capitalism, reflect the teaching of many of our professors, especially in the social sciences and humanities. Protected by academic tenure, they teach Marx as a great economist, but barely mention market economics, and if yes, only negatively (from a long litany of market failures to the "fact" that Milton Friedman - an ally of Pinochet - has not only ruined the economy of Chile but also Israel's, as adviser to Menachem Begin).

A search of the Hebrew University library catalog reveals hundreds of citations for Marx, but only three for Smith, Friedman and Hayek. In 30 years, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom has been borrowed 12 times - an indication of how often he is mentioned by our liberal and pluralistic professors. Most graduates of economics know only economic "technology," but nothing about the ideas that underlie a free-market economy. There is no course offered on the history of economic ideas.

THE WELL-FUNDED welfare lobby never rests. In the recent Sderot Social Conference, it assembled various groups from academia, the government and other "social agency" bureaucracies (such as the Jewish Agency) with NGO advocacy groups to promote what they call "a civil agenda" - as distinct from the economic and security agenda that they claim dominates two other famous gatherings, the Herzliya and the Caesarea conferences.

(Copyright 2004 The Jerusalem Post)

Most economics graduates know economic 'technology,' but nothing about the ideas underlying a free-market economy. The writer is president of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress. dorondun@netvision.net.il

Despite Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's courageous economic reforms, the Israeli economy remains mired in low productivity and growth. High unemployment, low wages, and the inability of hundreds of thousands of families to make ends meet create serious social problems.

For some 60 years of socialism and then statism, our economy has been choked by heavy government regulation and red tape, by inefficient monopolies, and the misallocation of investments by a banking duopoly.

For decades, Israel has been saddled with "progressive" labor laws and unemployment benefits that have diminshed the incentive to work. This is why a nation with arguably the best human capital, a country in which more than 100 billion foreign dollars have been invested, cannot provide most of its workers with more than a $1,200 average monthly wage.

But instead of drawing the obvious conclusions and working on pro-market reforms that will unleash Israel's enormous potential, powerful ideological groups and vested interests - peopled by our university-educated elites - are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. They fight to make Israeli workers even more dependent on welfare and political handouts.

Generously funded by Diaspora Jews who ought to know better, such NGOs as The New Israel Fund (with an annual budget in excess of $20 million) are spawning hundreds of shell organizations run by Marxists.

In a Social Activism Day at Hebrew University, almost all the booths enlisting student volunteers were New Israel Fund, pro- Palestinian and anti-capitalist fronts. These "social action" organizations, pursuing the double agenda of anti-Zionism and anti- capitalism, reflect the teaching of many of our professors, especially in the social sciences and humanities. Protected by academic tenure, they teach Marx as a great economist, but barely mention market economics, and if yes, only negatively (from a long litany of market failures to the "fact" that Milton Friedman - an ally of Pinochet - has not only ruined the economy of Chile but also Israel's, as adviser to Menachem Begin).

A search of the Hebrew University library catalog reveals hundreds of citations for Marx, but only three for Smith, Friedman and Hayek. In 30 years, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom has been borrowed 12 times - an indication of how often he is mentioned by our liberal and pluralistic professors. Most graduates of economics know only economic "technology," but nothing about the ideas that underlie a free-market economy. There is no course offered on the history of economic ideas.

THE WELL-FUNDED welfare lobby never rests. In the recent Sderot Social Conference, it assembled various groups from academia, the government and other "social agency" bureaucracies (such as the Jewish Agency) with NGO advocacy groups to promote what they call "a civil agenda" - as distinct from the economic and security agenda that they claim dominates two other famous gatherings, the Herzliya and the Caesarea conferences.

And what is this "civil agenda"? You guessed it: poverty, the income gap, minority "rights" - anything that calls for more government intervention and expenditure. Poverty's root cause - our anti-productive system - was not even mentioned.

By appealing to politicians and top bureaucrats with the populist tactic of holding the conference in a development town rather than in a posh hotel, the conference managed to draw quite a few of them to its panels. But poor organization and an attempt to touch on all the pet peeves of the welfare lobby - from advocacy of greater government involvement in economic "development" and employment, in education, health, and welfare to feminism, protest movements and anti-establishment films, to "who is a Jew," to mourning (an "anti-military" issue) to feminist issues and to discrimination against minorities - made this a very confusing event lacking any focus.

But perhaps a focus was not even intended. Maybe the main purpose of the conference was to advance a radical leftist agenda to center stage. The telltale sign that this is so was the partial funding of the conference by The New Israel Fund, and the granting by the conference of its Social Prize to two of the fund's most radical organizations.

But more about the conference.

On a building at the entrance of the impressive Sapir College campus in Sderot, a huge sign read: "Education will prevail." The questions that sprang to mind were "When?" and "In what manner?"

For more than 60 years, Israel has been spending on education as much as, if not more than, any Western country. The results, however, are dismal. Not only do Israeli elementary school pupils lag behind those of many less-developed countries in language skills and mathematics, but our higher education is also in grave trouble. Admitting ever more ill-educated students, the universities do very little to help them catch up on the educational basics that must underpin all learning.

Instead, in most humanities and social science classes, they get indoctrinated in crypto-Marxist ideas, "post modernist" nihilism, and a hostility toward markets and enterprise.

Consequently, most university students graduate with a Third World statist-welfarist orientation. They believe that the national income somehow descends from heaven like manna, and that the only problem is how to divide it equitably according to the mantras of "social justice."

Since most of the Israeli elites are university trained, this acquired mind-cast has had a harmful effect on public debate and policy, and on Israel's economic performance and the state of its society.

Israel now has its own "Campus Watch" watchdog and web site, entitled Israel Academia Monitor. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=72429 and visit its web site at http://israel-academia-monitor.com/

See also http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2004/nov/21_10.html

Let's all help spread the word.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Jock L. Falkson, November 22, 2004.

With the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State to replace Colin Powell when he leaves office, Dr. Rice becomes one of the world's most powerful political figures.

Speaking at the Washington-based U.S. Institute of Peace as recently as August 19 where she outlined the US attitude to terrorism, Dr. Rice recalled that the report issued by the 9/11 Commission called for "a long-range strategy to engage in a struggle of ideas to defeat Islamic terrorism."

Dr. Rice on Defeating Muslim Terrorism

Islamic terrorism! That's a shocker bearing in mind that both Colin Powell and President Bush have always skirted around the very mention of this home truth.

But when dealing with what must be done to defeat Muslim terrorism Dr. Rice unfortunately reverted to wishful politically correct thinking. Here are some snippets:

"... encourage the voices of moderation and tolerance and pluralism within the Muslim world."

"... lasting progress and reform in society must emerge from within."

"... expand dramatically our efforts to support and encourage the voices of moderation and tolerance and pluralism within the Muslim world."

"True victory will come not merely when the terrorists are defeated by force, but when the ideology of death and hatred is overcome by the appeal of life and hope, and when lies are replaced by truth."

Dr. Rice and the Appeal of Life and Hope

The only way, as the Commission recemmended, to defeat Muslim terrorists is to take off the gloves and use force. But then Dr. Rice weakens the US position by advocating that terrorist ideology can be replaced by redeeming objectives such as "the appeal of life and hope".

The fact is that such an appeal is totally unacceptable to the mass murderers who flew planeloads of passengers into the Twin Towers. Nor to the cruel, savage, hostage beheaders . . . suicide bombers . . . drive-by murderers . . . roadside bomb ambushers . . . and others of that ilk.

"You love life, we love death."

There is no solution whatever to Islamic terrorism if the US intends to rely on week kneed strategies such as appeals to life and hope.

Indeed Dr. Rice herself, in her speech, quotes an unnamed terrorist as saying: "You love life, we love death." The appeal to life and hope is therefore a deceptive solution which does not meet the reality of death seeking Muslim terrorism.

Removing Hate and Incitement

The seeds of success require Muslim authorities everywhere to remove the hate and incitement they teach children daily in their maddrassas; and preached every Friday to adults by the Mullahs.

Unfortunately the ideology of "we love death" is embedded in the Koran, which glorifies the death of martyrs so desired by Allah. The appeal to love and hope stands little chance against eternal life and the heavenly sex appeal of a hareem of 72 black-eyed virgins. (Plus other bonuses.)

It is also impractical to rely on a religious Reformation within Islam such as Jewish and Christian religions have undergone. This could take another millennium or two.

Germany Tells Imans To Preach in German

Writing from Berlin for the London Times (November 17) Roger Boyes reports that fears of Muslim unrest spreading from Holland to Germany have caused the latter to consider legislation requiring the Mullahs to preach their sermons in German. So that their plain clothes agents would understand what they were hearing.

There are already over 3 million Muslims in Germany and the Germans rightly fear ethnic and religious unrest could easily cross the border from the Netherlands. They want to halt racist diatribes which clearly motivate terrorism.

The Teaching of Hatred and Incitement

"Support for such a move," writes Boyes, "is growing after a television channel used hidden cameras to film the imam of a Berlin mosque frequented by young Turks. He was heard telling worshippers that 'Germans can only expect to rot in the fires of hell because they are non-believers'."

This from a Turkish preacher - a country that has friendly relations with Israel and wants to join the EU!

If Germany introduces anti-incitement legislation to prevent deadly emotions being whipped up in the mosques, that might take care of half the problem. However, there would still be a need to prevent teachers in the maddrassas embedding hatred for Christians and other infidels in the minds of Muslim children.

Criminalize Teaching of Extremist Muslim Ideology

The fostering of this extremist Muslim ideology must be regarded as criminal. The culprits should merit long term prison sentences. After all, Lord Haw Haw was hanged for merely broadcasting anti-British propaganda during World War 2. He killed no one personally.

Goebbels took his own life for the same reason; he knew he would be hanged for his propaganda broadcasts. He too had not killed anyone personally. He had only urged the British to surrender and German soldiers to excell in killing Allied soldiers.

Where Was Muslims' 9/11 Outrage?

Nineteen Muslims killed 3,000 Americans on that dreadful 9/11 day. Where was the outrage from the Muslim world community so intent on spreading the lie that Islam is a religion of peace?

There was no outrage for 9/11, neither for the many other Muslim terrorist missions that killed Americans in Beirut, Israel, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere.

There was no outrage at Muslim terrorism in Russia in which hundreds of hostages died as a result of recent Chechnyan hostage taking operations.

Muslims' Silent Approval of Terrorist Outrages

Why no outrage? Simply because ordinary Muslims the world over who are not personally violent, silently approve of Muslim terrorist actions which kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and other religionists. Any time, anywhere.

Dr. Rice would do well to ponder the intended German solution to prevent the teaching and preaching of Muslim hatred and incitement against other religionists. For this holds some practical promise in aiding America's declared War On Terror.

Arabs Don't Mean What They Say

The abolition of hatred and the preaching of incitement are essential for the reduction if not eradication of terrorist crimes. Israel has long understood this. So anti-incitement clauses have always been included in peace or cease-fire negotiations with Arabs.

Agreements which have been signed by the Arabs have all contained such restrictions. However, the Arabs never kept them. As long as these conditions are not met, hatred and incitement will continue to motivate the brutal crimes of terrorists against Israelis, as well as innocents the world over.

Hold Preachers and Teachers Equally Guilty

A person who plans a terrorist action is no less guilty than those who carry it out. It's hard to see the difference between the planner and one who addresses a group of listeners and urges them to go out and kill in the name of Allah. Such teachers and preachers are as guilty as the perpetrators.

They are criminals because they are active accessories to the crimes of murder and mayhem...

The full text of Dr. Rice's speech is available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040819-5.html

To be put on Jock Falkson's email list, email him at falkson@barak-online.net

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard Shulman, November 22, 2004.


A major campaign issue for Democrats was America's unpopularity abroad. The Democrats blamed this on Pres. Bush, just as they tended to blame laxity in defending against the 9/11 attack, prepared years before, on his new Administration. Both poor reputation and laxity preceded his regime. This ill repute grew worse as a result of his active defense of America. The electorate chose what they perceived as stronger defense over better reputation.

Perhaps the popular perception took the candidates' images for reality. I do not think that Pres. Bush is so strong on defense, except by comparison to the Democrats. There were many attacks on the US during the Clinton administration. There was almost no defense. The State Dept. coddled S. Arabia then, but it continued doing so on Sec. Powell's watch.

The question usually asked is what price popularity. Other questions beg our attention. Can the US be popular? What value is there to the opinions of those with whom we would be popular?

The US cannot be popular and also a responsible superpower. A responsible superpower acts. Its actions upset other countries' plans, often nefarious. Our might arouses envy. In clashes of competing interest, such as free trade, sometimes the US is stubborn. Our international environmental record is one of non-cooperation without sufficient explanation. That does add to our unpopularity. However, we could reverse those policies, without gaining cooperation.

The US offered among the coolest statements of condolence over Arafat's demise. Many other countries lied about Arafat's record, praising him as a peacemaker in the midst of the war he started. They gushed sentimentality over that cold-blooded killer of thousands. Should Democrats be so indignant with the US because those hypocrites are critical of the US? If they want to do better, they would have to purge and reform the State Dept... They do not grasp this.


A reader suggested that France should not have expended so much medical attention on Arafat, because Arafat is not worth it. Interesting question.

A prisoner is supposed to get "proper" medical treatment, though some US prisons deny it, as Jonathan Pollard found out. Arafat, however, was not a prisoner.

Arafat could have gone to a local hospital under his rule. But he wanted the best. Did he pay for it? I missed mention of that. Surely France did not lavish so much upon him at the expense of its own citizens' medical care. Why France, rather than Israel next door or an Arab state? He rejected going to Israel to save face and going to an Arab state, lest he be assassinated.

I think my reader makes the proper moral judgment that to treat Arafat so well went too far. If I missed some humanitarian argument, please advise.


For years, the US has attempted with negotiations and multilateral involvement to get Islamist Iran to eliminate its nuclear weapons program. Iran continues to mask that program behind its effort to use nuclear energy to replace its limited oil supplies. (US policy is to waste imported oil on inefficient cars and air conditioners). Iran used the negotiations to defer US action, hoping to get past the point of no return. Military experts agree that a military response would be beyond Israel's capability and would be difficult for the US. (Pres. Bush should have gone to war with Iran, to end its regime, before doing so with Iraq. Our experts always are surprised at how advanced potential enemies are. Hmm.) There was a time to talk, though little good can be expected from fanatics. That time is over. Negotiations have a limited utility. Thereafter, they can do more harm than good. Our appeasement-minded leadership and intellectuals need to understand that.


Labor Party head Shimon Peres explains Arafat's "big error" that kept his people from acquiring statehood. It is that Arafat split his military into multiple forces (IMRA, 11/15).

The Left often comes up with explanations without showing how the explanation explains anything. What difference is there between having multiple forces and one force, so long as they take their orders from a terrorist leader? Peres evades the fact that Arafat would not pretend to give up some of his extravagant claims and make peace. Arafat had to be given everything and conquer Israel, like the Islamist he is. He preferred to keep on fighting.


The global mourning for Arafat went so far as to garner international and Leftist support for burying him on the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. It would be like burying Hitler in Westminster Chapel, a grievous insult to the British, whom he had firebombed.

The Vatican praised him. French towns are renaming streets after Arafat. UN flags are at half-mast, and countries sent officials to the funeral as if for a head of state. The media covered the funeral more intensely than most. CNN described him as a revolutionary like Ho Chi Minh and Mandela. USA Today depicted the would-be destroyer of Jewish self-rule as representing sorrow and hope. The City Press of S. Africa called him a freedom-fighter. The Toronto Sun claimed he was murdered by Israel.

The excessive global mourning also mocks humanitarian pretensions. This world feigns great concern for Palestinian Arabs killed fighting Israel. It showed no concern for Palestinian Arabs killed, oppressed, or brainwashed by Arafat or by any other dictator. It had not demanded western Palestinian independence in the Territories before Israeli administration of them. It really does not care about the Arabs. Something else is going on. Ostensible concern for the Arabs masks hatred for the Jews, whom the jihadists are trying to exterminate. This is all about antisemitism, whether by gentiles or by the Israeli Left. The Left rescued Arafat from exile in the supposition that he would end the Arab-Israel conflict. When he didn't, it turned on its own country to make more and more concessions in pursuit of that futile hope. It radicalized enough to demonize its own people, just as do bigoted Arabs.

A motto of the Jewish state is "Never Again!" Never again would there be a Holocaust, for the Jewish state would not allow it. The natural death of the world's leading murderer of Jews mocks that motto.

Obviously this great, stated admiration for a corrupt, piratical, deceitful, brutal, bigoted, murderous dictator exceeds the usual glossing over of a deceased's faults. It is an outpouring of hatred for the Jewish people. Arafat symbolized the attempt to defame Judaism and destroy the Jewish state and people. That is what the world really liked about him. Their eulogies reflect pathology (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/16, e-mail).


Hizbullah fired a Katyusha rocket into Israel. Israel fired back words. It declared the government of Lebanon responsible for the aggression. It stated that it views the attack gravely (IMRA, 11/16). "Responsible" but without being held responsible. "Gravely" but without consequences.

I think Hizbullah is testing Israeli resolve. Hizbullah wants to see how much it can get away with. Israel probably failed the test. If so, rockets will arrive with greater frequency.


Background: the Philadelphi Route is the corridor in Gaza at the Egyptian border, which Israel patrols in order to intercept arms smuggled in from the Sinai. Egypt is complicit in the smuggling. Therefore, Israeli security experts all advise their government to retain control over that corridor, even if it pulls out of the rest of Gaza. They advise against the rest of the withdrawal, as well. Absent Israeli troops, the terrorists would organize attacks more freely.

New brief: PM Sharon would like not to have to control the corridor. If Israel didn't, it is less likely, he believes, to be held responsible for ensuing conditions. He said he would be ready to relinquish control to the P.A., if the P.A. had a stable government (IMRA, 11/15).

What has effective rule to do with terrorism? Arafat's successors might achieve governmental stability, but, as terrorists, they are likely to continue the armed struggle. Sharon's rationale is a non-sequitur. It also is a disproved hope that the pro-Arab world would be reasonable if Israel engages in appeasement. Vain hope for gentile favor is the neurosis of my fellow Jews. Better to be criticized than terrorized.


Embattled by jihad domestically, the Netherlands decided to withdraw its contingent from Iraq. That appeasement only whets the appetite of the Islamists. It indicates to them that the Netherlands will not stand up to them (Foreign Ministry, 11/5 from Jer. Post).

Can't the Dutch government think beyond the morrow? Its people can. Realizing that their tolerance is not requited by Muslims, they clamor for restrictive immigration laws.


The BBC correspondent who wept for Arafat wrote, "But where were the people, I wondered, the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern?" (Andrew Sullivan, NY sun, 11/12, p.15). He had made them suffer. I read, however, there large crowds did gather.


"Only if his successors show a genuine commitment to peace and pluralism should they be rewarded by the West. In the meantime, America and its allies need to work behind the scenes to identify and support genuine Palestinian democrats - not a new generation of gunmen in the Arafat mold." (Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, NY Sun, 11/12, p.15.)

Why should Israel hold the Territories only until eventually the Arabs civilize? Let Israel reduce future casualties compensate itself for the Arab attacks by annexing that part of the Territories not settled by Arabs! This is the Jewish homeland, to which the Jewish people have the best claim.


The UNO reported that for the sixth time this year, terrorists have fired rockets at Israel from within Lebanon. Noting that Lebanon committed itself to halt that aggression, and attempted to arrest the criminals, the reporter "urged the Lebanese government to "redouble its efforts to ensure that such dangerous violations cease immediately.'" It reminded all parties that one violation does not justify another." (IMRA, 11/16.) What is Arab "commitment" worth?

By another "violation," the UNO means Israeli defensive retaliation. Self-defense by Israel is a "violation," in UNO eyes. No, it is consistent with the UNO Charter. Note that Lebanon is given credit for trying to arrest terrorists, just as was the P.A.., as if it and Syria couldn't. Actually, the government of Lebanon refuses to stop Hizbullah terrorists, and Syria wouldn't let it.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by David Landau, November 22, 2004.

Dear Friends:

I am writing you on behalf of the Committee for Rachel's Tomb, an Israeli-based non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the rights of all Jews to visit and worship at the site of our matriarch's grave. However, it is not my intention to solicit funds or enlist your assistance with this cause. Rather, I would like to introduce you to a project we have recently initiated to improve the lives of the brave young men and women who daily protect the lives of those of us living in Israel. Of course, I am speaking about the thousands of soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces.

"Say Chai to a Soldier" is a program that provides pizza, falafel and soft drinks to soldiers. It might not sound like much but to the young men and women who receive these gifts, it is a breath of fresh air. The program is simple: interested individuals and organizations can purchase a meal or meals for the groups of soldiers by making a contribution to the Committee for Rachel's Tomb. In addition to putting a smile on a soldier's face, a donation at this time provides an invaluable source of income for local merchants who have been hard hit by Israel's economic decline.

With the festival of Hanukah only weeks away, I hope you will take a moment to show your support for Israel's modern-day Maccabis. Their selfless contribution and unwavering determination to safeguard the Jewish homeland is priceless. It is impossible to fully express our appreciation and admiration for these fine young men and women, but there is an easy way to let them know we recognize their service - treat them to a good meal.

Your assistance and participation is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to copy and distribute this material throughout your community and pass this e-mail on to friends and contacts.

Buy A Pizza For a Soldier
The IDF is looking for you...to help brighten the lives of thousands of young Israeli soldiers.

The Committee for Rachel's Tomb, a not-for-profit organization in Israel, last year launched a campaign to provide pizza, falafel, ice-cream and soft drinks to soldiers serving in the Etzion Bloc (the area immediately south of Jerusalem, extending from Bethlehem through Hebron). Since then, hundreds of soldiers have been uplifted by this treat, a sign of the people's appreciation for their efforts. A small act of kindness goes a long way.

I'd appreciate your help in spreading this campaign to as many friends and email lists as you can find. Please personalize the Chanuka greetings and send it out as part of this project. You too can help. A mere $18 will buy pizza and soft drinks for the boys guarding our borders.

Amount: $18 - One meal for a group of soldiers
$36 - Falafel and drinks for 10 soldiers
$72 - One meal a week for a month for a group of soldiers
$180 - 10 meals a month for a group of soldiers
$ Other Amount

For Tax deductible donations in the United States, for over $250.00 please make your check out to Central Fund of Israel and mail to P.O. Box 1029, Derech Efrata, 90435, Israel

When you visit Israel please call us at 050-580-822 to help personally distribute the pizza to soldiers.

David Landau is Executive Director, Committee for Rachel's Tomb, P.O. Box 1029, Derech Efrata, 90435, Israel. The email address is rachtomb@netvision.net.il; the fax number is 972-2-993-2164

To Go To Top
Posted by David Wilder, November 22, 2004.


I have to begin this week with a response I received to last week's commentary, as the column appeared on the israelnationalnews.com web site.

"Dear Mr. Wilder

Thanks so much for your great article "once a terrorist always a terrorist".

It is really great and is just very true. I am an Arab, Egyptian, with a Muslim background.

At some stage of my life (23 years ago) I was in the Islamic Groups of Egypt with Dr. Al-zawaherii (who became the second in command of AlQueda later on)...I rejected their evil teaching and started a peaceful version of Islam.

I was a speaker in many mosques against Islamic Fundamentalism (this was 21 years ago!) and sadly my life was threatened by the fundamentalists so I emigrated to a western country.

All what you said is true about these barbarians.

I have a book called "The Real Roots of Islamic Violence" that explains clearly why these people are violent. I also have a web site called: www.IslamicReformation.com

Unlike the book, this web site tried to present a peaceful view for Islam to help get them out of their darkness but, as expected, Muslims do not like peaceful views!

With much love and respect,
Dr. Hamid"

I did a little research to validate Dr. Hamid's identity, and he truly is a serious personality. The above-mentioned website is very interesting and highly recommended. I've printed out a number of Dr. Hamid's articles, which, at first glance, look like important reading material.

In the introduction to the above-mentioned book, Dr. Hamid writes, "Throughout history many countries have experienced terror attacks. In most of these attacks, the reason was a political conflict aimed at gaining land or independence. Unfortunately the type of terrorism that threatens the world nowadays (Islamic terrorism) is a different form of terrorism that stems from a very aggressive and non-tolerant ideology? The forgiving nature of the current civilized Western world made it try to find a cause within itself that made Muslims hate it to this degree. Unfortunately, the sad reality of Islam is that such hatred of non-Muslims is generated by the Islamic religion itself against those who do not follow it, irrespective of their deeds.

The trick of Islamists is that they use any reason at all to justify their evil actions against the West (e.g., the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the attack of the USA on Iraq, the improper dealing with the Iraqi prisoners) so that the Westerners think that the cause of terrorism is this reason and thus get blinded about the real cause of terrorism which is deeply imbedded in the Islamic religion itself.

I have concluded from my personal experience with Islam that the violent behavior of Islamists against the West is aimed at ending Westerners' freedom and making them subdued to Islam. Quite simply, Muslims hate Westerners because they are not subdued to Islam, they drink alcohol, and they have freedom for women. They invent other supposed causes for their hatred in order to gain support from innocent Westerners for their Islamic cause.

Unfortunately, the ONLY way to make Muslims satisfied with the West is for Westerners to submit to an Islamic or Taliban-like system, stop their freedom, and suppress women.

Any attempt to correlate violence among Muslims to other reasons than the religious teaching itself will end in catastrophe for human civilization as it will totally miss the real cause, and thus the decision makers will postulate totally wrong solutions."

Last week I also quoted Leif Wellerop, director of the Norwegian chapter of the International Christian Embassy, who, speaking about the rise of Islam in Europe, said that the third world war has started.

A few days ago I interviewed another Christian visitor to Hebron, a Baptist minister, Pastor Jim Vineyard, from Oklahoma. He also talked about the influence of Islam in the United States. He said to me, "It's World War Three."

Two different people, from different sides of the globe, saying the exact same words. I wonder if Bush and Rice would say the same thing, in a private conversation? Chances aren't good. But I wonder what they really think? More importantly, if they do realize the inherent dangers in modern Islam, will they act accordingly, when that action is unavoidably, and inevitably, necessary?

On the heels of the reelected President's declarations about an impending 'palestinian state,' the almost former U.S. Secretary of State arrived in Israel for a 'friendly visit'. According to media reports he is going to request, at a minimum, that Israel remove all security forces and security barriers from so-called 'palestinian citys,' in preparation for the upcoming three-ring circus, otherwise known as 'palestinian elections.' Such agreement on Israel's part can only endanger Israeli lives. There are rumors that Powell will also suggest that Israel release convicted murdered Marwan Barghouti, who might not only be a candidate to replace the deceased, great Arab murderer; he might actually win. The Abu'sy twins, Mazen and Ala, are demanding that the leader of the Islamic Jihad, responsible for assassinating Rehavam Ze'evi -Gandhi, incarcerated in Jericho, also be released.

It really is not clear why Powell is visiting the Middle East. If only to say goodbye, then good riddance. His successor has already been chosen. Powell's record in this part of the world is dismal. He certainly is no friend of Israel, and any requests, demands, or the like should be dismissed out of hand. Hopefully Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will not take the traditional pro-Arab, anti-Israel State Department positions, so personified by her predecessor. At this point, he shouldn't be here and definitely shouldn't have anything to say about anything.

Unfortunately, Powell's four years of influence, representing decades-old overt State Department biases, are similar to malignant cancer, which tends to spread rapidly and is very difficult to get rid of. Some of this illness may have rubbed off on his boss. Such disease must be eradicated quickly and radically, before it causes more damage, death and destruction.

Returning to our Christian friends, spoken of earlier. It is clear that the only reason Bush will again be inaugurated on January twentieth is due to the fundamentalist Christian vote. Without them, John K. would be president-elect. They reelected Bush because they know that he is 'one of them.' He represents them and their ideologies. And they are very very pro-Israel, true Israel lovers. And they comprehend the international dangers of fundamental Islam.

George W. is in their debt. And as any good politician knows, debts have to be paid off. The overhauled Bush-Cheney-Rice administration has an historic opportunity to rid the State Department of assorted strains of Colin Cancer. Should they practice what they really and truly believe, we will witness major changes in both State Department policy and United States diplomacy, undoubtedly having a major positive impact on the Israeli scene. The time has come.

With blessings from Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

This is a Hebron/Arutz7-INN Commentary.

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, November 22, 2004.

This is an analysis of the real roots of Islamic terrorism and possible solutions by T. Hamid. It appeared on http://www.islamicreformation.com. He can contacted at welcom@islamicreformation.com

It is evident that Islam has been linked to violence for almost all of its history. Sadly, this is to a great extent true. From the beginning of the invasion of most of Europe, North Africa and some parts of the East by early Muslims in order to convert them to Islam. Continuously until the modern crisis of "Islamic Terrorism" that shocked the world on Sep 11th, that ended the lives of many innocent Jews in Israel, that ended the lives of many innocent Australians in Bali attack, that caused the catastrophe of bombing the train in Spain, and which has tortured to death many innocent Westerners who live in the Islamic world.

Many people in the West tried to correlate the recent violence observed in the Islamic world to lack of education, poverty, and a feeling of oppression blamed on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, the simple facts showed us clearly, and beyond doubt, that these excuses are not the true causes of "Islamic terrorism". Most of the leaders of terrorism are highly educated people who range from Doctors, e.g. Alzawaheri the second man and the real brain of Alqaida, lawyers, e.g. the first female Palestinian terrorist, and University students, e.g. Mohammed Atta who was one of the top organisers of Sep the 11th.

In addition, most of the hijackers on Sep 11th were from Saudi Arabia, the richest Islamic country. If the theory of poverty is correct, why then are the poor people who live in Brazilia are not the ones who lead international terrorism?

Furthermore, Islamic Terrorism was minimal between the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, until the early 1970's, when the Arabs were in a real war with Israel.

If the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the cause of terrorism, we would have found terrorism booming between 1948 until the early 1970's. On the contrary, it dramatically increased in the late 1980s and until now when some Arabs states have signed peace agreements with Israel.

This increase in terrorism directly correlates with the rise of Islamism in the late 1980s until now.

I have a Muslim/Arabic background, and I know how Muslims (including myself at an early stage of my life) think, I clearly state that Muslims are using the excuse of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict just to make the world hate Israel. It has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of terrorism. Which was going to happen any way, as a secondary phenomenon to expanding a violent version of Islam in later years?

It is also difficult for any normal mind to comprehend that throwing concentrated sulphuric acid on the face of young girls who do not wear the Islamic veil/scarf, by the hands of the Islamic groups in Algeria, is related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

As one who was a member of one of the most fanatical groups in Islam, GI in Egypt, and as a person who has resisted Islamic fundamentalism when I realized its threat some 20 years ago, I feel that it is my obligation toward mankind to declare that the origin of Islamic Terrorism is deeply rooted in the way Muslims understand their religion. In other words, in Islamic teaching itself.

When you read the Quran, you will find many great verses that promote peace and tolerance. But you will also find verses that can make you very violent and intolerant toward Non Muslims.

Sadly, most Islamic scholars throughout the history of Islam, present it in a way that promotes a very violent and intolerant attitude. And more sadly, the oppressive religious system suppresses many attempts to understand Islam in the light of the peaceful verses.

Not only that, but the majority of Muslims especially those in the Arab world, are brought up in a manner that considers a peaceful understanding of the religion as a sign of weakness rather than a sign of strength.

A violent understanding of Islam is based on the following fundamental beliefs that are fixed in the mind of many, if not most, knowledgeable Muslims.

These are:

1- The concept of "Allnasech and Almansuch"
2- The ignorance of the value of the word "the"
3- Practicing Hadith of "Al-Bukhary" and other books while ignoring unambiguous peaceful verses of the Quran
4- Historical understanding of the verses rather than language-based understanding
5- Presenting only a special part of the verse to promote specific meaning and ignoring the rest of the verse

Let us now address the previous points separately and see if this violent way of thinking could change.

1- The concept of "Allnasech and Almansuch".

According to this concept and based on traditional Islamic teaching, certain verses especially the later ones cancel the meaning of other earlier verses on a similar subject.

Let us have a look at these two parts of the Quran to understand the above concept.

Verse 1
"{60:8} God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing very kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just. 60:9 God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drives you out of your homes, and supports (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."

Verse 2
{9: 29} Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed), nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizia (Humiliation Tax according to traditional Islamic teaching and practice in history) with submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Revelation Number 113).

Sadly, according to the concept of "Allnasech and Almansuch" traditional Islamic teaching teaches that the "later" verse negated the "former" which obviously will result in extremely violent understanding and practice.

This way of thinking (to cancel the meaning of the peaceful verses) is based on the following verse in the Quran:

"{2:106} None of Our revelations do We abrogate "Nansakho" or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God is able to do any thing?

There are two ways to understand the above Arabic word as the origin of the word "Nansakho", is the verb "Yansakho" or its more powerful version "Yastansikho".

The first way of understanding the word 'Nansakho" in the above verse, is to abrogate (cancel the meaning) as in the following verse:

{22:52} "Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel (Yansach) anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom."

The other way of understanding, the word "Nansakho" means (to write and document something) as in the following verse:
{"45:29} "This Our Record speaks about you with truth: For We were wont to put on Record and write down (Nastansikho) all that ye did."

The difference here is huge, as according to traditional teaching, the first verse is canceled out. Thus ending in the violent verses canceling the meaning of the peaceful ones, as those violent verses were proclaimed by the prophet Mohammed at a later time.

On the other hand, if the word "Nansakho" is understood as 'to write down and document' the meaning of the verse could be that: If God has written of his miracles or signs (Aia) in the books or did not write it down and consequently people forget it, he usually comes with a better one.

As you can see, the interpretation which is based on pure Arabic language, shows the real power of God in bringing new and better miracles and signs every time which is compatible with the word 'able to do anything" at the end of the verse.

While understanding it as 'cancellation' of a meaning, it is not compatible at all with the ability of God, as any one can cancel what he or she said.

In other words the concept of cancellation of the meaning is not compatible at all with the end of the verse (see the black box above).

Imagine that, according to the concept of cancellation of the verses, most of the peaceful verses in the Quran were considered "Mansuch' or cancelled by the violent ones and consequently it is not surprising to find the outcome of Islam is almost always violent!!

2- The ignorance of the value of the word "the"

Many readers may wonder how these three letters can make such a fundamental difference in the understanding of the Islamic religion.

It is as if some one told you give me a book, and then you can generalize the meaning and apply it to any book. Whilst if he or she said to you "give me the book' then the whole meaning changes to a specific book that both you and the speaker know.

To explain this point in the understanding of the Quran, please have a look on the following verse:

"{9:73} O Prophet! strive hard against the (Infidels) unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be very harsh against them.

Typical Islamic teaching generalizes the above verse to all Infidels. This obviously will succeed into changing many followers of Islam into beasts.

The word "the" specifies the meaning to ONLY a certain item or group. Such groups are defined by the following verse that specifies with whom the rough treatment, violence, or fighting should be:

"{2:190} Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not start attacking others".

If the word "the" is considered in the process of understanding the Quran, many the verses that promote violence against Non-believers (Infidels) will be specific to ONLY those who start war on Muslims and can not be applied to any "Infidel".

Can you see now how the word 'the" can make such a difference!

3- Practicing the Hadith of Bukhary, and other books, whilst ignoring the "unambiguous" verses of the Quran.

Hadith is considered by most Muslims as the "oral traditions" of Mohammed. No one is considered to be a Muslim without following them, according to traditional Islamic teaching. These started to be collected some 200 years after the death of the prophet Mohammed by a man called Al-Bukhary, who was followed by many others who also collected (as they claim) the oral traditions of Mohammed.

The best example to illustrate how following Al-Bukhary resulted in a catastrophe in Islam. It is the hadith that justifies killing any one who converts from Islam to another religion.

The Hadith is in a book called Sahih Albuchary and is considered by Al-Bukhary as a correct Hadith or " Hadith Sahaih".

Let us have a look now at that Hadith, and compare it to what the Quran has stated:

Hadith: "It is not allowed for any Muslim to kill another Muslim except in the following circumstances: if he committed murder, if he committed adultery, and if he converted from the Islamic religion to another religion."

Look now at what the Quran states, to understand the difference:
{18:29} Say, "The truth is from your Lord": it is up to anybody to believe it or not to believe it (convert or become Infidel)"

I think the difference is clear between the two approaches.

As the reader can see, applying that which is written in Al-Boukhary resulted in justifying the threat of killing many innocent people such as Salman Rushdie (the author of the book, Satanic Verses), and many innocent people who want to have a different form of belief.

Whilst, to the contrary, the Quran gave full freedom for any person to believe in what he or she wants.

The application of the Hadith mentioned above (called Hadith Almurtad or the converter) has resulted in largely the domination of the violent version of Islam as the Hadith, which was used to kill virtually any one who dares to understand Islam in a peaceful manner.

4- Historical understanding of the verses rather than language- based one (Jihad)

The exact meaning of the word "Jihad" is 'to resist'. This could be to resist an enemy who attacks you, or resist your desire to do evil.

Sadly, the word has been used throughout the history of Islam to attack those of different religions.

The Arab invasion of Europe and many other parts of the world such as Palestine, and North Africa are evidence of this. Since then, the word has become linked to an attacking attitude, rather than its real meaning, which is 'to resist'.

It is like the word 'gay" which typically means "happy". Since its repeated use describing homosexuals, it has come to refer to homosexuals rather than its former meaning. The same has happened with the word 'Jihad' which is linked to the violent attitude of most of current Islamic teaching. Whilst the original language-based meaning (to resist), was forgotten by most Muslims, and is virtually non-existent nowadays.

Muslims now have one of two choices. These are to understand the word in its historical context which means that they are declaring war against Non-Muslims all over the world, or to revert to the pure Arabic language-based understanding of the words encouraging peace.

5- Presenting only a special part of the verse to promote specific meaning and ignoring the rest of the verse

This point can be exemplified by the following verse that is used by many Islamic organisations to recruit young people. "{9:36} and fight the Infidels all together".

When Muslims read this verse, many of them especially the young ones, get very motivated to practice the will of 'Allah" and start thinking of attacking Non-Muslims to satisfy the Creator and inherit the paradise.

What these fundamental Islamic groups are not showing to these young Muslims is the rest of the verse, which is, "as they fight you all together."

The whole verse is "and fight the Infidels all together as they fight you all together" but the Islamic groups presents the first part only to support their violent views. They hide the rest of the verse, as it will specify the fighting to ONLY those who start war on Muslims.

As can be seen, the traditional way of understanding Islam has contributed to the violence that has been committed by Muslims around the world.

It is so sad to see that so many people following such teachings, as those who attempted reformation or tried to promote a peaceful way of understanding Islam were prosecuted or killed.

I tried to teach a peaceful understanding of the Islamic religion for more than 20 years. I have warned many people of the catastrophic consequences that will happen from the expansion of such violent understandings.

Sadly the attempt was on a very small scale, and I failed because I was fighting virtually by myself against the violent version of Islam that is supported by the money of Saudi Arabia.

It is now the responsibility of Muslims to either accept the traditional teachings which will encourage them declare war on all Non- Muslims, or to accept the peaceful way of understanding their religion which can make them good human beings.

I sincerely hope that they choose the second option!

Finally, I want also to say to all Muslims:

Do not resist the light. Do not love the darkness. Hate the violent way of thinking, as it makes you appear as beasts. Your violent way of thinking has resulted in the killing of many innocent people in the West and has resulted in killing many innocent children in Israel.

I wish to see you one day demonstrating in your millions and saying to those barbarous Islamic fanatics like Bin Laden, "Bin Laden, you are the enemy of humanity".

Your "deafening silence" just shows that you support terrorism in your hearts, and that you need to change.

I have been into Churches and Synagogues where they were praying for you and for peace - and at the same time - your Muslim preachers in the Mosques are saying loudly, "Oh Allah make their children Orphans, ... Oh Allah make their wives widows, and even (most recently), Oh Allah make the uterus of the Infidels' wives fibrotic". If this is what you want your religion to be - do not blame those who will say "shame on Allah, and shame on your religion"

If you mean God by the word "Allah", then I assure you that the true God will curse you forever for defaming his name.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Dana Barnett, November 22, 2004.

It is with great pleasure that we announce the official opening of the web site for Israel Academia Monitor, at the web address: http://israel-academia-monitor.com/

For more information, go to http://israel-academia-monitor.com/ Israel Academia Monitor P.O.Box 920 Kfar Shmaryahu 46910

Israel Academia Monitor is an Israeli watchdog group that monitors abuses of academic freedom and politicalization of Israeli campuses by extremists and radicals in Israeli academia who damage Israel because they want to be accepted by the enemy or by some of Israel's worst adversaries. We have modeled ourselves in part on the highly successful "Campus Watch" organization and monitoring group in the United States.

The purpose of Israel Academia Monitor is to bring to light abuses of academic freedom in Israel. Israeli academic institutions have been misused in recent years as platforms for radical anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic propagandizing, often by tenured radicals with embarrassing academic records and dubious research credentials. Israeli universities have been politicized, with hiring and promotion decisions subordinated to political bias. Israeli extremist academics have misused their podiums to spread anti-Israel libel and venom and to aid haters of Israel and of Jews around the world, including those seeking to boycott and delegitimize Israel and Jews.

The campus extremists have used their comfortable and protected positions in academia to promote insurrection and lawbreaking. They have done so while pocketing the subsidies and budget allocations of Israeli taxpayers and the financial gifts to the universities of donors and contributors. And while Israeli academic extremists insist that their seditious and anti-patriotic behavior must be protected as "academic freedom", they also believe that no one else should be permitted to monitor, nor criticize them as part of that same freedom. They believe in freedom of speech for leftist radicals and haters of Israel alone, but not for the critics of the radicals, not for the donors and contributors to universities, and not for politicians critical of the abuses inside the universities. Criticism of an anti-Zionist Israeli leftist is, in their opinion, "McCarthyism".

Israel Academia Monitor was founded and is operated by a group of donors, concerned academics, students, researchers, and others. We bring to light statements and articles written by and about the academic extremists and university anti-Zionists. It is our purpose to expose the activities and statements of Israel's academic extremists. We encourage students, scholars, and others to submit to us materials, and we will post and publish those that are appropriate and relevant.

We believe it is essential to document and monitor abuses of the cap and gown in Israel and call upon readers to support our efforts and assist us in all ways.

Our web site is filled with citations of anti-Israel extremism, endorsements of Israel's destruction, rationalizations of anti-Israel terrorism, defamation of Israel and of Jews, all the doings of extremist faculty members at Israeli universities. The citations are arranged by university and by faculty member name. While it would be hard to judge across the institutions, Ben Gurion University is no doubt leading the field, with the worst and largest numbers of anti-Israel fanatics on its faculty. The University of Haifa, Tel Aviv University, and Hebrew University are not far behind. Only the Technion and Bar Ilan University faculty have produced only small amounts of anti-Israel venom.

Among the many rogues featured on the Israel Academia Monitor web site are Oren Yiftachel from Ben-Gurion University, denouncing Israel repeatedly as an apartheid state, Neve Gordon, also from BGU, declaring that Israel is becoming fascist and is a terrorist state worse than the Hamas, Moshe Zimmerman from the Hebrew University comparing the Torah to Mein Kampf, Tanya Reinhart and Paul Wexler from Tel Aviv University calling for a worldwide boycott of Israeli universities, Ran HaCohen from Tel Aviv University endorsing Hizbullah attacks on Israel, and many, many more. We document the Israeli university faculty members who promote mutiny and insurrection by soldiers, who collaborate with anti-Semites and enemies of Israel, who sign petitions defaming Israel and Jews, who support lawlessness and terror.

We encourage reader support and contribution of new materials on the misbehavior of Israeli academic extremists, which will be posted on our web site, and of course financial support as well.

"One day, when historians scratch their heads and wonder just how Israel could have adopted the policies it did in the Oslo era of the 1990s, they will likely devote considerable attention to the role of the country's academics. In amazement, they will look back on how a number of radicals actively legitimated the agenda of the country's enemies, thereby doing much to demoralize their fellow nationals." -- Middle East Quarterly For more information, contact us through our web site.

To Go To Top
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, November 22, 2004.

This article was written by Mitch Potter, Middle East Bureau and appeared today in the Toronto Star (www.thestar.com).

If confirmation is needed, this was reported today by IMRA: "A poll conducted by the Center of Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at Najah University on November 19-20, 2004, asked: "Several Palestinian personalities support the conviction that Arafat died by being poisoned, do you believe this?" Yes - 80%, No - 9%."

RAMALLAH, West Bank - There is no grassy knoll in the Mukata compound where Yasser Arafat lies buried. There is no magic bullet, like the one so many true disbelievers are certain took down John F. Kennedy.

But here, in a landscape so shaped by myth, hatred and notions of conspiracy, the question of what killed the iconic Palestinian leader is fast taking on the aura of diabolical fable.

In a mutual departure from rational thought, an extraordinary number of Palestinians and Israelis are buying rumour as fact, certain that whatever felled Arafat early on Nov. 11 in a hospital outside Paris, it was neither old age nor the will of God. And anything but natural.

In curbside conversations, passersby are quick to share their convictions.

"Arafat died because he was betrayed," said Mahmoud Kalifa, 60, of Ramallah. "It was definitely an inside job between Israel and the Palestinians around Arafat. They both wanted to get rid of him."

Johara Abu Shalbak, 59, a seamstress, still fumes over the fact that Arafat's interim successors reneged on insisting that the president be buried in Jerusalem, as per his stated wishes.

"Isn't it enough that Israel poisoned and killed him, without forcing him to be buried in the Mukata? It's clear to me who is responsible for his death. Israel even announced he would not live long, many days before Arafat actually died."

A woman who identified herself only as Um Louie, 67, flatly placed the conspiracy on the shoulders of U.S. President George W. Bush.

"It was Bush who killed Arafat. He gave (Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon the green light to pen Arafat into his compound and make him sick to death," said Louie.

Among Israelis, too, conspiracy theories abound, many drawn to the reputation-shattering conclusion that Arafat died of AIDS. At its most extreme, the Israeli script completes the portrait of an arch-terrorist with the twist of hidden lifelong sexual debauchery, who ultimately died from a predatory appetite for young boys.

Arafat's widow, Suha Arafat, took possession of his medical records yesterday, and was deciding whether to make the file public to "stop all these false ideas" of what caused his death, her lawyer told the Associated Press. Authorities had said Thursday they would release Arafat's records to his nephew, Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian representative at the United Nations, who could resolve the lingering questions about the cause of death.

Nevertheless, the conspiratorial genie is out of the bottle, beyond the reach of logical containment.

"Nothing the French say will dispel the conspiracy theories," said Ethan Dor-Shav, a political scientist with Jerusalem's Shalem Center.

"It was 100 per cent predictable that the Palestinians needed Arafat to die as a martyr. The possibility of a normal death of old age was simply unacceptable. He had to die by the hands of Israel. It was absolutely necessary for the national myth."

The question today is not what people believe about Arafat's death, but whether those beliefs will inhibit movement toward Mideast peace.

Dor-Shav and other Israeli watchers fear the worst: that the ongoing deification of Arafat as the victim of an Israeli assassin is a recipe for continuing political paralysis.

"The legacy of Arafat's death under such murky circumstances is going to be a tremendous deterrence to peace," said Dor-Shav. "Any Palestinian leader who dares to assume positions perceived as more conciliatory (than) Arafat - whether on claims to Jerusalem or on the right of return for refugees - will die. He will be seen as defying Arafat's non-negotiable will."

Palestinian commentators, by contrast, say their society is ready to march forward toward Arafat's lifelong dream of statehood, even with the belief that Arafat was poisoned by Israel.

"Arafat will join JFK as the subject of the all-time great conspiracy theories. Every Palestinian wants to see him as a hero; they expected him to be martyred," said Mohammed Yaghi, executive director of the Palestinian Center for Mass Communication, a Ramallah-based think-tank.

"So this fits him. It provides the heroic end for a man who was always a target for Israelis. And even if Israel didn't kill him, they wanted to kill him. That is enough."

Yaghi insists Palestinians have it within them to compartmentalize their rage in the overriding interests of national unity.

"Everyone is using the issue of Arafat's death for their own desires. But just watch. When Abu Mazen (interim Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas) is nominated as the candidate for president, everything will change," said Yaghi.

"All the factions will support him. If we created a myth about Arafat's death, we have also created the expectation that everyone must now live up to this myth. There will be unity of purpose, a national responsibility to finish what he started."

Yaghi himself doesn't believe the assassination hype. Nevertheless, he well understands why so many Palestinians do.

"There are so many basis points to believe. We have the doubt planted by Arafat's wife, Suha, amid all the conflicting reports of his illness. And we have the collective memory that Israel has assassinated 20 leaders from the central committee of Arafat's Fatah movement since 1973," said Yaghi.

"Add to this our essential appetite for conspiracies. In the Third World in general, and in the Arab world in particular, we are always ready to believe something else lies beneath the surface. If we were an open society, if the media told the truth, we could avoid such rumours. But the truth is, in the absence of good information, we will believe the worst."

The right-wing Israeli newspaper Hatzofe attributes the most virulent accusations to Sheik Ibrahim Madiras, a Palestinian cleric closely affiliated with the Hamas movement, who said in a televised sermon six days before Arafat's death the leader was dying "for daring to say no to the White House."

"He paid for it with his freedom, and now he is paying for it with his life," Madiras is quoted as saying in an anti-Semitic rant that called Israelis "apes and swine."

"We do not doubt even for a moment that the (Israeli) government poisoned him in some way, to kill him slowly."

On the Israeli side, mainstream media this week began assigning weight to Hebrew-language blogs and Internet chat rooms touting AIDS as the most likely cause of death.

The daily Ma'ariv, citing unnamed sources, reported Monday Israel's intelligence branch is actively investigating as "much more than conjecture" the likelihood of an AIDS-related death.

The Shalem Center's Dor-Shav said the AIDS rumour fits perfectly with the Israeli view of Arafat as "a debased individual."

"Israelis look at the last living glimpse of an ailing Arafat being carried off his helicopter the same way they see Tom Hanks in the movie Philadelphia. They look the same," he said.

"A death by AIDS resonates with very concrete ideas Israelis have had about Arafat, going back before his days in Tunis. People accept as fact that the intelligence establishment has videos of him having sex with his male bodyguards."

Homosexuality, a widely accepted fact in Israeli culture, remains so taboo on the Palestinian side that Arab men have been known to declare themselves sexual refugees, appealing to Israel for protection against the possibility of becoming victims of honour killing in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. To imply Arafat was gay, let alone a pedophile, as do many of the most reckless Israeli Web writers, amounts to the worst possible insult to Palestinian nationalism.

Dor-Shav concludes that, either way, Israel will be blamed.

"Whatever the findings, it will make no difference. If it is AIDS, it will be AIDS planted by Israel, in the eyes of Palestinians," he said.

"There will never be a single accepted answer."

To Go To Top
Posted by Ariel Natan Pasko, November 22, 2004.

Every once in a while, I read an op-ed piece and say to myself, "Wait a second, that's not true." I just read such a piece in the Jerusalem Post; "Neither rejoice, nor lament" by Michael B. Oren, the best-selling author of "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East," (OUP 2002). A longer version of his article ran on November 14, 2004, entitled "Arafat Without Tears," in the Washington Post.

What is it that Oren said that got me so disturbed that I would bother to write about it?

Commenting about the Israeli public's lackadaisical response to Arafat's recent demise, Oren wrote "Ironically, the only Israelis who regret Arafat's passing are those from the radical Right who believe that Arafat was Israel's greatest asset - the man whose intransigence relieved the Jewish state of the necessity of making any painful sacrifices. Yet the far Right need not worry. It seems highly unlikely that any Palestinian figure will be capable in the foreseeable future of marshaling the legitimacy needed to make peace with Israel, or the military power to impose that peace on the Palestinian terrorist groups that will certainly oppose it."

Pure Hogwash. An inversion of logic. Oren's skewed view of things outshines his "scholarship" on this one. According to Oren, the far Right wanted Arafat to continue killing Jews so that the "peace process" would be wrecked, it's a virtual blood libel.

Just after Arafat's death, Manhigut Yehudit (the Jewish Leadership faction within Likud) held their annual convention in Jerusalem. It was reported in the press that Manhigut Yehudit supporters raised a toast in celebration of the death of "PLO leader and arch-terrorist" Yasser Arafat. Manhigut's leader, Moshe Feiglin, asked the audience to be an island of sanity in a sea of madness and reversal of values, as reflected in the condolences expressed in the media on the death of the archenemy of the Jews, Yasser Arafat. Feiglin declared before 2,500 people, "We pray for the death of all of God's enemies."

Similarly, it was reported that an assorted group of "right-wing extremists" and "Kach supporters," drank a "L'Chaim" (a toast) in downtown Jerusalem a couple days earlier, when it was prematurely reported that Arafat had kicked the bucket.

During that two-week "dead, not dead" period before the official announcement, the Israeli media reported on several Rabbis and a rabbinical group who stated that celebrating the death of Yasser Arafat was the proper Jewish response.

For example, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner (Chief Rabbi of Beit El and the head of the Ateret Kohanim Rabbinical Seminary in Jerusalem) wrote, "Arafat is also a sort of Haman, who not only wished to kill Jews, but in practice killed many Jews, leaving many widows and orphans, and thousands of injured and suffering...On [the death of] Arafat, one should say, 'and song went out through the camp,' and one should say, 'at the death of the wicked, there is joyful song,'" (Proverbs ch. 11).

So too, the rabbis of the Pikuach Nefesh organization ruled: "[That] disease of the human race, that Amalekite, and that Hitler of our generation, none other than Yasser Arafat, may his name and memory be erased - his carcass is about to be thrown into a grave; and we will fulfill 'at the death of the wicked, there is joyful song.' And according to the [halachic] jurists, that day should be a joyful, happy day for all of Israel! ...'And so may all Your enemies perish, God.'" Their statement was signed by several rabbis; including Rabbi Yaakov Yosef (the son of the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef).

Right-wing Israelis were overjoyed with Arafat's demise, not regretting it as Oren claims. But why did Oren claim this?

It struck me as odd when I read his op-ed piece. My initial response was "another leftist trying to blur the facts and twist them around to attack the right." But, Oren's bio at the foot of the page said he "is a Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem-based institute for Jewish social thought and public policy. He is also the head of the Middle East history project," and I know the Shalem Center is a conservative think-tank, I was intrigued, so I did some research.

A few facts I found out about Oren include, he was born in 1955 in America, belonged to the far-left Marxist Hashomer Hatza'ir youth movement and, at the age of 15, spent a brief period in Israel on two kibbutzim, Gonen and Gan Shmuel. He moved to Israel in 1977, at the age of 22, and after a stint in the Israeli Army during the Lebanon War, returned to the United States. He went to Princeton University, where he did his Ph.D. in the history of the Middle East.

During a very favorable interview in the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2002 (after the publication of his book), Oren admitted, "I did my doctorate in order to become a policy adviser, but when I returned to Israel, I decided not to join the Foreign Ministry. I wanted to get into the government, but they didn't accept me." He then worked on his post-doctorate at Sde Boker (the kibbutz David Ben-Gurion retired to). Oren still has an apartment there and returns there to write. "In 1992, I came back to Jerusalem as an adviser to Yitzhak Rabin, who I got to through Shimon Shetreet [a law professor and a cabinet minister in the Rabin government]."

In fact, he served as director of Israel's department of interreligious affairs in the government of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and as an adviser to the Israeli delegation to the United Nations.

So it's true, he has "solid" leftist credentials, and a personal reason (given his involvement in Rabin's administration) to skew the facts.

Oren's book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East," won him much acclaim. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak heaped praise on the book; and it was even reported that Vice President Dick Cheney was "staying up nights to plow through the 446-page tome." It was a New York Times and national bestseller, and won several awards including the "Washington Post Book World Best Book of 2002," the "National Jewish Book Award for best book of 2002," and the "Los Angeles Times Book Prize".

In his book, Oren claims that Nasser really didn't want a war with Israel in 1967, but to win a "bloodless political victory," in spite of his rants to "throw the Jews into the sea". In fact, according to Oren, in his earlier research that he did on the secret peace process between Egypt and Israel in the 1950s, he found that "between 10 and 15 years before 1967, Nasser was secretly writing letters to Israeli leaders and saying, 'Listen, I'd love to make peace with you, but if I do they're going to chop my head off, so I can't do it.'"

About the 1967 war, Oren feels, "it created a division with Israeli society that has widened over years, that really for the last 30 years, the major issue dividing Israelis has been the future of these territories almost to the distraction of any other issue--our economy, our society, religious, secular relations. And in that way the impact of '67 was deleterious and was injurious to Israeli society."

It's clear to me that Oren has an ideological ax to grind; his apologetics for Nasser, about the 1967 war more generally, the "peace process" and the Israeli Right.

When interviewed on National Public Radio's show "Fresh Air" on June 11, 2002 (during his US book promotion tour), Oren was asked, "Do you think that the Israeli incursions into the territories are an effective way of stopping the terrorist infrastructure?" Oren answered, "Oh. Well, first I don't think you can stop the terrorist infrastructure. I don't think anybody reasonably thinks that you can stop terrorists solely through military means..."

Oren clearly missed it, on that one. Israel has been reasonably successful in decapitating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terror groups. Then he spewed the standard Israeli leftist line, "Obviously the only long-term solution to terror is a diplomatic political solution..."

Yes, let's have Oslo 3, Oslo 4, Oslo More More More...

Also, Ami Eden reported on the Forward's weblog of November 22, 2003: "This weekend I attended two lectures delivered by Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War. He made several interesting observations...Though Oren, a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, leans right on some security issues [Eden's view], he is willing to rip the ideological excesses on that side of the political fence...He also seemed to come out in favor of dismantling isolated settlements in Gaza and the West Bank that lack anything close to popular support in Israel and serve no clear security purpose." So he's clearly a man of the center-left at best.

Which gets down to the real question, "What is Michael Oren doing at Yoram Hazony's right-wing research institute?"

When Oren was asked just that in his 2002 Haaretz interview, "How did you get to the Shalem Center?" he answered, "I discovered it four years ago: a young, developing Zionist institute consisting of Princeton graduates. I liked the place, and they were looking for someone to take charge of their Middle East project. They made me a senior fellow and made numerous resources available to me, including research all over the world. Without their support, I would never have produced a book of this scope within three years."

Oren found a group of fellow Princeton graduates to fund his research. But why would they help him (a former Marxist Hashomer Hatza'ir activist with a left-wing proclivity), considering that the Shalem Center has a national (right-wing) bent to it? Hazony, at one time proposed building the Shalem Center in the West Bank settlement of Eli, where he lived.

During that same Haaretz interview, Oren admitted that, "In fact, one of the Jewish critiques I received was that I am too sympathetic to Nasser. I am not complimentary to the IDF on a lot of subjects...There is a problem here. There is an historical affair that I want to understand, and what gets in the way are my views and opinions, the fact that I am a Zionist. If I want to reach understanding that is deep and balanced, I have to leap over those opinions. On every page, I stopped and asked myself whether I was writing in the most balanced way, and relatively speaking, I think I succeeded." So here Oren is admitting that his left-wing opinions force him to take a "balanced" approach.

What's interesting is that this "Post-Zionist" attitude of Oren's is exactly what Yoram Hazony attacked in his May 2001 book, "Jewish State: A History of Zionism and Post-Zionism".

According to his publisher, Hazony's book offered an in-depth analysis of the "new historians," the revolution in the new Israeli public-school curriculum implemented under Yitzhak Rabin and other issues. He wrote about the influence of post-Jewish ideals on Israel's culture and politics, examined Israeli academia and literature, as well as the media, the legal system, the armed forces and the foreign policy establishment. It's a pity his book came out before Oren's; Hazony might have included him in it.

Another fellow traveler of the left, on staff at the Shalem Center is associate fellow Yossi Klein Halevi. Formerly a follower of the radical right-wing Rabbi Meir Kahane (founder of the Kach Party), Halevi described his journey to the religious left in his 1995 book, "Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist: An American Story". He now regularly writes for the left-of-center "Jerusalem Report".

Has Hazony's own think-tank become one of those "corrupted" Israeli academies?

But Oren revealed his true intensions in his Jerusalem Post op-ed piece, when he said, "Yet the far Right need not worry. It seems highly unlikely [clearly moaning] that any Palestinian figure will be capable in the foreseeable future of marshaling the legitimacy needed to make peace with Israel, or the military power to impose that peace on the Palestinian terrorist groups that will certainly oppose it."

Truthfully, it is Oren (and others on the Left) that mourn Arafat's passing. They are saddened that he didn't live long enough to "make peace with Israel," or impose " peace on the Palestinian terrorist groups that will certainly oppose it." They still believe in their messianic pipe dreams.

Maybe if Arafat had lived another 5, or 10, or 20 years?

Guess what, it wouldn't have helped. The same day Oren's op-ed ran, the Jerusalem Post published an article claiming that Arafat never intended to make "peace" with Israel. Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based "al-Quds al-Arabi," said Arafat spoke to him when they met in Tunis, a few days before the PLO returned to the Gaza Strip. "I met with him in his office at around 3:00 AM," Atwan related. "The man told me, 'Listen, Abdel Bari, I know that you are opposed to the Oslo Accords, but you must always remember what I'm going to tell you. The day will come when you will see thousands of Jews fleeing Palestine. I will not live to see this, but you will definitely see it in your lifetime. The Oslo Accords will help bring this about.'"

Atwan claimed that Arafat created the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, because the Israelis and US sidelined him after the Camp David summit failure in 2000. "President Arafat was the one who established the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades in response to the attempt to marginalize him after the failure of the Camp David summit," he stated. "At the summit, he faced immense pressure from Israel, the US and some Arab parties to compromise on Jerusalem. Ironically, some Arab leaders, including Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz, called Arafat demanding that he display flexibility on the issue of Jerusalem." Atwan said Arafat rejected the offers Israel made at the summit "because he wasn't prepared to sign a final agreement with the Jewish state. He was well aware that such an agreement would make him go down in history as a traitor because he would have to give up the right of return for the refugees and most of the sovereignty over east Jerusalem."

So, there you have it, Arafat never intended "peace," just as the Israeli Right has claimed all along.

The problem with Oren (and those like him) is that they still don't want to admit they made a serious mistake with the Oslo Accords; bringing Arafat into Israel, setting up a mini-terror state, arming him and expecting him (like Rabin did) to terrorize his own people for Israel's benefit.

They still want to believe they were right, it doesn't matter about reality, they "need" to be right. If Arafat only lived long enough...but that isn't acceptable to say publicly in Israel, so, instead they blame the Israeli Right, it must be that the Right is unhappy about Arafat's death, because it will forestall progress in the "peace process". Anyone with half a cabbage upstairs knows that the whole "Oslo thing" was a major disaster for Israel, and the Right was thrilled that Arafat finally got it.

It just goes to show you, you could be a best selling author, receive critical acclaim (by saying all the "correct" Israel bashing things) and still not have any common sense.

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst and consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko

To Go To Top
Posted by Women in Green, November 22, 2004.
This was written by Mortimer B. Zuckerman. We agree with much of what he says, except that in point #3, he seems to praise Sharon for his "brave" step with regard to Disengagement from Gaza and abandoning some communities in the Shomron.

Women in Green vigorously oppose this action by Sharon and believe it is unwise and disastrous for Israel.

Mr. Zuckerman is dead wrong in thinking this move by Sharon was beneficial for Israel. It is unwise and a fatal error both on the part of Mr. Zuckerman and Sharon, and furthermore is immoral and illegal. It will lead to increased Arab terror. Moreover, it is a divisive element which sets Jew against Jew, at a time when unity against a mortal Arab enemy is desperately needed.

Yasser Arafat may be dead, but Arafatism lives on. That is the crucial fact amid all the talk about resurrecting the road map to peace. Arafat's principal legacy is hate, his gift to the world a kind of terrorism whose techniques have been aped from Indonesia to Iraq. Arafat was resolute in refusing to prepare his people for peace. He used every platform--radio, TV, newspapers, the mosques, schools, even summer camps for kids--to inculcate a hatred of Jews, Israel, and the West. The Jews, Arafat declared, "never lived in or ruled Palestine... They were relying on false mythological sources," i.e., the Bible. Canaan, for Arafat, was not the Promised Land for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants; it was the land of banishment. For good measure, he added that "there was no temple in Jerusalem," thus denying that Jesus ever walked there, preached there, or was crucified there. A pox, in other words, on everyone's! house. Pure Arafat.

The Palestinians who mobbed his coffin represented as much the hate he had fostered as grief. A Palestinian poll in Gaza asked whether rockets and mortar attacks on Israeli towns should continue even after Israel's full withdrawal: 51 percent approved of more attacks. Only 42 percent said no. A couple of years ago, another poll found only 26 percent of Palestinians favored stopping terrorist attacks--even if they were to receive all of the West Bank and Gaza, East Jerusalem, and sovereignty over the Temple Mount. No wonder any successor to Arafat will have trouble breaking with Arafat's rejectionist policies.

Mannequins. The great delusion in the West was that Arafat would lead the Palestinians to democracy and peace if only he were given more concessions. The hope in the Oslo peace pact was that Arafat might provide security for Israel against terrorism and democracy for the Palestinians. Instead, we ended up with neither security nor democracy. Again, pure Arafat. Yet even when he broke his promises, the Clinton administration refused to hold him accountable while the hundreds of millions of dollars he received to improve life for Palestinians were diverted to support a terrorist network. So now the Palestinians are to be guided, it appears, by some 10 feuding groups and their warlords who have about 40,000 guns (to say nothing of the criminal gangs that control swaths of the West Bank and Gaza).

Symptomatic of the chaos was the murder, at a commemorative service for Arafat, of two bodyguards of Arafat's likely successor, Mahmoud Abbas--a continuation of the enmity Arafat directed at Abbas in forcing him to step down as prime minister last year. Abbas and his sidekick, Ahmed Qureia, are both well known to the West, but both are only mannequins in a store window. The store itself is run by men like Bashir Nafi, Haj Ismail Jaber, Tawfik Tirawi, Jibril Rajoub, and Mohammed Dahlan. It is they who have the guns and, so, the power. There is no evidence that these men intend to give up either, or to crack down on terrorists. There is danger, instead, that the Palestinian leadership that emerges will seek popularity by encouraging the terrorists and the criminals.

What should Washington do?

1. Alleviate the difficulties of Palestinian life and encourage Israel to identify and support moderate Palestinians who want to build legitimacy and political power.

2. Hold Palestinians accountable. The fatal flaw of Oslo was that violations of Palestinian obligations provided the rationale not for rebuke but for more concessions.

3. Encourage the one positive development, namely Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's brave commitment, at the risk of his own political future, to withdraw from Gaza and from four West Bank settlements.

4. Resist the clamor from Europe to begin political negotiations before terrorist groups are dismantled.

5. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are right to advocate democratic ideals for the Palestinians, but we must recognize that, in the short run, we may see a Palestinian leadership even more radical than Arafat if those in charge insist on ignoring the underlying values of democracy--especially the rule of law.

There must be no rush to push a new road map. The emerging Palestinian leadership must prove its will and ability to transform the nation. A democratic Palestine offers the only chance to become a peaceful neighbor to Israel instead of a terrorist entity.

Careful, judicious leadership from Washington will have to convince Europe and the Arab countries that no single leap is likely to achieve justice and peace for all. If George Bush takes the long view, he could become not only a war president but a peace president, too.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, November 22, 2004.

This was written by Thomas Sowell and appeared in the Commentary section of the Washington Times Insider (http://www.washingtontimes.com) today. Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Cats are supposed to have nine lives but fallacies must have at least 90. Some notions will be believed, no matter how often they are refuted by facts.

One of these seemingly immortal fallacies is the implicit assumption our enemies have unlimited resources, so efforts to strengthen ourselves militarily are doomed to be self-defeating.

At least as far back as the 1930s, the intelligentsia and others have warned military spending would set off an "arms race" in which each side escalates its military buildup in response to the other, making the whole thing an expensive exercise in futility. The same notion was repeated throughout the long Cold War.

Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices. People who talk this way are completely undaunted by the fact Ronald Reagan proved them wrong during the Cold War.

Mr. Reagan understood the Soviets did not have unlimited resources -- and in fact their resources were far more limited than ours. Going directly counter to those who wanted a "nuclear freeze" or other weapons limitations agreements, Ronald Reagan began a military buildup that kept upping the ante until the Soviets had to throw in their hand, ending the Cold War.

When Mr. Reagan ordered a bombing of Libya in retaliation for Libyan terrorism, the immortal fallacy was immediately voiced by former President Jimmy Carter, who declared this would only worsen matters and bring on more terrorism. But Libya toned down its terrorist activities.

Years later, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown in Iraq and was then dragged out of his hiding hole, Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi decided to end his nuclear program and cooperate with monitors. Unlike Jimmy Carter, he knew he did not have unlimited resources.

Those who argue today that virtually our every military action only arouses "the Arab street" against us and provokes a new stream of terrorist recruits fail to understand that international terrorism requires more than new recruits. It requires huge amounts of money, sophisticated leaders and an intricate command structure.

President Bush hit the terrorists in the pocketbook, with help from countries worldwide by exposing and disrupting their financial networks. Then many top terrorist leaders were killed or captured and their training bases in Afghanistan destroyed.

There is no unlimited supply of money, sophisticated leaders or countries willing to risk American military action by aiding and abetting international terrorism. A number of countries have begun cooperating, making this one of the largest international operations ever to be called "unilateral."

There may not even be an unlimited supply of potential suicide bombers in "the Arab street," now that Saddam Hussein is no longer there to subsidize the families of suicide bombers who kill civilians in Israel or to provide sanctuary for other terrorists.

Critics of the Bush administration may keep saying there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism but the terrorists themselves seem to believe otherwise. Why else are they pouring into Iraq, in what they themselves have characterized as a crucial battle to stop the Americans from reconstituting that country in ways that will make their plans for the region harder to carry out?

There is a cost to this war as there have been costs to all wars, including the Cold War. And there have been painful setbacks and surprises in this war, as there have been in all wars.

George Washington lost most of the battles he fought, but we still came out of it as a new and independent nation. But there were grownups in that war and in our other wars.

The big question today, and for our future, is not whether our enemies have unlimited resources but whether we have an inexhaustible supply of immaturity in our media and among our politicians.

To Go To Top
Posted by Sliwa News, November 21, 2004.

This was written by Douglas Feiden, Daily News Staff Writer and is entitled "Hate 101". It is archived at http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/254925p-218295c.html

Many students say Columbia Prof. Hamid Dabashi, a department chairman, has bullied and threatened them for defending Israel. Students Ariel Beery (speaking) and Noah Liben (r.) at press conference after showing of the film 'Columbia Unbecoming.' In the world of Hamid Dabashi, supporters of Israel are "warmongers" and "Gestapo apparatchiks."

The Jewish homeland is "nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States."

It's a capital of "thuggery" - a "ghastly state of racism and apartheid" - and it "must be dismantled."

A voice from America's crackpot fringe? Actually, Dabashi is a tenured professor and department chairman at Columbia University. And his views have resonated and been echoed in other areas of the university.

Columbia is at risk of becoming a poison Ivy, some critics claim, and tensions are high.

In classrooms, teach-ins, interviews and published works, dozens of academics are said to be promoting an I-hate-Israel agenda, embracing the ugliest of Arab propaganda, and teaching that Zionism is the root of all evil in the Mideast.

In three weeks of interviews, numerous students told the Daily News they face harassment, threats and ridicule merely for defending the right of Israel to survive.

And the university itself is holding investigations into the alleged intimidation.

Dabashi has achieved academic stardom: professor of Iranian studies; chairman of the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department; past head of a panel that administers Columbia's core curriculum.

The 53-year-old, Iranian-born scholar has said CNN should be held accountable for "war crimes" for one-sided coverage of Sept. 11, 2001. He doubts the existence of Al Qaeda and questions the role of Osama Bin Laden in the attacks.

Dabashi did not return calls.

In September in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, he wrote, "What they call Israel is no mere military state. A subsumed militarism, a systemic mendacity with an ingrained violence constitutional to the very fusion of its fabric, has penetrated the deepest corners of what these people have to call their soul."

After the showing of a student-made documentary about faculty bias and bullying that targets Jewish students, six or seven swastikas were found carved in a Butler Library bathroom last month.

Then after a screening of the film, "Columbia Unbecoming," produced by the David Project, a pro-Israel group in Boston, one student denounced another as a "Zionist fascist scum," witnesses said.

On Oct. 27, Columbia announced it would probe alleged intimidation and improve procedures for students to file grievances.

"Is the climate hostile to free expression?" asked Alan Brinkley, the university provost. "I don't believe it is, but we're investigating to find out."

But one student on College Walk described the campus as a "republic of fear." Another branded the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department the "department of dishonesty."

A third described how she was once "humiliated in front of an entire class."

Deena Shanker, a Mideast and Asian studies major, remains an admirer of the department. But she says she will never forget the day she asked Joseph Massad, a professor of modern Arab politics, if Israel gives warnings before bombing certain buildings so residents could flee.

"Instead of answering my question, Massad exploded," she said. "He told me if I was going to 'deny the atrocities' committed against the Palestinians, I could get out of his class."

"Professorial power is being abused," said Ariel Beery, a senior who is student president in the School of General Studies, but stresses he's speaking only for himself.

"Students are being bullied because of their identities, ideologies, religions and national origins," Beery said.

Added Noah Liben, another senior, "Debate is being stifled. Students are being silenced in their own classrooms."

Said Brinkley: If a professor taught the "Earth was flat or there was no Holocaust," Columbia might intervene in the classroom. "But we don't tell faculty they can't express strong, or even offensive opinions."

Yet even some faculty members say they fear social ostracism and career consequences if they're viewed as too pro-Israel, and that many have been cowed or shamed into silence.

One apparently unafraid is Dan Miron, a professor of Hebrew literature and holder of a prestigious endowed chair.

He said scores of Jewish students - about one a week - have trooped into his office to complain about bias in the classroom.

"Students tell me they've been browbeaten, humiliated and treated disrespectfully for daring to challenge the idea that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish nation," he said.

"They say they've been told Israeli soldiers routinely rape Palestinian women and commit other atrocities, and that Zionism is racism and the root of all evil."

One yardstick of the anti-Israel sentiment among professors, critics say, is the 106 faculty signatures on a petition last year that called for Columbia to sell its holdings in all firms that conduct business with Israel's military.

Noting that the divestment campaign compared Israel to South Africa during the apartheid era, Columbia President Lee Bollinger termed it "grotesque and offensive."

That didn't stop 12 Mideast and Asian studies professors - almost half the department - and 21 anthropology teachers from signing on, a review of the petition shows.

To identify the Columbia faculty with the most strongly anti-Israel views, The News spoke to numerous teachers and students, including some who took their courses; reviewed interviews and published works, and examined Web sites that report their public speeches and statements, including the online archives of the Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper.

Their views could be dismissed as academic fodder if they weren't so incendiary.

Columbia's firebrands

In the world of Hamid Dabashi, supporters of Israel are "warmongers" and "Gestapo apparatchiks."

The Jewish homeland is "nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States."

Nicholas De Genova, who teaches anthropology and Latino studies. The Chronicle of Higher Education calls him "the most hated professor in America."

At an anti-war teach-in last year, he said he wished for a "million Mogadishus," referring to the slaughter of U.S. troops in Somalia in 1993.

"U.S. patriotism is inseparable from imperial warfare and white supremacy," he added.

De Genova has also said, "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people. ... Israel has no claim to the heritage of the Holocaust."

De Genova didn't return calls.

Bruce Robbins, a professor of English and comparative literature.

In a speech backing divestment, he said, "The Israeli government has no right to the sufferings of the Holocaust."

Elaborating, Robbins told The News he believes Israel has a right to exist, but he thinks the country has "betrayed the memory of the Holocaust."

Joseph Massad, who is a tenure-track professor of Arab politics. Students and faculty interviewed by The News consistently claimed that the Jordanian-born Palestinian is the most controversial, and vitriolic, professor on campus.

"How many Palestinians have you killed?" he allegedly asked one student, Tomy Schoenfeld, an Israeli military veteran, and then refused to answer his questions.

To Massad, CNN star Wolf Blitzer is "Ze'ev Blitzer," which is the byline Blitzer used in the 1980s, when he wrote for Hebrew papers but hasn't used since.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can be likened to Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, he once declared.

"The Jews are not a nation," he said in one speech. "The Jewish state is a racist state that does not have a right to exist."

Massad didn't return several calls. On his Web site, he says he's a victim of a "witch hunt" by "pro-Israel groups" and their "propaganda machine."

George Saliba, a professor of Arabic and Islamic science. His classroom rants against the West are legendary, students have claimed.

One student says his "Islam & Western Science" class could be called "Why the West is Evil." Another writes that his "Intro to Islamic Civilization" often serves as a forum to "rail against evil America."

A recent graduate, Lindsay Shrier, said Saliba told her, "You have no claim to the land of Israel ... no voice in this debate. You have green eyes, you're not a true Semite. I have brown eyes, I'm a true Semite."

Saliba did not return calls.

Rashid Khalidi, who is the Edward Said professor of Arab studies. He's the academic heir to the late Said, a professor who famously threw a stone from Lebanon at an Israeli guard booth.

Columbia initially refused to say how the chair was funded. But The United Arab Emirates, which denies the Holocaust on state TV channels, is reported to have provided $200,000.

When Palestinians in a Ramallah police station lynched two Israeli reservists in 2000 - throwing one body out a window and proudly displaying bloodstained hands - the professor attacked the media, not the killers.

He complained about "inflammatory headlines" in a Chicago Sun-Times story and called the paper's then-owner, Conrad Black, who also owned the Jerusalem Post, "the most extreme Zionist in public life."

Reached at Columbia, Khalidi declined to comment on specifics.

"As somebody who has a body of work, written six books and won many awards, the only fair thing to do is look at the entire body of work, not take quotes out of context," he said.

Lila Abu-Lughod, a professor of anthropology, romanticizes Birzeit University in the West Bank as a "liberal arts college dedicated to teaching and research in the same spirit as U.S. colleges."

But it is well-established that Birzeit also is the campus where Hamas openly recruits suicide bombers, stone-throwers and gunmen.

As in her published works, Abu-Lughod gave a carefully nuanced response when reached Friday by The News:

"The CIA has historically recruited at Columbia, but that's not the mission of Columbia. The mission of Birzeit is to educate students, and they're working under very difficult circumstances to do that."

To Go To Top
Posted by David Frankfurter, November 21, 2004.

The visit of the French Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, to Israel was designed to repair recent damage to the relations between Paris and Jerusalem. It was also seemingly an opportunity for a greater involvement of the EU in the region as a force to secure a new peace. The reality reveals stark similarities with failed globalists of past eras.

Europe is adamant. Visitors and permanent EU representatives for the region make it clear at every opportunity. The EU deserves and demands greater involvement and responsibility in a new peace making process in the Middle East. If they are not allowed, Israel will pay the price.

The visit to Israel in October by the French Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, was just such a tour de force. He did promise to fight anti-Semitism at home. He endorsed the Israeli Prime Minister's plan to withdraw from Gaza, promised economic cooperation and all good things known to mankind.

However, Barnier also let slip Europe's frustration at its own failures, and its strategy to recover lost pride. He complained that Europe had been "an economic giant but a political midget" vis-a-vis the Middle East peace process, demanding that Israel grant Europe an expanded role.

So, in a move many Europeans still consider compatible with the Road Map launched last year, EU leaders will be asked in November to endorse a new plan prepared by the Commission. This will confirm a two-state solution, supported by elections and overseas policing in the Palestinian territories.

All that seems fairly decent and reasonable. That is until you consider two simple questions: What has happened to EU policy until now and what are the real intentions behind these statements?

Since the 1980s, Europe has not sought to hide a growing affinity with Arab interests, including those of the Palestinians. The Oslo Accords of 1993 enabled the EU and member states to transfer around EUR4 billion to the Palestinians in direct and indirect aid. Reading former speeches from Messrs Patten, Solana, Cox and others, it is evident that the EU had hoped to buy a Palestinians path to reform and democracy.

Certainly, EUR 4billion gifts to the Palestinians justify Barnier's feeling of financial strength. Similarly, the EU has earned the comparison with a diplomatic midget. There has been near complete failure to cajole the Palestinians into creating a civil and pluralistic society with a face toward peace.

The Palestinian Authority is the instrument that the EU intends to lead Palestinians into statehood. Compare the PA today with that of 1993, when it hurriedly threw away the stained product label, "PLO". Essentially, it is the same leadership, but now with a lot more money and a growing bit of land. Its policies have not changed, as Chairman Arafat continues to urge his homicide bombers on towards Jerusalem. Even the basic requirement of the EU sponsored Road Map, the cessation of terrorism, was ignored by the PA.

In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Michael Tarazi, who draws his salary from the PLO Negotiation Support Unit, explained that the Palestinians are discarding the public acceptance of the European vision of a two-state solution. He ingeniously calls on Europeans to work towards "equal citizenship", a euphemism for a one-state solution and the annihilation of Israel.

And here's the catch: Tarazi's Unit is funded by Britain, Sweden and others. Seemingly, they are innocently financing a group working in contradiction to their own policy of a two-state solution. Innocently?

Given these contradictions and financial fiascos, should Israel trust the EU?

It is easy to see why not. European complacency to the public statements by UNRWA Commissioner General, Peter Hansen, that his organisation employs members of Hamas did not surprise the Israeli public. While Hamas is catgorised as a terror group by Europe, the EU and member states are UNRWA's leading donors.

And then compare the public outrage by senior Europeans, like Swedish Prime Minister Persson and Dutch Foreign Minister Bot, at the senseless slaughter of women and children at Beslan with the relative equanimity of the daily targeting of innocents by Palestinian terrorists.

And the EU is starting to wave the weapon of economic sanctions in the direction of Israel. Put bluntly, if Israel does not play ball, the EU will pull the plug on trade concessions. This matches recent assessments by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Leaks of a confidential report showed fears that Europe is willing to sacrifice Israel and turn it into a "pariah state", if she does not capitulate to European demands.

Rewarding the proponents of terror at the expense of a democracy is consistent with the EU's new commercial policy, having signed a new trade deal with Syria last month, on the very same day the UN endorsed a French led demand that Syria cease its occupation of Lebanon, where it is supporting Hizbollah terrorists.

In the summer of 2000, Chairman Arafat realised that the heavy compromises of Prime Minister at Barak at Camp David demanded a full recognition of Israel. The Palestinian leadership could not accept this. It ran to Europe, specifically President Chirac, for a soothing cuddle. Europe obliged its charge. Two months later, war was declared on Israel and terrorists, arrested under the Oslo accords, were released from their cells in Ramallah and Gaza.

If we can learn from history, is there a parallel to this situation? In 1973, the USA goaded the corrupt South Vietnamese government into signing a cease-fire deal with its communist neighbours from the north. Two years later, Washington's good intentions were blown away by Hanoi's triumphant army.

Europe is gearing itself up to force Israel into making some hard decisions, just as the Americans did to its friend three decades ago. Just as the Americans needed to save face and abandon its investment in South Vietnam with dignity, so Brussels must show a return on its Palestinian investment.

For the moment, the comparison is not so simple. Israel is a full pluralistic society, where minorities have full electoral powers. Historically suspicious of European solutions, she has also learned from the lessons of Asian history.

Meanwhile, the Europeans press on. If they plan to force agreements on their Middle Eastern friends, permit me to suggest that a "appropriate" place for the gathering of waving papers might be Munich.

To subscribe to Frankfurter's 'letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@iname.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/

This appeared in the Sprout, November 2004.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 21, 2004.

Oh those furry little Palestinian propagandists. Seems they got all upset because one Mark Williams, a columnist in Sacramento, dared to tell the truth about Arafat. Read their outraged response, it will make your day!, at http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/mediocrity/displayCall.asp?essayID=264

Here is the column that enraged the barbarians: It's called "Finishing What Hitler Started" by Mark Williams and was published November 12, 2004.

The media in this county have gone nuts. I actually heard one TV anchorettewith nice teeth but no brains or sense of history past her first Barbie Dollrefer to Yasser Arafat as the George Washington of Palestine.

Get this straight: Yasser Arafat was a blood-soaked, sub-human, vile, reprehensible, murderous animal. Its (his) savagery was unmatched in the latter half of the 20th Century and the fires of Hell are burning that much more brightly for his having been spawned.

This sociopathic reptiles terrorist history dates to his founding of Fatah designed to liberate Israel from the Jews, by way of extermination, in the 1950s. By 1969 he was big dog on the Middle Eastern block, head of a conglomeration of Islamic terrorist organizations unified under a single committee on which each is represented.

The Executive Committee of the PLO becomes the Arab equivalent of the Mob commission founded by Joseph Joe Bananas Bonnano, Lucky Luciano, Tommy Lucchese, Frank Costello, and Vito Genovese. Joe was a humanitarian compared to Arafat, the five families were only killing each other at the time, united to stop that and direct their efforts toward the business at hand. In Arafats case, the goal of unification was to improve and coordinate a more effective offensive against innocents.

And what a record Arafat accumulated!

February 21, 1970. Swissair flight 330 blown out of the sky inbound to Tel Aviv. All passengers and crew lost.

May 8, 1970. Nine school kids and three of their teachers blown to bits when Arafat orders their school bus obliterated by bazooka fire

September 5, 1972. Also under Arafats direct command, terrorists murder 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics (FYI; Mahmood Abbas, who tops a short list of successors to Arafat today was the creep who worked out the logistics for that slaughter)

March 1, 1973. The US Ambassador to the Sudan is among those killed when Arafats animals take over the Saudi embassy in Khartoum.

May 15 1974. This is one of Arafats best pieces of work. Under orders from the soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize winner, a group of PLO tosses grenades into a group of schoolchildren being held hostage and try to mow down the survivors with machine guns. Twenty-one children and two adults killed in the school. A child, home from school sick, is murdered along with both parents when Arafats guys make a quick stop by the house to see if they missed anybody.

October 7, 1985. An oldie but goodie. American Leon Klinghoffer is shot in his wheelchair, which is then rolled off of the Achille Lauros deck and to a watery grave in the Mediterranean.

January 17, 2002. Sixx killed, 35 wounded when Arafats freedom fighters machinegun a bat mitzvah. Two dead, 40 injured five days later when commuters are machine-gunned by Arafats animals at a bus stop. A week later they burst into a private home to murder an 11-year-old and her mother

May 27, 2002. The George Washington of Palestine orders an infant and her grandmother blown to pieces at an ice cream parlor. The next day they mow down a group of kids playing basketball. Three dead; ages 17, 17 and 14. The next months high point for Yasser comes with three more dead kids: 16, 12 and 5 in a home invasion, along with their mother and a neighbor who tried to help the other victims.

May 2004. Arafat dispatches four more kids: 11, 9, 7, 2, and mom when he RPGs their car.

Those are just a few highlights a partial list, abbreviated because to publish a complete list of the accomplishments of the founding father of terrorism would take up this entire publication. There are literally hundreds of attacks on innocents, hundreds more on mostly off-duty IDF and ordinary street cops walking their beats. The death toll in the thousands. But you wont hear this from the American media whose motto is: Warm up the box cars, we found a nest of em!

Folks, this emperor is as naked as they come:

Item: There is not, never has been, never will be a nation called Palestine. It is a myth. Atlantis has more validity. Palestine exists only as a vehicle for the extermination of an entire people and a major goal of Islamic Jihad in its war against civilization.

Item: If there is a crueler pile of camel manure than Palestine, then it has got to be the total fiction of a Palestinian people as a group distinct from Jews, Arabs or the other peoples indigenous to the area. They have homelands. What they do not have is a Jew-less Israel. This nonsense about a homeland is just that nonsense. But dangerous nonsense. These freaks of some twisted politically correct nightmare are furiously scratching matches over a gas jet trying to relight Auschwitz.

Is there anything holy to our contemptible media? They are celebrating a monster that did more to advance toward the Final Solution than anybody since Schickelgrueber Arafat was the bin Laden of his day and now he is dead. Good, I am glad. I hope it was painful. The appropriate headstone over the stiff would be a working urinal.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Dror Vanunu, November 21, 2004.

Over the past four years, thousands of journalists and media teams from Israel and from the rest of the world have visited Gush Katif, from the CNN, FOX news, the BBC to local papers from Portugal and New Zealand want to write about a new topic, one that has yet to be widely covered. This desire for a new angle or a brand new story causes us quite a few headaches but that is our job as the information department of Gush Katif, and the raison d'etre of professional journalism.

Until we arrive at Avishai Nativ, the pizza vendor from Rafiah Yam, Meir Rothstein, owner of a store in Neve Dekalim and Simcha from Slav - these three announced three months ago their desire to leave Gush Katif, while badmouthing the people of the Gush as a whole. For decency's sake I will not, in this letter, give the specifics of the police files and investigations against these people, of their personal situations and their "status" in the communities, and will only hint that here we are dealing with motives that do not exactly derive from a true appreciation of the worthiness of the disengagement plan. The Israeli and foreign media have over-energetically adopted these people and turned them into celebrities - during this time, publishing hundreds of articles and television and radio interviews with them, showcasing their desire to leave Gush Katif. Each time that we remind the curious journalists that this is a tiny, fringe minority and that this subject has already been widely covered in all the media, they nod their heads in agreement that it would be unprofessional to repeat this oft-told story, but then immediately run to stand in line to do an interview in front of Rottenshtein's store.

This past, Tueday, Yonatan Bassi, the head of the expulsion authority, published information indicating that between one quarter and one third of the residents of Gush Katif are willing to leave - and this number shortly after became one half. This same morning the expulsion authority organized a bus trip for Gush Katif residents interested in checking out alternative settlements. A bus was chartered for this purpose and it was "filled up" with -- of course -- Avishai, Meir, Simcha and three children. (It is worth noting that in order to increase the number of participants, an effort was made to present this to new immigrants of the "Bnei Menashe" as a free tour of the north of the country. This trick was discovered in time and thwarted by us).

A few of the more objective media admitted that it would have been possible to fit all of the participants into a private car but as usual all preferred to provide a platform for Yonatan Bassi's declarations and for the disinformation coming from Sharon's office

From time to time, completely false information appears in the media. For example, two months ago, Yediot Ahronot published the headline "2000 families from Gush Katif have already signed papers indicating their willingness to leave" (in all of Gush Katif there are 1750 families) and "The settlement of Atzmona is moving to kibbutz Holit" (100% of the residents of Atzmona signed a pledge not to have any dealings with people from the expulsion administration.)

Actually, up to now 95% of the residents of Gush Katif have not even considered getting information about the so-called "compensation" money and not even one family has accepted the pro-offered advance of these funds. This is of course not to the liking of the expulsion administration. Even the minority of residents who, due to economic pressures, are considering their options are frustrated by the compensation funds on offer, which are both unfair and inadequate. (Obvious to say that the legends referring to the number 300,000 as the amount of dollars for compensation per family is totally unbased and unfounded.)

Whoever will come to visit in Gush Katif these days will find that people are gritting their teeth in the face of the security problems, and concentrating on building, planting and continuing the struggle. So, the next time that you see Meir, Avishai or Simcha, you should know that they represent only themselves and the leftist organizations that have adopted them.

Dror Vanunu is spokesman for Gush Katif. He will be in the States from December 12-26. If you would like him to visit your community for an engagement/fundraiser, please email Ken Heller at KJHNHA@aol.com or call Friends of Gush Katif, 588 South Forest Drive, Teaneck, NJ, 07666. Tel: 201-8951323

You can support Gush Katif financially by contacting Katif Region Development Fund, Neve Dekalim, D.N Hof-Aza, 79779, Israel, Tel: 972-8-6840846, Fax: 972-8-6840863

To Go To Top
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 21, 2004.

Well, I think it's now safe to say that the Egyptian ghoul is finally out of the picture.

The problem, of course, is that the problem has always gone far beyond Arafat himself. He was simply carrying a local banner of an age-old Arabism which rejects the rights of any of the millions of non-Arab peoples conquered in its name to a share in what Arabs have declared to be "purely Arab patrimony." No "partitions" or "compromises" either.

Whether the subject is black Africans in the Sudan, Kurds in Syria or Iraq, Copts in Egypt, Berbers in North Africa, native kilab yahud "Jew dogs," or anyone else who might have dared to claim a small slice of the Middle East pie after the collapse of the four century-old Ottoman Turkish Empire in the wake of World War I, Arabs have treated all would-be national competitors similarly... with, admittedly, a bit more disdain for the Jews, who were singled out for vilification in the Qur'an and other religious teachings of Islam as well.

So now that he pollutes the soil from Jerusalem sprinkled onto his coffin in Ramallah, nothing has really changed.

The past years of the Oslo "peace," in which Israel was pressured to yield hard tangibles, like disputed territory, to Arabs who were supposed to in turn curtail terrorism and prepare their people for acceptance of a Jewish state in the neighborhood, were spent doing the exact opposite by Arafat and his buddies instead. The Palestinian Authority proved to be no different than Hamas or Islamic Jihad on these crucial matters. The schools, mosques, media, websites, and other potential sources for good were simply used to nurture a rabid hatred of Jews.

That brings us to Arafat's two Fatah colleagues running the show until supposedly free elections take place.

Mahmoud Abbas--Abu Mazen -- and Ahmed Qurei'-- Abu Alaa are former and present chief marionettes of the now dead master puppeteer. But even though he's now gone, his legacy is still working the strings.

Both have been referred to by a wishful-thinking West as "moderates."

True, at times they have nominally condemned suicide/homicide bombers...but so did Arafat. Yet they have been a bit more vocal about this and openly admitted their reason: bad press. Deliberately disemboweling and blowing apart Jewish babes and other innocents was not the concern, nor living up to the terms Oslo. The bad public relations that these incidents cause (in at least some circles) was and is the issue yielding any relative "moderation" here.

Keep in mind that Abu Mazen is a Holocaust denier, Abu Alaa has been quoted as refusing to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State, and both, for decades, worked along side of Arafat for the destruction of Israel.

Qurei' & Co. think that they're going to flood Israel with millions of alleged "returning" Arab refugees. Note, please, that said refugees were created as a result of the invasion of Israel by a half dozen Arab states in 1948, and that half of Israel's Jews were refugees from "Arab" lands but without some two dozen other states of their own--as Arabs have--to potentially choose from.

Also understand that nobody accuses Abbas or Qurei' of stupidity. So they tell the West what it wants to hear--even if most really don't care but want to a least go through the motions so that after Auschwitz and Munich they can feel better about themselves and the consequences of their actions.

As is well known, the model moderate that the two Abus' Palestinian Authority showcased was the late Faisal al-Husseini. He spoke of any peace dealings with the Jews as being merely a Trojan Horse that would lead to Israel's total destruction as a Jewish State and the creation of an Arab Palestine "from the River to the Sea." Take a close look at the maps of "Palestine" on the Palestinian Authority's websites, insignias, and so forth. They cover all of Israel, not just the disputed, unapportioned lands of the original Mandate on the West Bank and in Gaza. Arafat and others have repeatedly called Oslo a modern "Peace of the Quraysh," the temporary hudna the Prophet Muhammad agreed to until he gained enough strength to deal the final blow to his enemies.

Nothing has changed now that Arafat is gone. Any leader who truly talks and wants peace with the Jews--not that the two Abus actually fit into this mold--will not long be of this world in this rejectionist, bloodlust milieu. Shots were most likely fired at Abbas, killing others instead, not long after Arafat's funeral, despite the denials. Just the perception that a leader might be contemplating something beyond rejection of Jews is enough to get him killed.

While the predicament of such leaders is understandable, Israel cannot be asked to do what any other nation would not be expected to do to accommodate these folks.

Whether they like it or not, the ball is now in the Arab court. Given the murderous mindset--polls have shown that even if Israel would withdraw from every inch of the disputed territories, most Arabs would still support terrorism and Israel's destruction--Israel can yield no further concretes on the ground until the Arabs' own leaders display a willingness to deal forcefully with the murderous rejectionists in their midsts. If they do not, then they likely reveal their own rejectionism as well. Other nations are not expected to yield strategic assets to enemies sworn to their demise for the sake of nice but confusing, empty words backed up with no action. Don't expect Jews, in their sole, microscopic State, to do this either.

If the two Abus and future Arab leaders are serious about ending this tragic conflict and creating a better world for their own people--instead of just trying to butcher more Jews-- take a look below to see what really needs to be done...

Early in May 1948, surrounding Arab countries, armed to the teeth with weaponry left over by the British in World War II, invaded a reborn Israel to nip it in the bud. Transjordan's army was even led by British officers. And since we're on the subject, it needs to stated yet once again, for the sake of any newcomers on these matters, that purely Arab Transjordan was created itself in 1922 from over 75% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine. Arabs had rejected the 1947 partition plan which would have given them about one half of the 20% of the Mandate that was left after having already receiving the lion's share in 1922. The dilemma today is thus over the creation of the Arabs' second, not first, state in "Palestine," almost two dozen total to date.

So much for the Arab claim that Jews got all the land. So the Jews had no choice but to immediately emerge out of the shock of the Holocaust in order to deal with yet another harsh reality.

David Ben-Gurion, leader of the new state, made countless historic decisions, but one particularly controversial and painful one that haunts Israel to this very day involved the ship Altalena -- a pen name for his Labor Zionist Party's rival, the late Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky. Unlike many of his Labor critics, Jabotinsky was less starry-eyed about what could and couldn't be achieved with the Arabs, who were as rejectionist back then as they are today regarding any compromise over "purely Arab patrimony."

Jabotinsky's heirs were determined to repay the Arab slaughter of Jews in kind and to hasten the end of British rule and anti-Israel policies by any means necessary. Among other things, they purchased an American ship and landed it near Marseilles, France. It was expected that the vessel would be making repeat trips between France and Israel carrying arms and new recruits gathered from the survivors of Europe's nightmare and the frightened mellahs of kilab yahud -- "Jew Dog" -- existence in Arab North Africa and the Middle East.

Israel desperately needed the arms and manpower aboard the Altalena. But Ben-Gurion insisted that there would be but one unified command. On June 20th, Ben-Gurion made a heart-wrenching decision to resist the Irgun's challenge concerning the ship's precious human and material cargo. In the ensuing tragic battle (which some today say was really not warranted) scores of Jews were killed by Jews for the sake of shaping the infant state's future and character.

Up until now, Hamas was Hamas and Arafat was Arafat. Both played a game of good cop/bad cop with the Jews to yield unilateral Israeli concessions which only resulted in the deliberate spilling of more innocent Jewish blood. Neither had any intention of arriving at a settlement in which a viable Israel would exist on the morrow. That has been proven over and over again, and there's no need to repeat the evidence about Camp David 2000 and Taba, etc., etc., and so forth.

A better tomorrow for both Jew and Arab alike --and, hopefully, other peoples abused in the region by Arabs as well--will not arrive unless new leaders arise in the would-be 22nd or 23rd Arab state with the power and will to make the decisions a stateless and millennially persecuted people and its leaders--at the end of their collective rope--made fifty-six years ago. What will such leaders do the day after the next Egged bus blows up loaded with innocent Jews aboard, or another father is murdered having dinner with his children?

The Hamas leopard will not change its spots. So merely "chatting" with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa, and their likes won't solve the problem...and this is all that Arafat's successors still say that they're willing to do. The two Abus are still demanding unilateral concessions from Israel before taking far more seriously their crucial end of the deal.

Until Arabs make clear their intention to live peacefully--not in just a temporary hudna designed to further their retained destruction-in-phases goals--alongside a secure, Jewish Israel with concrete measures that are actually taken to stop the murder of Jews, promotion of hatred and violence among their masses, and so forth, then Israel should not be expected to become a party to its own demise by caving into Arab demands and those of the hypocrites elsewhere who support them.

America must resist the temptation to cave in to its European allies and their Arabist Foggy Bottom supporters on these matters. Britain's Tony Blair put the squeeze on Mr. Bush practically before all the votes were tabulated in the President's reelection. And he's the relative good guy compared to most of the others whom we're dealing with.

No other country would demand less under the circumstances Israel has been faced with. Indeed, most of those European and Russian sponsors of the roadmap would have leveled Gaza and Ramallah a long time ago if they had been subjected to what they expect Jews to continuously tolerate. Not to mention what America itself has done to its own enemies.

Peace will come only when the Arabs are willing to confront their own problems the way perpetually persecuted and decimated Jews did.

Abu Mazen, Abu Alaa...meet Altalena.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites.

To Go To Top
Posted by Batya Medad, November 21, 2004.

Once upon a time, in the days the film star, Ronnie Reagan was the President of the United States, the media criticized him as "the Teflon President." They couldn't understand that what they saw as his faults and foibles could be ignored by the "obviously ignorant" masses. What they saw as serious faults, just didn't stick. They didn't damage his reputation with the American citizens, and they didn't prevent his being re-elected president.

For me, as a veteran ex-patriot, over thirty years living in Israel, I have no opinions about the late Ronnie Reagan. It's none of my business what type of president he was for resident Americans, and all that's important is that the majority of Americans were very satisfied with his presidency.

Today the Teflon that disturbs me is much more serious. It's the Teflon that keeps the blood, gore and unprecedented sadism and cruelty off of the Arab terrorism that's plaguing Israel and other parts of the world. No matter how many people they murder, whether Jewish, their fellow Arabs or any other unfortunate whom they decide needs permanent punishment, the "world" calls them "freedom-fighting activists." When they riot and attack they're called "demonstrators."

When I was in my teens I was a Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry activist and even met my husband at a SSSJ demonstration. We never attacked anyone nor broke any laws. Everytime those words are used to describe the terrorists who injured me, murdered my friends and neighbors and demand that my country, Israel, be destroyed I'm amazed. It makes no sense.

What aura comes from these terrorists that makes every murderous deed and statement slide off, like from a Teflon-coated pan?

In this week's Newsweek, there's an article that sheds some light on the phenomena. Amazing coincidence - it starts with the same phrase I started this musing with: "Once upon a time..." It's about Hans Christian Andersen and can be considered an exposé. His stories that we're familiar with are happy optimistic tales, but in actuality he didn't write those lovely upbeat stories. His stories "... were filled with tragedy. His heroines died or suffered dismemberment..." He was a lonely, unsuccessful and unhappy writer until "... sanitized translations... became best-selling books..."

In the past few decades, jounalists have been doing the same for the Arab terrorists. They sanitize what they see and what they hear to tell the world pretty, little fairy tales. And the world enjoys the stories so much they allow them to block out reality.

That's how the fiction of "Arab as David versus Israel as Goliath" has taken hold of the world's imagination. Goliath was a well-armed warrior, part of the Philistine army out to destroy the Jewish Nation. The morale of King Saul's soldiers was in the minus range. It reminds me of the politicians who claim that we must give away YESHA, because it's too difficult to hold it. The real David was a young shepherd who heard Goliath taunting the Jewish soldiers. Convinced that G-d was with him (like Nachshon stepping into the sea?) he was armed with a slingshot, picked up some stones (any relation to Jacob's from this week's parsha?) and took up the challenge. As everyone knows, his aim was perfectly siyata d'shmaya (with G-d's help) and Goliath was dead, killed by David and his well-aimed stone.

In the modern fairy tale, the Arabs are the defenseless David, and we, the Jews, are Goliath. But I don't see how a pregnant mother driving her children can be compared to Goliath and the armed terrorist who shot them all dead is anything like David. I don't see the "Goliath-like agression" in some middle-aged and elderly Israelis shopping in the market, or high school students and teachers waiting for a bus to get home, or a pre-schooler being taken to nursery school, or a father and daughter and groups of friends having coffee, pizza or ice cream.

What heroism is there in a terrorist who throws a boulder onto a car that crushes an infant's head? What type of leaders can strap explosives onto another human being and send him or her into a crowd to be a human murder weapon? If you're looking for a Biblical figure to compare them to, there is one, Amalek, who tried to destroy the Jewish Nation time after time by taking advantage of our weaknesses. Those terrorists are not David, not our sensitive king who played music and wrote T'hilim, Psalms.

All of us who have ever owned a Teflon-coated pan know that it is possible to scrub off the slickness. And we have a real job to do. We have to get rid of the Teflon, keep scratching it off and telling the truth. Take a look at what the Arab countries did in the twentieth century: http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2004/11/in-20th-century.html. What's in that kefiya? We have to keep reminding the world that Arafat's followers are dangerous, cruel, murderous terrorists. If we do our job right, it will stick.

And then, G-d willing, we will live happily ever after.

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 is Musings #84

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 21, 2004.

The highly pragmatic and manipulative Prime Minister of old Prussia, Von Bismark, once commented that people with weak stomachs should not watch two things; how sausages are made and how laws are made. No doubt the same is true about diplomacy. If you are over sensitive, do not read this. It will definitely turn your stomach.

This article is from the November 20, 2004 World Net Daily and is archived at www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41570 It was written by Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's special Middle East correspondent, whose past interview subjects have included Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami and leaders of the Taliban.

Israel has been grooming convicted killer Marwan Barghouti to become the next Palestinian Authority leader, holding a series of clandestine meetings with him, incarcerated Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, who media reports claim may be part of a prisoner exchange involving Barghouti, told WorldNetDaily.

Israeli officials said last week they may release several jailed Palestinians as a "goodwill gesture" toward the future PA leadership. There have been a few reports that Barghouti, who was recently sentenced in Israel to five life terms for planning gun ambushes and a suicide bombing, may be considered for release, but Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is said to have rejected the idea. Reports list Barghouti as the widely favored candidate for PA president.

Even with Jerusalem officially dismissing the possibility of releasing Barghouti, Israeli Interior Minister Avraham Poraz speculated last week, "We are looking for a partner for the Gaza withdrawal. It seems that this will have to include releasing prisoners ... [perhaps even] including Barghouti."

Israel's Army Radio also quoted unnamed Israeli officials speculating Barghouti could be released.

Barghouti is serving multiple life terms for his role in the killings of four Israelis and a Greek monk. Israeli security sources also tell WorldNetDaily Barghouti was one of the architects of the current intifada, the terrorist war waged on Israel after Arafat, at Camp David in 2000, turned down an offer of a Palestinian State in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Pollard's name has been publicly mentioned as a possible "American gesture" in a three-way prisoner exchange that would release Barghouti, allowing him to run in PA elections, and could also involve Egypt releasing imprisoned Israeli textile engineer Azzam Azzam.

But in an explosive development, Pollard, who today begins his 20th year of incarceration at the U.S. federal prison in Butner, N.C., for spying for Israel, has composed a speech to be delivered on his behalf in Jerusalem at a demonstration rally planned for later today. It states Israel has held clandestine meetings with Barghouti throughout the Palestinian leader's imprisonment, and has been grooming Barghouti as a candidate to succeed the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat.

In the speech, obtained in advance exclusively by WorldNetDaily, Pollard claims, "Officially Israel insists it will never free Marwan Bargouhti. He is a murderer sentenced to multiple life sentences. Freeing him, they claim, would undermine the rule of law. Unofficially, sources, including one very close to the prime minister, admit that Israel has been grooming Barghouti in prison to be the next leader of the Palestinian people."

Pollard says that "when news of the proposed three-way deal broke, my close contacts began to investigate, and learned important things from reliable sources in the U.S. and Israel."

"It is an open secret in Israel that top officials have been secretly meeting with Barghouti throughout his incarceration. He is taken out of his prison cell and brought to clandestine locations for these meetings, to enlist his help in promoting various initiatives with the Palestinians, such as cease fires. These secret sessions are part of the 'grooming' process," says Pollard.

Pollard says sources told his contacts that Israel, not the PA or Barghouti's military Tanzim, leaked the story last week about Pollard and the talks aimed at putting together the three-way swap for Barghouti's release.

"Officially, Israel reviles Barghouti and dismisses any possibility of releasing him. Unofficially, Sharon's Government and his closest people believe Barghouti is someone that they can work with, someone who can control the Palestinian street. They see him as someone who can unite the warring factions among the Palestinian militias and hold them in check."

Pollard says sources told him Israel has been supplying positive material to the media about Barghouti.

"More than just whitewashing Barghouti, Israel is seeking to create the impression that there is such popular support amongst the Palestinian people for Barghouti that it cannot be resisted or denied. This is an attempt to create an atmosphere where the U.S. feels it must step in and direct events. The Americans can then 'force' Israel to release Barghouti, and Israel can do so with 'clean hands,'" says Pollard.

Pollard says Arab public opinion prevents Israel from releasing Barghouti outright, and has resulted in Israeli officials seeking Pollard's release.

"Israel must make it appear that it is being forced to free Barghouti, and that a high price has been paid for his release. Unless Israel gains something very valuable in return for Barghouti, the Palestinian 'street' will consider him a traitor, a collaborator, an Israeli stooge; his credibility will be zero and his life in danger," says Pollard.

"There are not many high-priced bargaining chips left, and fewer yet, of great value that won't cost the Palestinians anything. They want to use my release as that chip."

Pollard says he is "completely opposed" to the possibility of being released from prison in a deal that would also release Barghouti, whom he refers to as "a mass murderer of Jews."

"I have always been opposed to gaining my freedom in exchange for the release of murderers and terrorists. My position has not changed. I deserve to be released because my sentence is unjust and because the U.S. has promised my release on more than one occasion, including a commitment by the president of the United States at the Wye Summit in 1998."

"Unfortunately, nothing I say about my own unwillingness to have any part in such a morally degenerate scheme will make any difference. The government will do whatever it must, to get what it wants, regardless of what I or anyone else may say or do."

Barghouti has been arrested several times, including a four-year stint that began in 1978 for planning terror attacks against Israelis. He was arrested again in 1985 before being deported to Jordan in 1987, where Israel says he played a key role in starting the first Palestinian intifada.

Barghouti was among hundreds of Palestinian deportees allowed to return to the West Bank upon the signature of the Palestinian-Israeli interim Oslo peace accords in 1993. But Israel says he continued to plot several Palestinian attacks, and was instrumental in the founding and supporting of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that carried out several suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

Denying his involvement with the Aqsa Brigades after his arrest, Barghouti nevertheless praised some of the group's operations that involved attacks on Israeli military targets, but claimed from his prison cell that he opposed suicide bombings against civilians.

In the speech, Pollard quotes a book recently released by former U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, who played a key role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in which Pollard's release was reportedly pledged, as evidence of "the way the U.S. has made me into a high-priced political pawn."

In the book, "The Missing Peace," Ross writes that at the 1998 Wye River Summit President Clinton asked him if freeing Pollard would be important to Israel. "Yes," Ross writes he replied, "because he is considered a soldier for Israel and there is an ethos in Israel that you never leave a soldier behind in the field."

Ross added: "I also said I was in favor of [Pollard's] release, believing that he had received a harsher sentence than others who had committed comparable crimes. I preferred not tying his release to any agreement ..."

But, Pollard says, "no sooner does Ross acknowledge the injustice of my sentence and that I deserve to be freed unconditionally, than he advises the president not to free me. Why? Because of my great value as a political asset and a bargaining chip."

Ross writes he cautioned the president against releasing Pollard until greater concessions from Israel could be secured during final status talks. "[Pollard's release] would be a huge payoff [for Israel]; you don't have many like it in your pocket ... You will need it later, don't use it now," writes Ross.

"By understanding Ross' attitude towards me as an asset, not a person," says Pollard, "it becomes possible for the first time to understand Prime Minister Sharon's indifference towards me ... He too sees me as a political asset, and not as a human being."

"Sharon is apparently reserving me for a time that my release will be the fig leaf for some very, very dastardly initiative. Perhaps something as dastardly as enabling another mass murderer of Jews to become president of the PA, just as Israel once did for Yasser Arafat," says Pollard.

Pollard, a former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, was convicted in 1985 of one count of passing classified information to an ally, Israel, and sentenced to life imprisonment in spite of a plea agreement that was to spare Pollard a life sentence.

Pollard's sentence is considered by many to be disproportionate to the crime for which he was convicted - he is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally. The median sentence for this particular offense is two to four years.

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 David Frankenthal, November 21, 2004.

Hi Friends.

Spare a thought for Jonathan Pollard this Sunday November 21. He enters his 20th year of incarceration. He has served his time at least five-fold for the crime of spying for an ally and friend of the US. It is a terrible injustice that he continues to rot in jail.

Please take a moment to show you care by writing a short message to President Bush president@whitehouse.gov asking him to free Jonathan.

Please feel free to copy the letter I sent below, or better still, write your own.

Thank you.

teach on wrote:

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:27:37 -0800 (PST)
From: teach on
Subject: Please Free Jonathan Pollard
To: president@whitehouse.gov, vice-president@whitehouse.gov

Dear Mr. President:

Jonathan Pollard enters his 20th year of incarceration this Sunday November 21.

He has served his time at least five-fold for his crime.

Given the friendship that exists between the US and Israel, it is a travesty that he is still being held a hostage of the US judicial system.

Please free Mr. Pollard as justice and good will dictates.

Thank you.

David Frankenthal
Los Angeles, CA

Marion DS Dreyfus wrote this variastion on the letter to President Bush:

This week, I believe Jonathan Pollard enters his 20th year of incarceration for his spying charges. With this anniversary, he had served five times longer than any other equivalent prisoner of like charges. Yet the courts remain obdurately closed to his plight or pardon.

Given the amity and cooperation that exists between the US and Israel, it is a difficult to understand why it is that Mr. Pollard has not been given his freedoj, when Aldrich Ames has been treated substantively more leniently, as have the Walkers or others. Pollard is still being held hostage of the US judicial system.

Please free Mr. Pollard, as justice and a good will gesture for a new term would seem to indicate.

Thank you.

Marion DS Dreyfus

To Go To Top
Posted by Yuval Zaliouf, November 21, 2004.
This is a Reuters news item and appeared in Haaretz, November 19, 2004. It is stored at www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=50363

Bush's plan to aid Palestinians runs into opposition

WASHINGTON - Under pressure from key lawmakers, the Bush administration said on Thursday it would work with Congress on plans to resume direct U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The State Department told key congressional committees on Wednesday it intended to rush $20 million to the authority to help organize elections in January and pay Palestinian salaries, and that it would not need congressional approval to do so.

But Tom DeLay, the powerful Republican leader in the House of Representatives, expressed "serious concerns" to the administration, a source close to the talks said. DeLay has been an outspoken supporter of Israel and critic of the Palestinian Authority.

Other lawmakers demanded greater oversight to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money would not be siphoned off by corrupt officials or used by terrorist groups.

The White House and the State Department said on Thursday that no final decisions had been made.

"We are consulting with Congress on what is the most appropriate way to provide the aid," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said.

Senior administration officials met with key congressional critics and promised adequate safeguards for the money. DeLay wants U.S. aid tied to Palestinian reforms.

Officials said the administration's goal was to announce the aid package in time for an international donors' meeting for the Palestinians early next month.

The money would be part of a renewed push for peace following the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

The aid would be overseen by Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad, a former International Monetary Fund official with strong U.S. backing, according to congressional aides briefed by the administration.

The State Department had told congressional committees that it planned to use a presidential waiver to bypass congressional restrictions on direct aid to the Palestinians.

But Ereli said on Thursday that the administration would consult with lawmakers "to get their views and be cooperative with them."

Officials said Secretary of State Colin Powell had hoped to announce the $20 million package early next week when he meets with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank.

In a letter to congressional committees on Wednesday, State Department officials said they wanted to provide "badly needed assistance to precisely those elements of the new Palestinian leadership most in need of resources and legitimacy among the Palestinian public."

The officials wrote that the $20 million would be used for "election support and payment of salaries," and would help "leverage contributions from other donors."

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, November 21, 2004.

A friend of a friend needs bone marrow to survive. This kind of a transplant requires a very close match, so donors are usually sought among blood relatives of the patient. Unfortunately, most of this guy's family perished in the Holocaust. He has very few blood relatives, and none of them could be used as a donor. Since his grandparents came to the United States from Russia, his next best hope are Ashkenazi Jews of Russian or East European ancestry and their descendants.

It doesn't matter how far or how close you live, as long as you live in a civilized country. I've heard of cases when bone marrow was shipped between Israel and the United States.

If you are willing to help, please log on to http://www.giftoflife.org/ and register following the instructions below. If for whatever reason you cannot help yourself, please forward this to as many people as you can.

May you never need help like this!



The procedure for on-line registration is pretty straight forward. Go to the following website: http://www.giftoflife.org/

On the lower left hand side click on the "Register Online" button.

Please read the Online Donor information and check the General Eligibility Guide lines page (Review the General Eligibility Guidelines) to make sure you fit the eligibility profile.

If you do, continue by clicking on the blue colored, "Click to Register Now!" button on the bottom of the frame.

This will take you to the Donor Education Information page which will cover most of the questions frequently asked. It describes both process and procedure. To continue make sure the green dot is in the circle next to the "I understand and agree to the information presented on this page " and click on the blue colored "BEGIN THE REGISTRATION PROCESS" button underneath.

Now we are down to the last 3 steps

1. Fill out the DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION page. The last question at the bottom of the page asks "Is this test part of an immediate or extended family study for a specific patient?" Your answer is YES. 3 more boxes will appear and should be filled in the following way:

Patient Name: Andy Joseph
Physicians name: Greg Higgens
Fax Number: 206 288 1011

After completing them, click on the blue colored, "Proceed to Medical Evaluation" button on the bottom of the page.

2. Fill out the MEDICAL EVALUATION form by selecting the appropriate yes or no answer. Then click on the blue colored, "Proceed to Kit Order Form" button on the bottom of the page. If you have any questions please call the phone number displayed on the screen: 800-9-MARROW.

3. The final step is filling out the ORDER PROCESSING page. It's simple:

Under Billing Method select "Sponsor Code" which is the default.
Under Sponsorship Code type: saveandy
By using this code all costs for testing will be provided for.

That's it! You will receive a copy of your consent form via e-mail to the address provided in your registration. In order to receive your kit, you must print and sign your consent form and return it via postal mail. A test kit will be mailed to you 48 hours after the consent form is received, along with instructions. The test involves a fast and painless self-collection process called a "buccal swab". Cells are collected from the inside of your cheeks, and the kit is sent to the laboratory where the sample is tissue typed. The results are returned to Gift of Life, where staff will register you as a bone marrow donor.

Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/ or email ysagamori@hotmail.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 19, 2004.

It is good to know that there are still a few sane people left in the Israeli political process.

This is a news item from today's Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com and it is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=72324

Rivlin Mocks Sharon's Attack on Manhigut Yehudit Faction

Sharon bemoaned this week what he called "an attempt to take over the Likud from the outside." He was referring to the party's Manhigut Yehudit faction, an ideological movement that has made it its goal to emphasize the importance of the "Land of Israel" in the Likud platform and ideology.

Sharon declared,

"Unfortunately, there is a group within the Likud that is acting in the Knesset against government decisions. This group has gotten smaller, but it still exists. There is an attempt to take over the Likud from the outside. There is incitement, threats and pressure on Knesset Members. This situation is intolerable."

Speaker Rivlin is known to be both a friend of Prime Minister Sharon and a strong opponent of his disengagement plan policies. Writing in Yediot Acharonot yesterday, Rivlin mocked Sharon for implying that party members could not promote their ideology - "especially when [they] are speaking in the name of the loyalty to the Land of Israel and to the principles for which the party stands."

The Knesset Speaker, known for his dry wit, said that Sharon should "look around him" and see that Central Committee members have always "implicitly threatened" MKs when they make various personal requests. Rivlin concluded that "even one whose cynicism is his trade" - a reference to Sharon - should realize, therefore, that such "requests" may obviously be made on an ideological backdrop.

Excerpts from Rivlin's article:

"The Prime Minister has revealed to us, with deep shock, that there is a new phenomenon in the Likud of 2004: Members of the party's Central Committee are threatening the Knesset Members whom they chose, that if they don't vote in the Knesset in accordance with the ideology in which they [the Likud Committee members] believe, they simply won't vote for them again.

"This is a real scandal. A rebellion. Incitement. What can we say?

"... And what can we say if it turns out that the ideology that the Committee members [are promoting] is the same ideology on which the [Likud] movement was built, and for which hundreds of thousands of people joined, and in the name of which they were elected?

"The ones who have strayed from the path are not necessarily those who are 'threatening,' but rather some of the movement's representatives in the government and the Knesset.

"What can be more natural than for them to come and demand of their representatives: 'Be loyal to the path to which you swore allegiance, and if not - we'll replace you!' Isn't that the strength of democracy? ..

"Whoever cries out against the 'ideological bullies,' those who are loyal to the idea and not to a person, should understand that this is the way a political party is supposed to operate, and that this is the glory of democracy. [He should also understand] that the political game has rules - such as accepting the choice of the voter, or of the party member, when the party asks his opinion [a reference to the anti-disengagement results of the Likud referendum that Sharon ignored - ed.] - and that these rules must not be changed in the middle of the game..."

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 Jerome S. Kaufman, November 19, 2004.

This article was written by Steven Plaut, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. The article is re-printed from the Detroit Jewish News of November 12, 2004.

The media again blurs the identity of another Islamic war against the West. Did you know the war in Chechnya is such a war? This is in fact, WWIVm as designated by political analyst, Norman Podhoretz. This is not some vague "War against Terrorism" - a term used to avoid embarrassment to our great Arab allies as they ferment terror and attempt our annihilation from the immediate world

As all the horrific details come out about the Islamofascist massacre of children in Beslan, a number of thoughts come to mind.

1. Throughout the reporting of the massacre, not a single news medium I read or heard spent any time lecturing the listeners or readers about how this carnage must prove how just the Chechen terrorist's cause is, else why would they be so desperate?

2.No news media talking heads or Op-Ed writers hectored readers by demanding that the Russians now address the underlying causes of the anger of the terrorists.

3. Michael Lerner (arch "liberal") did not devote a piece in Tikkun magazine to the need to feel the pain of the Chechen murderers.

4. Chechnya in fact has a far more legitimate claim to independence from Russia than the Palestinian Arabs have for any form of "self-determination."

The Chechens are not seeking the destruction of Russia, while the Arab Palestinians are seeking the annihilation of Israel. The Chechens are non-Russian Moslems, culturally and linguistically alien to Russia. The "Palestinians" are members of Syrian and Lebanese families who migrated into the land of Israel starting in the late 19th century. Moreover, unlike the Arab Palestinians, the Chechens do not have 22 other Chechen states they can choose from or to which they can move. Having noted all this, let us also note that the massacre of children by the Chechen Nazis probably put an end altogether to the willingness of anyone in the world to reconsider independence for Chechnya. The Chechens forfeited any legitimate claims they might have had to independence. Contrast this with the world's reaction to Palestinian barbarism that murdered 1500 Israelis, many of them children, just since signing the eternal Oslo peace accord foreswearing violence.

5. At least four of Chechen terrorists were captured alive and summarily executed by the Russians, No bleeding hearts no do-gooders screamed in moral indignation that Russia violated the Miranda rights of those terrorists, No one demanded the terrorists be given expensive lawyers and allowed to have their cases heard by civil courts, in contrast with the movement on behalf of the Guantanamo terrorists. No one from the Israel Labor Party proposed granting the terrorists the Kremlin and half of Moscow.

6. Nazis have always made a point of especially targeting children. The German Nazis went out of their way to murder Jewish children. The Palestinian Nazis make special effort to target Israeli children. The Chechen Nazis learned from the Palestinians.

7. The news services continue to call the murderers "militants" for the simple reason that calling them terrorists would force the news people to call Palestinian murderers terrorists and that might upset the Arabs. It is essential for the networks to call Palestinian murderers of Jewish children militants for this is how the news services signal their neutrality in the Middle East conflict between murdering Palestinians and innocent Jewish victims. It is also their subtle way of signaling how justified they see the Palestinian murderers, similar to their practice of counting the number of dead Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers in any death toll from any atrocity. (Will the BBC and CNN count the dead Chechens and their Arab sidekicks in the final Beslan body count?) So witness the extent to which the news services will go to maintain their Orwellian support for Palestinian terrorism. Evidently, the only act of savagery the BBC is willing to denounce as "terror" is when the IRA activists planted a bomb at the BBC headquarters in London.

8. Not a single Russia leftist raced to Beslan to demonstrate his or her solidarity with the terrorists. Not a single Russian leftist professor wrote an op-ed justifying the kidnapping and murders. Not a single Russian leftist poet composed a poem celebrating the suffering of the terrorists, and poems written by Chechen pro-terror poets are not being introduced into the Russian school curriculum. Russian leftist professors are not organizing an international boycott of Beslan and Ossetia colleges in solidarity with the terrorists while demanding that the Beslan taxpayers continue to subsidize them.

9. Russian newspapers are not united in expressing understanding for the struggle of the Chechen terrorists. They are not lecturing readers about how there are no military solutions to the problems of terrorism. They are not demanding goodwill gestures from the Kremlin so that the Chechen terrorists will feel their self-esteem is no longer threatened.

10. But the most important thought I am sure you shared with me, as the story of the massacre unfolded was this: Why has not Israel rounded up the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) squad of cheerleaders for terrorism and shipped them off forthwith to defend the homes of the family members of the dead Chechen terrorists from the enraged Russian troops that will be entering Chechnya?

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host of www.israel-commentary.org

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, November 19, 2004.
This article was written by Esther Wachsman about her son, an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas. Marking the 10th anniversary of his murder. Visit a memorial page for Nachshon Wachsman, zt"l, at http://www.shalva.org/nachshon/default.asp

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/His_Name_Was_Nachshon_Wachsman.asp

My name is Esther Wachsman. I was born in a DP camp in Germany in 1947 to parents who had survived the ovens of Nazi Germany, in which their entire families had perished. We -- my parents, my sister (who had been hidden by a Catholic family during the war) and I -- sailed to America in 1950. I grew up as a child of survivors, and became a true JAP -- Jewish American Princess. But the cloud of depression, of a deep sadness and melancholy, hung over our home.

In typical "Second Generation Syndrome" experience, I was my parents' sole reason for existence. Their hope, their future, all their expectations were wrapped up in me. I knew without their ever having said anything that I had to be the smartest, the prettiest, the most popular, the most obedient and best of all children.

That was a tough burden for a little girl, a young lady, and later a wife and mother, to have to carry. I, too, demanded excellence and perfection of myself -- and later of my children.

In 1969 I immigrated to Israel -- made aliya to Jerusalem, where I attended the Hebrew University, going for my Master's Degree in history, specializing in the Holocaust. My parents were Zionists, and their sole remaining relatives lived in Israel. I came to study with their blessing, though when I met my future husband and knew that only here in Jerusalem did I wish to raise my family, I'm not sure they were too thrilled.

But I had caught the bug. I was going to be part of the history of our old/new homeland, and I would raise proud, independent, believing Jewish children in their homeland after 2,000 years of exile. I could no longer pray for the "Return to Zion" and the "Building of Jerusalem" when I knew I was a plane ticket away from fulfilling those prayers.

And so I was married to Yehuda in 1970 and we had seven sons between 1971 and 1986. Our sons were raised on a three-fold love -- of their people, their land, and their heritage, the Torah. Our lives were complete, my dreams fulfilled, and I felt privileged to be able to live my life and raise my children in this, our sacred city, in this, our God-given land.

I taught English at the Hebrew University High School for 28 years, my children grew up, attended yeshivot, and in time served their country, proudly wearing the uniform of the Jewish army. How proud I was -- the Jewish immigrant from Brooklyn, mother of soldiers of Israel!

My two oldest sons -- named after ancestors, grandparents who had perished in the Holocaust, served in the Golani Brigade. When the time came for my third son to be drafted, he wanted to outdo his two older brothers and volunteered for an elite commando unit of Golani. His brothers mocked him, for he was shorter and slighter than the big staffing soldiers in that unit, but he persevered and became a soldier in the Orev Golani, and was the pride of his brothers, of his entire family.

Nachshon, our third son, was not named after any ancestors. We chose his name because he was born on the last day of Passover, just after the Torah portion about the Jews crossing the Red Sea, which God promised would turn into dry land, was read.

Nachson, the son of Aminadav, the head of the tribe of Yehuda, was the first to jump into the water, thereby expressing complete faith and belief in God and this promise that the water would turn into dry land, and all of the Children of Israel followed him. It was also at this time of the year, in Passover of 1948, that Operation Nachshon took place -- the operation that opened the road to Jerusalem. We felt that that name incorporated all of our ideas -- faith and belief in God and love of our people and our land.

Nachshon did us proud, as did all our sons and, thank God, lived up to his name.

After having served in the army for a little over a year, with two stints in Lebanon, Nachshon came home on a week's leave, Friday, October 7, 1994 just before the Sabbath. On Saturday night, he got a call from the army informing him that the following day, Sunday, he was to attend a course up north, where he and another soldier from his unit would learn to operate a special military vehicle and in a one-day-course receive a license.

Nachshon found this offer very prestigious, and got a ride with a friend to take the course up north. He left us late Saturday night and told us he would be back home the following night.

Nachshon did not come home on Sunday night. Perhaps because of my background with over-protective parents, I felt that I must know where my children are, when to expect them home -- and they always notified me of any delay or change of plan.

When by midnight Nachshon did not call or arrive home, I feared the worst. We notified the military authorities, we traced his movements, we spoke to his army friends. We discovered from one of them that he had been dropped off after completing the course at the Bnai Atarot junction -- one of the most populated areas in the center of Israel -- where he could either catch a bus or hitchhike (as all soldiers do) to Jerusalem. This friend was the last one to have seen him.

On Monday we sent search parties to the area where he had last been seen -- at this point the army was still unconcerned and more or less making inquiries at hotels and resorts in Eilat to see if he had just taken off. The fact that I told them that such a thing was simply out of the question in my family just seemed to amuse them as the attitude of a typical Jewish mother. To me, on Monday, my child was dead.

On Tuesday, we were contacted by Israeli Television, who told us that they had received a video tape from a Reuters photographer showing my son being held hostage by Hamas terrorists. They said they were coming directly to our home to show us the video before broadcasting it to the entire nation, and the world.

On that video tape, Nachshon was seen, bound hand and foot, with a terrorist whose face was covered with a kaffiya, holding up Nachshon's identity card. The terrorist recited his home address, identity number, and then Nachshon spoke at gunpoint. He said that he had been kidnapped by the Hamas, who were demanding the release of their spiritual leader, Achmed Yassin, from an Israeli prison, as well as the release of 200 other imprisoned Hamas terrorists. If these demands were not met, he would be executed on Friday at 8:00 PM.

At that time I did not have the "luxury" of breaking down. We were all mobilized for the next four days, 24 hours a day, to do everything in our power to save our son's life. We spoke to Prime Minister Rabin, who informed us that he would not negotiate with terrorists, nor would he yield to blackmail. We announced Nachshon's American citizenship, and President Clinton intervened. Both Warren Christopher, who was in the area, and the U.S. consul in Jerusalem, Ed Abbington, went to Gaza -- where it was believed Nachshon was being held -- and brought us messages from Arafat.

Arafat, indeed, called our home and told us that he would leave no stone unturned to locate our son and return him to us safe and sound.

We appealed to world leaders everywhere and to Moslem religious leaders, all of whom stated unequivocally on the media that they must not harm our son.

And we appealed to our brethren -- to the Jewish people throughout the world -- and asked them to pray for our son. The Chief Rabbi of Israel delegated three chapters of Psalms to be said every day, and people everywhere, including schoolchildren who had never prayed before, did so for the sake of one precious Jewish soul.

I asked women throughout the world to light an extra Sabbath candle for my son. From about 30,000 letters that poured into our home, I learned of thousands of women who had never lit Sabbath candles, who did so for the sake of our son -- who had become a symbol of everyone's son, brother, friend.

On Thursday night, 24 hours before the ultimatum, a prayer vigil was held at the Western Wall and, at the same hour, prayer vigils were held throughout the world in synagogues, schools, community centers, street squares ... and, yes, churches throughout the world. People of good faith everywhere hoped and pleaded and prayed for Nachshon.

At the Western Wall 100,000 people arrived, with almost no notice -- Chassidim in black frock coats and long side curls swayed and prayed and cried, side by side with young boys in torn jeans and ponytails and earrings. There was total unity and solidarity of purpose among us -- religious and secular, left wing and right wing, Sephardi and Ashkenazi, old and young, rich and poor -- an occurrence unprecedented in our sadly fragmented society.

On Friday night we ushered in the Sabbath, and I spoke to my son on the media and begged him to be strong, for all our people were with him. We sat rooted to our Sabbath table; my eyes were glued to the door, expecting Nachshon to walk in at any moment.

We were not aware of the fact that Israeli Intelligence had captured the driver of the car that picked Nachshon up, that he had told our intelligence that the terrorists had all worn kippot, skull caps, that there were a Bible and Siddur on the dashboard, and Chassidic music playing on the tape deck, and an unsuspecting soldier got into the car.

We were not aware that they had discovered from their informant that Nachshon was being held in a village called Bir Nabbalah, under Israeli rule, located about 10 minutes from our home in Ramot. We were not aware that Prime Minister Rabin had made a decision to launch a military action to attempt to rescue our son.

At the hour of the ultimatum, 8:00 PM Friday night, General Yoram Yair, not Nachshon, walked through our door and brought us the terrible news. The military rescue attempt had failed -- Nachshon had been killed and so had the commander of the rescue team, Captain Nir Poraz.

At the same time people had all returned to their synagogues, after their Sabbath meal, to recite Psalms for Nachshon's rescue, including our sons. We called them home and together we all sat frozen, unbelieving, shocked and devastated for the rest of the Sabbath.

On Saturday night at midnight we buried our son.

That same microcosm of our people who had come to pray for Nachshon rescue at the Western Wall came to Mount Herzl at midnight Saturday night to attend Nachshon's funeral; many never set foot at a military cemetery.

My husband asked Nachshon's Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Mordechai Elon, who gave the eulogy, to please tell all our people that God did listen to our prayers and that He collected all our tears.

My husband's greatest concern when burying his son was that there would be a crisis in faith. And so he asked Rabbi Elon to tell everyone that just as a father would always like to say "yes" to all of his children's requests, sometimes he had to say "no" though the child might not understand why. So our Father in Heaven heard our prayers, and though we don't understand why, His answer was "no."

The entire nation mourned with us. Thousands came to comfort us, though no one can comfort a bereaved parent. Israeli radio began each morning's broadcasts with the words "Good morning Israel, we are all with the Wachsman family." Food and drink were delivered non-stop to our home; bus and taxi drivers who brought people from all over the country who wished to express their condolences, left their vehicles and joined their passengers in our home. That unity, solidarity, caring, compassion, and love with which we were showered gave us strength and filled our hearts with love for our people.

After the Shiva, we all returned to our routines. Our son who had just gotten out of the army attended the Hebrew University, another went back to the army, two others returned to yeshiva, and the two youngest, twins who had just turned eight on the day of the funeral, went back to school.

For that is what the Jewish people have always done -- rebuilt after destruction, began new lives from the ashes and blood of the old.

I had a new respect for my parents, who had lost everyone and relocated to a strange land, a foreign tongue, and built a new family, a new life. I was in my own country, my own homeland; my son died wearing his country's uniform, and, God willing, my other sons will serve their country proudly as well.

For, among my people I dwell, and that for me is still a privilege and a blessing. My three-fold love of my people, my land, and my Torah has never wavered.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Yuval Zaliouf, November 19, 2004.

Dear friends,

Israel is at the forefront of global science, medicine and technology. Israeli scientists continue to concentrate on improving the quality of life of ALL mankind, including the lives of Israel mortal enemies who seek to destroy her. Please remember that there are 5.2 million Jewish Israelis in Israel, about the population of Detroit.

What have the Arabs (300 million) and Muslims (1.2 billion) contributed to world progress lately?

These are two news items from Arutz-7 (www.Israelnn.com).

(1) Israelis Among World's 50 Most Influential Science Leaders.

Three Israelis - two researchers and one corporate entity - are among the 50 most outstanding global leaders in science and technology, according to the prestigious journal, Scientific American. The roster of the "Scientific American 50" for 2004 has just been published.

Professor Ehud Shapiro of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot was named Research Leader in the field of Nanotechnology and Molecular Electronics by Scientific American. He received the recognition for the creation of biomolecular computing devices. So small that more than a trillion fit into one drop of water, these devices are made entirely of DNA and other biological molecules. Shapiro and his research team envision future biomolecular devices that may be injected directly into the human body to detect and prevent or cure disease.

The recognition accorded Prof. Shapiro's work by Scientific American comes on the heels of other prestigious awards for him and his team. Last month, Prof. Shapiro received the 2004 World Technology Award for Biotechnology. Yaakov Benenson, Shapiro's graduate student who had a key role in creating the biomolecular computers, received a 100 Top Young Innovators Award in September from MIT's Technology Review Magazine.

Chemistry Professor Micha Asscher of Jerusalem's Hebrew University was recognized by Scientific American as Research Leader in the field of Manufacturing for having demonstrated, as the journal put it, "how to grow nanostructures of nearly anything on anything else."

In May, Prof. Asscher and his colleagues revealed a way to lay down a pattern of almost any substance on any other for novel nanometer scale devices. Scientific American reported, "The researchers say their method could make conducting wires less than 30 nanometers wide, yet millimeters long."

Earning recognition as a Business Leader for Imaging in the "Scientific American 50" was the Camero company of Herzliya, Israel. Camero has announced in June that it is developing a unique, portable imaging micro-power radar, which will enable rescue forces to operate more effectively in saving lives. The company's proprietary technology generates a 3D image of objects concealed by solid barriers such as walls or collapsed debris, from a distance of up to 20 meters.

The "Scientific American 50" appears in the magazine's December issue, at newsstands November 23. The complete list may also be accessed from November 8 at www.sciam.com.

(2) Israel on the Frontlines: Against Diabetes and Cancer

D-Cure (Diabetes Care in Israel), a $30 million program launched last month, is meant to bolster Israel's drive to become a world leader in diabetes research. According to a report by "Israel21c.com", sixty of the world's leading diabetes experts and 400 Israeli specialists were on hand in Jerusalem for the official launch of the program, which was part of the Russell Berrie International Diabetes Symposium.

D-Cure president Professor Itamar Raz said that the agreement with the Russel Berrie Foundation would triple the current level of research of the disease and involve more than 300 researchers from medical and scientific centers around the country. Prof. Raz is also president of the Israel Diabetes Association and head of the Diabetes Center at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem.

As quoted by Israel21c, Prof. Raz said, "Israel -- despite its small size -- can become one of the world's leading centers - provided there is interdisciplinary cooperation among the researchers here and abroad as well as a significant increase in funding. With the signing of the agreement with, we have met both criteria." Even now, before the new cooperative program is fully underway, Raz noted, "In many fields in diabetes research, Israel is leading the world..."

In the important global research aimed at fighting another serious disease - cancer - Israel is also on the frontlines. Two new research breakthroughs highlighted by Israel21c illustrate this.

Researchers at Tel Aviv University have shown that Prozac, generally prescribed as an antidepressant, can be used to safely increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy against cancerous tumors in mice. In a second, similar discovery, an Israeli researcher, working with American scientists, has discovered that a drug for treating gout can reduce the risk of developing cancer of the colon and rectum.

The significance of the two discoveries is in their potential future application as alternative drug treatments for cancer patients whose metabolism rejects conventional anti-cancer drugs.

The Tel Aviv University findings were reported in the October 15th issue of Cancer Research.

While the discovery by Tel Aviv scientists is related to cancer treatment, the second aforementioned discovery is related to cancer prevention. Israeli and American researchers found that if taken for at least five years, a simple drug for treating gout can reduce the risk of getting colorectal cancer by 66%.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Seattle last month.

"It only raises the suggestion that this is an interesting alley to investigate further. But it looks pretty promising," Dr. Gad Rennert told Reuters.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 19, 2004.


I have found that some of the biggest racists are those who complain constantly about racism. After 9/11, Arabs in the US worried that Americans would blame all of them for the crimes of a few. Their concern meshes with American notions of tolerance and against stereotyping. That notion does not fit the Arabs as well as it did other groups. The Arabs are more of a collective society. Although not all commit terrorism, Arab culture condones and promotes terrorism. Many Arabs here contribute to terrorist fronts they know merely pose as charities. Most Arabs hate the West, both its excesses and the features we cherish about it. Arab leaders in the West, especially in Europe, boast that they will take over their host countries and imposing Islam upon the native peoples. Meanwhile, they set up cells and radicalize their people. It doesn't take much to radicalize them. There is little opposition from the alleged moderate Muslims. Therefore, stereotyping Arabs as our enemies in general would not be far off the mark.

While the Arabs demand that they not all be lumped together as targets of the war on Islamism, they lump all Jews together as evil and all Christians together as people who should be killed. Their sermons urge the faithful to murder Americans, any and all Americans they can. In Israel, their method of fighting is to slay as many Jews as they can. They do not distinguish except deceitfully between combatants and civilians, but specialize in attacking civilians. Polls show that most Palestinian Arabs approve of their terrorism against Israelis. Thus the Arabs resent being stereotyped but stereotype others.


Pres. Bush was asked whether the death of Arafat offers new opportunities for diplomacy. He replied, "I do." Their new leadership will request help in setting up democracy, because all peoples want to be free. Then, Bush envisions, two states, one Arab, one Jewish, and he reiterates that inane refrain, "side-by-side."

It is not my vision. The new leadership is the old leadership, veteran terrorists. It wants dictatorship and jihad, and has indoctrinated the people in hatred and jihad. It is not likely that such masses want democracy, but even if they did, it would be one that would democratically foster hatred and jihad. I envision war. That's what the Arabs want. Read the polls!

Does Pres. Bush think that there aren't enough Arab states? The best solution is to complete the population exchange. The Arabs expelled the Jews from their countries. Now let the Arabs leave the Territories, which are the core of the Jewish homeland and to which the Jewish people has the best legal claim under the Mandate. Let them leave Israel, so that there is no more internal terrorism against Jews and Israel would have secure borders that the Territories furnish.

People disagree, because they: (1) Don't know that the Jewish people are entitled to the Territories, as recognized by the Mandate; (2) Have notions of parallelism, one state for each people, but fail to realize that the Arabs already have about 20 states; (3) Disapprove of population transfer, not knowing of its successful, humane applications and hypocritically approving of population transfer of Jews; and (4) Worry what the world would think of Israel. The world's opinion cannot descend much lower. One reason the world has contempt for Israel is that it is not acting much like a proud Jewish state but is servile towards foreign countries. This is neurotic behavior stemming from centuries of dependence upon gentile goodwill. The world used to respect Israel when it defended itself stoutly and when it thought Israel the underdog. Favoring underdogs per se is natural but unethical. Nevertheless, Israel should show that it still is fighting for national survival, and that it needs the Territories to survive. When Israel starts enforcing the law against Arab illegal immigration, land thieves, illegal building, tax evasion, welfare cheating, and rioting, and stops affirmative action in behalf of the Arab fifth column, the world would grumble initially, and then respect Israel. The Arabs would clear out.


Since Oslo was inaugurated in 1993, Arafat's supervision of Palestinian Arab terrorism caused the murder of 1,288 Israelis (IMRA, 11/11).

Thousands were wounded. Some did not recover. Terrorists attacked before Oslo, though without a territory to base themselves in. That is Arafat's legacy in Israel. Among his own people, hundreds were murdered, children were turned into tools of terror, freedom was stifled, and poverty was deepened. Arafat has a similar legacy in Lebanon, where he started a civil war that ruined the country and left it occupied by an exploitive colonialist power, Syria. He tried to do likewise in Jordan. A Devil's disciple!


PM Blair expressed condolences to Arafat's family and people. He lauded Arafat as a Nobelist, striving for peace and leading his people to an historic recognition of the need for a two-state solution. His goal is a (third) "Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel." "Peace in the Middle East must be the international community's highest priority."

Secretary-General Annan added that for four decades, Arafat symbolized his people's aspirations (IMRA, 11/11). Yes, but what are those aspirations?

Arafat got the Prize not for efforts for peace - he made none -- but in the naive hope of it giving him an incentive to make some. It was up to Arafat, the terrorist, after all, to put down the sword. Instead, he started another war against Israel. That war still goes on!

Far from wanting a new state co-existing with a secure Israel, Arafat had the P.A. educational system define the official area of Israel as belonging to the Arabs. Rather than trade land for security, he launched terrorism against Israel.

I think that now the highest priority of civilized countries is to preserve their civilization from jihad like Arafat's.

Blair suggested that Oslo was a turning point for Arafat and his people, away from war. Not so. How did Arafat, as Secretary-General Annan maintains, symbolize his peoples' aspirations? He started by implementing their desire to conquer Israel, and died still pursuing that bellicose goal. It is time for Annan and Blair to reject that people's aspirations as unacceptable. But is it unacceptable to them? Britain, an old enemy of Zionism, barred rescue of the Jewish people from the Holocaust, as did the State Dept..

The Prime Minister was mistaken about everything he said. Either he is abysmally ignorant or woefully duplicitous. I think it is some of both, with a certain amount of self-deception.

When one of those main countries' leaders so misjudges Arafat, and then identifies the Arab-Israel conflict as the world's prime concern, I fear for Israel. I don't usually make this kind of a statement, but I think that the mischief, actually the evil, that that Prime Minister is fostering in a willing US President is so great, that I wish Blair would join Arafat.

When a normal person dies, his sins are overlooked and his virtues are exaggerated. Arafat was not normal and had no virtue. He was evil and irredeemable. There was no need for Britain's PM Blair and the head of the UNO to express condolences over Arafat, the father of international terrorism and one of the world's biggest crooks. When PM Blair extended those condolences to the western Palestinian Arabs, whom Arafat's piratical regime kept seething in hared, writhing in war, and languishing in poverty, did he not go too far?


One dark night, the Arabs may sneak Arafat's coffin onto the Temple Mt., to bolster their claim to Jerusalem. Another prediction was that the various P.A. factions will compete for leadership by striving to commit the worst terrorism (Winston Mid East Analysis, 11/12).


Claiming to seek revenge "for what Israel did to Arafat," Fatah ordered its minions to increase their attacks on Israel. Fatah has acquired mortars (IMRA, 11/13).

This is partial confirmation of the Winston prediction. What did Israel do to Arafat? Nothing. I wish they had. Criminals should be punished, especially serial killers.


Three-fourths of eligible Arabs registered to vote in the P.A., despite ongoing Israeli military operations. IMRA concludes there is nothing to the argument that Israeli should withdraw, to permit P.A. elections (11/13). That argument was the P.A. excuse for postponing elections.


Arafat's terrorist cronies took over the P.A., Fatah, and the PLO. This ended the tenuous hope that "moderate" Arabs would come to lead the P.A. (IMRA, 11/13 from ZOA).

Who are the mysterious, alleged moderate Palestinian Arabs? What is meant by "moderate?" Arafat used to be called moderate? That was because he could sign a peace agreement he immediately assured fellow Arabs he would not adhere to. And he did not adhere to it.


Arafat's wife and cronies had an almost open argument over Arafat's loot, thought to be in the billions. She knew the secret, personal accounts he held the funds under, but they wanted it. They said they wanted it for the people, but there is no evidence they would distribute it to the people in the form of good government, any more than Arafat did. After all, they shared in the loot. The argument between wife and lieutenants demonstrates that Arafat, called a revolutionary really was a pirate. Otherwise he would not have secret and personal possession of billions of dollars and beg the world for donations on the grounds that his people need outside help.

During negotiations, when Israelis suggested depositing excise tax revenues in the P.A. account rather than in Arafat's personal account, the P.A. representatives became frantic. One threw a chair across the room. In the beginning, the Israeli and US representatives thought that the corruption would bring stability. (At the price of dictatorship (inherently unstable) and jihad?

Some people thought that "moderates" would take over. The former P.A. propaganda minister who criticized Arafat's corruption last July now is in Europe, being fitted for an artificial leg, as a result (IMRA, 11/14).

How else did Arafat's lieutenants keep their positions except by serving terrorism and stifling criticism?

I had hoped that Arafat's successors would not know where some large investments are and that the widow would keep most of the money. That might mean less terrorism.

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, November 19, 2004.

The hope that the situation in the Palestinian Authority (PA) will improve dramatically with the demise of Yasser Arafat is based on the mistaken assumption that the problems in the PA stemmed mainly from Arafat as an individual and not from the society he created.

But an interview with a Palestinian mother on PATV yesterday indicates the depth of the PA society's worship of Death for Allah (Shahada), and support of suicide terror, which has not changed merely because of a change of leadership. In this program, a Palestinian mother of a suicide terrorist talks about how she and other mothers in her position see their sons Shahada death as a positive event -- like a joyful wedding.

The following is an excerpt from the PATV NOV. 17:

Moderator: "They [Israelis] accuse the Palestinian mother of hating her sons and in encouraging them to die. This is what we hear from Israelis. Is this true?

Mother Um Al-Ajrami: "No, we do not encourage our sons to die. We encourage them to Shahada [martyrdom] for the homeland, for Allah."

[She then talks about a group of women, all mothers of Shahids, who go to other mothers of Shahids during the period of mourning]:

"We don't say to the mothers of the Shahids, 'We have come to comfort you?, but 'We have come to bless you on the wedding of your son, on the Shahada of your son. Congratulations to you on the Shahada . . . ' For us, the mourning is joyous. We give out drinks, we give out sweets. Praise to God -- the mourning is joyous. occasion" [PATV, Nov. 17, 2004]

The "Islam Online" website (www.islamonline.org) points out that this woman, Um Al-Ajrami is quoted as saying, "I brought sweets and biscuits in order to change the day of joy to a new wedding, not mourning. I will sweeten anyone who will come to me to bless me on the occasion of the first holiday of the Shahada of my son." [www.islamonline.org]

Palestinian Media Watch has frequently documented that the PA political and religious leadership has promoted the interpretation of Islamic tradition, that Shahada -death is not to be feared, but should be aspired and anticipated with great pleasure. Young men are taught by religious leaders and through video clips that if they die as Shahids, they will join 72 beautiful maidens in Paradise. (see sermon and video clip.) The Palestinian mothers' positive, even joyous, responses to their sons' deaths -- and their celebration of their sons' "marriages" to the maidens of Paradise -- is a result of years of PA indoctrination.


VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES ON PA INCITEMENT TO GENICIDE http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html


Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Yee, November 19, 2004.
This article was written by Michael Gove and appeared in the London Times on November 11, 2004. He can be contacted by email at michael.gove@thetimes.co.uk

I do not agree that George Bush was either impartial or "followed a moral course". His continuing determination to force the fulfillment of his "vision" of "Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace" on other people, when his "vision" is yet another cliche, as well as an oxymoron, has contributed as much as anyone else to the present state of affairs.

SOME OF my best friends are clichér;s. Anyone who writes regularly will often find that a familiar word that comes readily to hand is better than beating about the bush. But clichés are like alcohol. While it's eminently forgivable to indulge occasionally, as a way of getting through the day, excessive use clouds the judgment.

And when it comes to peering through a glass darkly, no issue is so clouded by an overreliance on the crutch of clichés as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Two historic events in this past week have recast the nature of that conflict. But even though President Bush's re-election, and the closing of the Arafat era, demand a fresh engagement with the issue, the air is still thick with the fug of stale cliché.

There is a widespread sense that a new opportunity exists to provide the Palestinian people and the Israelis with fresh hope for the future. But that fresh hope is compromised by the tired assumptions with which it is accompanied. As Tony Blair prepares to meet President Bush this week there is near-unanimity from European commentators and politicians about what should be done.

The President should be told to re-engage with a peace process that has faltered, more than anything, because of his culpable neglect. He must show greater impartiality, rather than favouring, as he has, if only by inaction, the Israeli Government.

The Israelis, for their part, must recognise the folly of seeking to use military means to protect themselves from terror. And only through progress between Israel and the Palestinians can the wider problems of the region be solved.

All of these clichéd assumptions: the belief that America is to blame for neglecting to engage; the conviction that the President must display neutrality; the judgment that Ariel Sharon's current tactics are folly; and the idea that the peace process is the principal solution for the region's woes are almost totally wrong. These assumptions have underpinned the policies that were followed for 30 years in the Middle East, and they have been responsible for our current misery. The repetition of each of these clichés now brings to mind another, with politicians who refuse to learn from history condemned to repeat it.

The first wrong-headed assumption is embodied in the demand that Bush "re-engage" with the Middle East peace process, as though conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians was like a squabble between children, a dispute due primarily to a failure on the part of the figure in authority to assert himself. This error springs from a misplaced faith that major conflicts can be resolved if only outside figures apply themselves to brokering negotiations with all the energy at their disposal. The truth about peace processes is that outside brokers can achieve something only if the parties to the conflict want out. And that wasn't the case with Arafat.

Few presidents could have tried harder to engage with the Middle East peace process than Bill Clinton, but he knew where the blame lay for its demise. When Yassir Arafat sought to praise Clinton for the American leader's efforts at the end of his presidency, Bill would have none of it. "I've been a failure," he told the Palestinian leader, "and it's thanks to you." Peace talks at Camp David, and Taba, ran into the sand because Arafat chose not to accept what had been negotiated but preferred to see what more could be extracted through the violence of the second intifada.

If Arafat had been genuinely intent on peace then his energies would have gone into making his nascent state work. Like Michael Collins, the Irish terrorist godfather turned statesman, Arafat should have accepted borders that were less than ideal, so that a start might be made on nurturing a democracy, and then set about dealing with those rejectionists on his own side who threatened the peace.

But Arafat preferred the poisoned romance of staying a terrorist leader to the hard nobility of building a nation.

That left Israel's leaders with no option but to protect their own democracy as best they could. And that was a moral course which any leader following an ethical foreign policy should have respected. George Bush did.

He could not remain impartial between a terrorist entity prosecuting a campaign that targeted innocents and a democracy defending itself, any more than a policeman can be even-handed between burglar and householder.

Bush has been critical of some of Israel's actions, for no state can act wisely in every circumstance. But the tired insistence that the Sharon Government be told, on every occasion, to mend its ways, ignores the emerging truth that the Israeli Prime Minister has achieved signal successes in difficult times. Ariel Sharon's policy of erecting a security barrier along Israel's frontier and targeting the leaders of the fundamentalist terror group Hamas has resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of terrorist incidents on Israeli soil.

As well as protecting his citizens in the short term, he has also given the Palestinians the opportunity to recognise that their violence has been counter-productive. The intifada has failed, and as its author lies comatose in a Paris hospital; they must look for hope elsewhere.

Indeed, foreign statesmen who wish to see the people of the Middle East enjoy a better future should broaden their gaze beyond this one conflict to recognise what is truly at the heart of the region's malaise. Arafat was not the only Arab leader to blame his people's problems on the Jews, to prefer the romance of the liberation struggle to the hard work of democratic modernisation, and to line his own pockets while his citizens scrabbled for survival. The root cause of violence, poverty and division in the Middle East is not a failure to solve the peace process. The failure of the peace process stems from the continuing addiction of so many of the Arab world's leaders to fomenting violence, presiding over poverty and indulging in the politics of division.

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net ).

To Go To Top
Posted by Aaron Lerner, November 18, 2004.

Don't break out the champagne.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (AKA Abu Mazen) didn't say yesterday that the various illegal militias should hand in their weapons - he only said he didn't want to see them displayed in public.

And judging by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's most recent remarks, Israel's standards also appear to be rapidly plunging from demanding that the PA finally honor its security obligations and clear out the illegal weapons to settling for a return to the hudna - AKA growing-cocked-gun.

Under the growing-cocked-gun the Palestinians can smuggle in whatever weapons, explosive and ammunition they wish to from Egypt via the smugglingtunnels. And it stands to logic that Hamas and other forces will be offered rewards for their temporary silence in the form of weapons that they can use in the future. I would not be surprised if a cynical Egyptian intelligence officer hasn't already cut a deal with Hamas (with the concurrence of a similarly cynical CIA liaison) to supply them with considerably more powerful and effective weapons as a reward (and justification) for holding back their fire.

Under the growing-cocked-gun the Palestinians can complete the project to extend the range of the Qassam rockets to 20 kilometers and produce them in large quantities in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Under the growing-cocked-gun the Palestinian militias can openly recruit, train and prepare for a post-hudna bloodbath.

And they can do all of this without fear of Israeli interference as long as they don't shoot. For the time being.

It is irresponsible for Israel to accept a growing-cocked gun-arrangement at any time, but with Prime Minister Sharon insisting that he will retreat from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria come what may, providing for a growing-cocked-gun arrangement until the retreat is implemented is a program for anarchists - not statesmen.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of Independent Media Review and Analsis (IMRA). Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 18, 2004.

We are about to enter into a new phase of the World's efforts to assist us Jews in acquiring peace. They tried hard to force the arch Terrorist down our throats but, they could not keep Yassir Arafat in line long enough to separate the Jews from their one small Jewish State.

In a way, we were lucky to have an adversary who looked like a Terrorist, spoke like a Terrorist and acted out Pure Terror. The uglier he became, the more he was endeared to the Arab Muslim Palestinian people.

When he embezzled money given to him for the benefit of the Palestinian Arab Muslim people, they didn't hate him - they loved him even more.

I am reminded of Black American criminals in America's poor neighborhoods who ride around in garish, fancy cars and, instead of being disgusted at his use of women, the poor in their neighborhood admire them for their wealth and success. Similarly, the world pays homage to rich sultans, dictators, arrogant power brokers who are merely criminals dressed up in flagrantly elegant clothes, robes or whatever.

Now, the world is about to gift Israel with a Terrorist dressed up in a suit. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is slick, speaks well and has a heart every bit as black as Arafat's or Farouk Kaddumi - waiting for his grand entrance from Tunis.

But, despite the fake gestures from the E.U. (European Union) with France's President Jacques Chirac as a power man, Israel is about to be slipped a poison pill. Abbas will speak the words of peace and has already spoken about a 60 day truce (in Arabic - a Hudna). That's a brief period of time when a Muslim is on the ropes and needs recovery time, so he makes a false gesture of peace to re-gather his strength and re-arm for the next attack.

Although Hamas, Al Aksa and others have rejected Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) request for such a Hudna and pledged to continue attacks, nevertheless, we will see the E.U., U.N., Russia and the U.S. State Department to slip Abbas down our throats because he wears a suit.

Then we have U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair pressing President George W. Bush to accept as the Arab Muslim Palestinian leadership, whoever is the last man standing after the assassinations are over.

If I am not mistaken, Iran does not want Abbas, neither does Syria. Then there are the various Terrorist groups who want their own man in power.

With Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza/Gush Katif that will give Hamas, Al Aksa, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Hezb'Allah, Al Qaeda...among others, to create their own bonding into more unified Terrorists and linking Terror organizations to get their piece of the action.

Some may recall the 12 year Civil War initiated by Yassir Arafat in Beirut where the city and Lebanon was divided up by the Arab Muslim Terror warlords, with the Arab Muslim Palestinians killing as many of everyone they could. Over the 12 year Civil War run by Arafat, 100,000 Muslims and Christians were murdered in Lebanon. Here the corrupt and cowardly Media really showed their colors as they fearfully huddled in the Commodore Hotel, accepting press handouts from Arafat's brother. They were well terrorized because 10 journalists were murdered by the Terror organizations run by Arafat during those 12 years.

Not to be left out, NATO has already proposed a 'sucker' offer for Israel to join a NATO exercise called a "Multi-National exercise". This 'deal' puts NATO troops into Gaza on the theory that they would not stay as Syria has stayed in Lebanon. Does this not remind you of the Madrid Conference trap in 1991 which then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was repeatedly warned to avoid. The Madrid Conference with James Baker's State Department lackeys (mostly Jewish) put the concept of Land for Peace firmly into any possible arrangements for peace.

The NEW YORK TIMES puts out the line: "Can trust be restored?" I wonder what Trust they refer to? Was it the OSLO Trust? The Intifada 1 and the Intifada 2 Trust? There were many other episodes of "Trust" - all of which ended with and caused dead and wounded Jews.

There are other factors at play besides Sharon's single-minded decision that only he can make a decision for the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. Having been told by senior military analysts that many of Israeli cities would be in range of the Arab Muslim Palestinians' improved Kassem rockets and Iranian supplied missiles, it made no difference.

The Bulldozer does what a Bulldozer does. No one stands in his way and the more that he is defied, the more determined he is to run over and Bulldoze the opposition. Facts, human lives, the destiny and sovereignty of a nation are all irrelevant when it comes to what Sharon wants.

I believe that when the burials and body bags mount up from continued Arab Muslim Terror now closer in to Israel's main population centers IF Sharon successfully evicts 8,500 men, women and children from Gaza/Gush Katif, then Sharon will become the most hated man - achieving the status of a Haman with a name to be despised. Let no Jew raise his hand against this man for to do so would contaminate his hand.

I can only hope and pray that the people of Israel will rise up and remove this man from power. He has exhibited all the tendencies of a tyrannical dictator who cares neither for the opinion of his own people or for the Israeli Knesset or even his own Cabinet. He fires anyone who opposes his plans and threatens those whom he can intimidate. He pushes laws of incitement, laws that abrogate free speech, threatens jail for civil disobedience and violates Torah laws that protect the land of Israel for the people of Israel.

If these were the laws of America several million Americans would have to be put into prison for speaking out against either Bush or Kerry prior to the last election or anytime thereafter. Sharon has clearly turned the government into a dictatorial democracy, using the Courts - even the Supreme Court - and his Attorney General to manipulate the people, the nation and write history as he wants himself to be perceived by others.

Soon our enemies, our friends, our Jewish leadership will soon begin the mantra of "Peace in a Suit". They will soon start the serious business of killing each other for leadership while continuing to the kill Jews. Farouk Kaddumi has an inside track to leadership and also knows where Arafat buried the money intended for the Palestinian people. Some want Marwan Bargouti out of prison as a Terrorist in good standing, having killed many Jews. A great push will occur by the Quartet, including the U.S. pro-Arab State Department, the E.U., the U.N. and Russia to establish a near-term fiction that Peace-In-A-Suit must be taken advantage of - which mean enlisting Sharon again.

Sharon will likely go along with the Arabs in East Jerusalem allowed to vote. This will more completely establish the re-division of Jerusalem - again. The Jewish nation of Israel and the her Eternal Capital of Jerusalem was put into Sharon's trust - temporarily only - for safekeeping BUT when such a man who has no Jewish ethics, he cannot ever be entrusted with the fate, sovereignty and security of the Jewish nation or the Jewish people.

Aaron Lerner is director of IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis. Its website address is www.imra.co.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 18, 2004.


Arab terrorists had strengthened their infrastructure in Jenin and planned numerous attacks. Israeli security forces found them out. The forces spent a couple of weeks there, arresting 25 wanted terrorists and seizing a "large" number of weapons. Some terrorists turned themselves in.

Since planned attacks decreased significantly, Israel reopened Jenin to outside traffic (IMRA, 11/15).

There is a "cycle of violence," but not as an equivalence, the way the amoral media and diplomats put it. The Arabs commit terrorism; Israeli forces go in to disarm them. Sometimes the Arabs fight them, sometimes not. Then the Israeli forces depart, allowing free movement to the Arabs. This allows terrorists to come back in and re-establish the terrorist infrastructure. The Israeli see-saw motion lets more Israelis be killed.

What are the alternatives? One is to keep Israeli forces permanently in the Arab cities. That would solve the problem but at great economic cost, induce diplomatic opposition to Israel, and fail to resolve the Arab-Israel conflict.

A second alternative is to maintain a barricade around the Arab cities and inspect people leaving or entering them. That would eliminate most of the problem, reduce costs, still induce much diplomatic opposition, and fail to resolve the conflict.

A third alternative is to adopt the first two temporarily but more thoroughly, and to undertake measures such as: (1) Bar P.A. Arabs from jobs in Israel, stop subsidizing the P.A., expel illegal Arab aliens from Israel, and prohibit Arabs from using marriage to immigrate to Israel; (2) Annex Jewish communities in the Territories and undeveloped areas; (3) Rescind welfare privileges for Jerusalem Arabs; and (4) In the State of Israel, enforce the law against the Arabs, rescind economic preferences for them, and require civilian national service from them. The Arabs would realize they have no future in the Territories and in Israel. They would move out, cutting the ground out from under their cause, but though not ending the Arab-Israel conflict, which arises from Islamic imperialism. However, it would leave Israel with secure borders, drastically reduced terrorism, and great economic savings. Initial diplomatic opposition would wane, in time.


Pres. Bush's statement did not lie or gush outrageous sentimentality, the way those by PM Blair and Secretary-General Annan did. Pres. Bush did offer condolences to the Arabs in the Territories on the death (IMRA, 11/11), of their commander-in-terrorism. Pres. Truman or PM Churchill probably would have marked the passing of "a great source of terrorist murder and an impediment to peace," not assume that the Arabs he fleeced needed consoling over his death.

Bush reiterated the unjust goal of western Palestinian Arab independence, without having justified it. He covered himself by stating the unlikely goals of those Arabs living in peace and democracy.


Establishment and opposition media in Egypt have resumed publishing cartoons likening Israel to the Nazis. Some cartoons had been issued before, but others are new. They criticize Israel in antisemitic ways, and make no distinction between Israel and the Jewish people. An old one depicts a bloody PM Sharon and Hitler goose-stepping over skulls. Jews are shown in traditional garb and with hooked noses and as snakes controlling the US (IMRA, 11/12).

That is the Egypt that Israel's Prime Minister is entrusting with Israeli security, as in training PM terrorists called "police" and in moving armored vehicles nearer to Israel.


Dutchmen now realize that a jihad is being ramped up not only in the Netherlands but all across Europe. The Muslims want not to enhance European societies but to destroy them. Some Dutchmen conclude that their immigration policies must become restrictive, in self-defense.

Muslims claim that they are discriminated against, especially in employment. (The articles did not cite evidence. I don't know whether it exists, but it is no excuse for murder.) Dutch journalists, on the other hand, report that when they attempt to address these issues, Muslims send them death threats.

Formerly, when Dutch people complained abut problems caused by Moroccan immigrants, they were accused of racism. The accusation intimidated them into silence (IMRA, 11/8)

They should have defied the accusers and counter-charged them with censorship and reverse racism. A person should not cringe over false criticism.


Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA wrote that he won't risk his family's lives with "confidence-building measures" to assist PM Blair's re-election. He suggests that if PM Blair is serious in claiming to respect the Palestinian Arabs, then he ought to stop treating them as incapable of being more than a mob, and insist that they stop advocating terrorism and operating illegal militias. Otherwise, the Arabs never will meet their commitments to peace and civilization.

PM Sharon also indicates to the Arabs that they need not comply with their peace agreements. He intends to have Israel withdraw from Gaza and southern Samaria regardless of P.A. non-compliance. Then the Arabs get much of what they want without having to reform. The opportunity for reform will have been lost (IMRA, 11/11). Not much opportunity, really, except to show the Arabs insincere. However, the antisemitic world doesn't care about Arab insincerity.


After reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the Sheikh figured out that criticism of Islamism by fellow Muslims really was by Jews posing as Muslims. These pretended Muslims arrange for a media campaign against Islam (IMRA, 11/11). Not against Islam but Islamism.

The pretense is that as Muslims murder, rape, beat, desecrate, and denigrate Europeans and their society, there are no legitimate grievances against the jihadists, just media concoctions.


The two parties agreed to exchange students and to train Syrian lecturers (IMRA, 11/11).

Why assist that brutal, intolerant dictatorship that seeks to conquer our society?


Arabs have steadily moved into Acre, leaving no Jewish neighborhoods, only mixed ones. Recently, arsonists burned a synagogue. Bigots desecrated 1,000 Jewish graves. When Arabs pass by the Great Synagogue every day, they curse or throw rocks at it. Arabs harass Jewish girls. Arabs drive wildly down the streets. This is happening all over the western Galilee. Elsewhere, in Ramle, Arab youths threw firebombs into the synagogue for two days, identifying with the P.A.. This backfiring of Jewish tolerance has become intolerable (Arutz-7, 11/11).


The "Jordan Times" chides Israel for not offering medical help. If Israeli doctors were accepted, however, they would have been accused of hastening Arafat's death. The Arabs don't need evidence to accuse Israel wrongly -- the paper claimed that Israelis were dancing in the street, over the news of Arafat's death. IMRA flatly denies it (IMRA, 11/10).

When Arab terrorists murder a significant number of Jews, the Arabs do dance in the streets. They assume that Israelis behave likewise. However, Israelis are not as vicious as the Arabs. If they had danced, the media would have shown it. When the Arabs dance, the media censors it.


Sixteen countries had approved legislation banning the transfer of funds to terrorists or their survivors. A signatory that has not defined an organization as terrorist nevertheless may crack down on an organization that another signatory has so defined. Israel finally approved similar legislation, taking longer, it explains, to find the right balance with civil liberties (Arutz-7, 11/10).

It seems to be a rule of life that decent people take longer to organize defense than indecent ones take to organize offense.


Journalists covering Arafat's funeral brought 100 tons of equipment to Israel (IMRA, 11/10).

Having murdered thousands, he is being treated like a head of state and a statesman. His death is being exploited as an opportunity to enable his people finally to conquer Israel by having Israel negotiate itself into military weakness. This type of moral weakness often precedes, and in this case invites, military weakness.

Israel's moral weakness uses its current military strength as a fig leaf. Its moral weakness is comprised of humanitarianism towards evil, lack of self-confidence but an excess of conceit, and a "managed" democracy that keeps the people less informed, less assertive, and less powerful.

The funeral ought to be the occasion for denouncing and pondering the evil of the deceased. How come so many professed do-gooders helped him harm so many innocent people for so long with so little justification? Are we ruled by reason or delusion and self-delusion? Is the US, which long supported Arafat or at least his jihad, the leader of the Free World or a sometime would-be enslaver? What can we say about Europe, that pounds its chest with moral pronouncements against Israel, but really has an agenda of bigotry and commerce? Where is our media, self-proclaimed guardian of human rights, when the rights of the Jewish people are menaced? The media claims to be a champion of the downtrodden Palestinian Arabs, but in it supports statehood that would be controlled by the cabal that trod those Arabs down.

The news brief was trivial, but the thoughtless media coverage it revealed is serious and sinful.


He hopes that the new P.A. leadership would end terrorism and negotiate peace (IMRA, 11/11).

Peace is not a creation of diplomats. It is the diplomats' confirmation of societal reconciliation. Arab society remains as bitter as ever towards Israel. The diplomat who thinks he can arrange peace is more likely to arrange an advantage for a fanatical enemy that leads to another war.

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 18, 2004.

This is something to remind the Likud Central Committee members about. If you know any, remind them.

This was written by Joyce Boim, and appeared in originally in the Jerusalem Post. It was archived by Independent Media Review And Analysis (IMRA) July 14, 1997 at http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=22826

It is a personal message from Stanley and Joyce Boim, the parents of David Boim, whose son was gunned down by Amjad HaNawi, an Arab who has found safe haven in the Palestine Authority.

What makes this reprint important is the Tzachi Hanegbi - again considered as a new Palestinian Arab leader - was Minister of Justice during this period.

We want to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have helped us win the first stage of our legal battle, which has resulted in a court order to force our government of Israel to file for the arrest and "hand-over" of Amjad HaNawi, the man who murdered our son.

Our battle is not over. We will need further funds and political support, to make sure that the Israeli government indeed fulfills the court order to file the formal request for Hanawi to stand trial. Please continue to give generously to the legal fund that has been formed to continue with this case and others like it (Tzedek Tzedek, P.O. Box 2265, Jerusalem, Israel) We have had many strange feelings during our year of litigation. It was a strange feeling that we had to go to court to get our own government to file for the arrest of our son's murderer.

It was a strange feeling to be told last July by the IDF commander of the central region that the IDF had indeed identified and located the whereabouts of David's killer and that all is being done to bring him to trial and then to be told by the Israel Minister of Justice in March 97 that he knows nothing about it.

It was a strange feeling that the Israeli police issued an arrest warrant only six days before the court hearing, with the precise evidence that they had a year ago.

It was a strange feeling that we had to have the Israel High Court of Justice issue a mandatory court order to force the government had to draw up papers to demand that the PA hand over our son's killer to stand trial. It was a strange feeling that the Israeli Prime Minister personally assured us in October 1996 that demanding the arrest if killers inside the Palestine Authority would be next on the agenda after the Hebron agreement.

It was a strange feeling when the new head of Israel's Labor opposition looked us in the face and said that "you cannot expect the Palestinians to be 100% perfect", when we asked him about the fact that the Palestine Authority had given refuge to the killers of our son and other Israeli citizens

It was a strange feeling, as American citizens, to be officially informed by the American embassy in Tel Aviv and the American consulate in Jerusalem that the Palestine Authority has arrested and imprisoned David's killer, and then to be informed by all levels of the Palestine Authority that no record of Amjad's arrest exists.

It was a strange feeling to hear a senior US diplomat tell us, that, "well, you know, we have had many drive-by killings in California"

It was a strange feeling that news of the murder of our son and other Israelis and their escape to the Palestine Authority safe havens has taken a back burner to an Oslo process which seems to have very little to do with peace

We continues to have a strange feeling that we will have to continue the effort and expense of a legal fight to make sure that the Israeli government indeed fulfills the terms of a court order to bring our son's killer to justice.

What could be more elementary than to expect that the governments of Israel and the United States of America will pursue the demand that admitted killers of their citizens will indeed be brought to a court of law to stand trial?

To Go To Top
Posted by Zionist Organization of America, November 18, 2004.

NEW YORK- Another leading commentator is pointing out that the main obstacle to Middle East peace was not just Yasir Arafat, but rather the Palestinian Arabs' entire culture of hatred and violence.

Charles Krauthammer, in his syndicated column (Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2004), writes: "Deploying every instrument of propaganda - television, radio, newspapers and, most importantly, schools and summer camps for children - [Arafat's] Palestinian Authority fed his people a diet of such virulent anti-Semitism and denial of the Jewish connection with the land that no successor will even be in position to contemplate breaking Arafat's rejectionist precedent ... Arafat's legacy - the romanticization of violence, the rejection of Israel, the indoctrination of a new generation in intolerance and hatred - will require a long time to undo. It will require years, perhaps even generations."

In recent days, other leading commentators have made the same point:

Yossi Klein Halevi, in The New Republic (Nov.15, 2004), writes: "The problem is hardly Arafat alone. The Oslo process failed because Palestinian society denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state in any borders. Israel's Oslo architects believed legitimacy would result from peace; now, Israelis realize that legitimacy is a precondition for peace. And so one more Israeli demand for resuming negotiations will be ending anti-Jewish incitement in Palestinian schools and media."

Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, writes (Nov. 9, 2004): "Palestinian society has been indoctrinated to jihad in a manner unmatched throughout the Arab world ... Children have been brainwashed to believe their life goal should be to die carrying out acts of genocidal mass murder of Jews. Women have been inculcated with the inhuman belief that their wombs are bomb factories, rather than the sources of life. Through the Palestinian media, school system, religious institutions, sports teams and iconographers, Palestinians over the past decade have been brought to believe their sole purpose as a people is to liquidate the Jewish people. Suicide bombings in Israel are greeted with carnival-like celebrations in the West Bank and Gaza. There is no remorse, no regret, no shame and no guilt of the wanton brutality and barbarity of suicide bombings."

Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation writes: "Arafat created a brainwashing machine on a scale unseen since Joseph Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry of the Third Reich. Children as young as 2 are paraded wearing suicide belts. Youth camps for terrorists proliferate. The school system has turned into a jihad factory, and the U.S.-sponsored Palestinian version of 'Sesame Street' preaches murder of Jews and Israelis." (Washington Times, Nov.10, 2004)

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) notes that other prominent voices have made the same point in recent years:

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, who said in a speech in Cleveland on June 1, 2001: "We did not pay nearly enough attention to the culture of hatred created and nourished by Palestinian leaders ... Palestinian children, of course, are not born hating Jews. Hatred is a powerful sentiment that must be acquired - from parents, from education, from government authorities. The hatred of so many Palestinians for Jews results from a conscious process of demonizing the 'Zionist enemy.' There is a direct line between Palestinian terror and the growing use of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi language in the Palestinian media."

Elie Wiesel has said that "educational textbooks used in Palestinian schools are teaching a new generation to hate Israel and the Jews ... They're full of hatred for the Jews." (Boston Jewish Advocate, Nov.10-16, 2000)

Gary Rosenblatt, editor of the New York Jewish Week, has written that the Palestinian Arabs' willingness to engage in violence has been "fostered by a constant barrage, over a period of many years, of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric on Palestinian television and radio, in the newspapers, in school textbooks and in fiery sermons from the mosques. Contrary to signed agreements, the Palestinian Authority has done nothing to prepare its people for peace with Israel; on the contrary, it has encouraged a violent struggle and pledged a jihad to 'liberate' Jerusalem." (Nov. 3, 2000)

The Zionist Organization of America (www.zoa.org), founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.

To Go To Top
Posted by Boris Zubry, November 18, 2004.

Disturbing silence enveloped the world,

Disfigured stories entered the news,

So many deaths are hidden, never told,

So many crimes are not in our views.

We try to live with every bloody death,

We try to justify the motives of the killing,

We jury murderers and praise the killing's end,

But is it over? What's the Allah's willing?

I kneel in front the mighty ancient god,

In silent prayer for the end, forgiveness,

Whatever we may by mistake have done,

Was long ago, so please, let live, forgive us.

We paid the tolls to all of your desires,

Armenians, Gypsies, Kurds, the chosen Jews,

The perished people, millions in fires,

The tortured victims in the wailing queues.

They would not kill us, not so painless, easy,

Religious warriors are strong and very brave,

When they can rape and plunder, loot and pillage,

The weaker tribes disperse in disarray.

I question you - the judge, the mighty jury,

What have we done to bring the boiling hate

Of such dimensions - blinding flaming fury,

The GENOCIDES - the Bible's grand of scale.

The Muslim Turks and Muslim brothers Arabs

Have butchered millions in masterful wholesale,

The world was silent, very hushed and quiet,

Accepting lies - the truth that missed and failed.

We had the knowledge but the wrong denial

Kept GENOCIDES - the hidden tears of truth,

What had we done and why are we on trial,

Armenians, Gypsies, Kurds, the chosen Jews?

Boris Zubry is a mechanical engineer. He was born in the Soviet Union and now lives in the United State. Mr. Zubry is also author of "Chess Master," a political thriller; "Miles of Experience," a collection of short stories and "Arrogance of Truth," a collection of satiric short stories and poetry. Contact him by email at boriszubry@comcast.net or at his website, http://www.boriszubry.us

To Go To Top
Posted by TheRaphi, November 18, 2004.

This article was written by Max Red. Originally from the Soviet Union, he has lived in the Midwest of the United States for 15 years.

A large portion of the American public still does not understand it. Islamic fundamentalists have ten times more soldiers and supporters then the Nazis did, and they are more fanatical than the Nazis were. Japanese used kamikazes as a last resort; Islamists used them from the beginning.

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, my mother woke me up with a phone call. She told me to turn on the news. Most of that day, I spent in front of the TV. Disbelief gave way to a whole range of emotions: shock, fear, rage, sadness. It was almost three years ago. I never thought of myself as a violent person, but every time I see the images of burning towers, people plunging to their death, or hear the screams on the radio recorded that day, I feel rage, blinding rage. I just want to find anyone responsible for those atrocities and rip out his throat.

You can safely bet that on September 12th, the terrorism issue was the primary concern of any American with an IQ above 80. Since then, our government has been doing a good job of preventing major terrorist attacks within our borders. This has made most people feel secure enough for the terrorism issue to slip into the background. Many Americans consider the economy and education to be more important issues than terrorism. Apparently, the Madrid bombings weren't such a big deal for them. No one in this country will ever forget the date "September 11". But how many people remember the date of the Madrid bombings?

It is widely believed that Al-Qaeda is trying to acquire WMD to use on our soil. So the question regarding the next attack is not "if", it is "when". And how are we prepared to cope with it? Nothing could be as devastating to the economy as terrorism. The greatest economy could collapse under terrorist attacks if we are not prepared for them. Still think that the economy is more important? Then skip to the next article.

According to most experts on militant Islam (or Islamism), approximately 10-15% of the Muslims subscribe to Islamist ideology. That makes over 100,000,000 of them. Over a hundred million fanatics, who consider us descendants of apes and pigs, want us dead. Us and the "Crusaders". And everyone else who does not subscribe to their sick vision. Fortunately, most of them live outside of the United States. However, with our porous borders that may change. And, as we know from experience, it may take only 19 of them to deliver a devastating blow to the country with the world's largest economy and the world's best military.

There are other unpleasant numbers and facts, not in any particular order. About 80% of American mosques are taken over by extremists (Militant Islam Reaches America by Daniel Pipes). You should hear the anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric being preached from their pulpits ("Counting Mosques"). How about Wahhabi-supported Islamic schools in Virginia, where children are taught to shun Jews and Christians and reject Western culture? Of course, all of this hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

How about the over five thousand Al-Qaeda operatives and sympathizers believed to live in the U.S.? How about the Muslim students at UC Irvine wearing Hamas headbands during the graduation ceremony? How about the FBI's statement that the 2002 terrorist attack at the El Al ticket counter at LAX was an "isolated incident", not connected with terrorism? (American Jihad by Steven Emerson) How about the Saudi student in Idaho who ran a pro-terrorist website and was allowed to go free? How about the "Committee to free Shaikh Omar Abdel Rahman", a spiritual leader of the group responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing? I could go on for a long time, but unfortunately this paper is not long enough to describe every incident that should not have happened and every fact that should not exist.

Notwithstanding the fact that some of the Islamic charities (Global Relief Foundation, The Holy Land Foundation, etc.) that funneled money to terrorist groups have been closed, the United States economy remains one of the largest donors to terrorism causes through drug trade (Funding Evil by Rachel Ehrenfeld), charities (Terrorist Hunter by Anonymous), and hawala.

Over three years after September 11th, our government still treats terrorism as a law enforcement issue as opposed to a military one. It's like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. We still don't have a domestic intelligence agency. The Patriot Act is being assaulted more and more. The Supreme Court gives enemy combatants the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. The ACLU tries to scare us that our rights and freedoms are being curtailed. Do you know anyone whose rights and freedoms have been curtailed? I don't. The worst I can think of are those annoying lines at the airports. I don't know about you, but I am willing to spend an extra hour to decrease the chance of my plane being converted into a missile. Have you ever flown El Al? Does it take longer to get on El Al plane than on any other plane? Yes. How many El Al planes have been hijacked since 1968? Zero! Those are the odds I'm looking for when I fly.

We seem to draw a distinction between Al-Qaeda / Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Hamas / Hizbollah / PLO / Palestinian Islamic Jihad, because the former tend to target Americans and the latter tend to target Israelis. In World War II, we also drew a distinction between the Japanese and the Germans. It took us two and a half years to realize that they were parts of the same enemy. How long is it going to take us to realize that it is Islamofascism, no matter what name it takes: Al-Qaeda or Hamas? When a leader of Hamas is eliminated, it is a victory in the war on terror. It is not an Israeli victory, it is our common victory, as if it were the elimination of an al-Qaeda leader. Few would doubt that if we were to send a missile into Bin-Laden's house, then Ariel Sharon would be among the first people to publicly congratulate George Bush. Yet, when Ahmed Yassin or Abdelaziz Rantissi were blown up, Bush did not afford Sharon the same courtesy. Why is there a double-standard?

If we were really serious about winning the war on terror, we would have made it clear to our European so-called "allies". Apparently diplomacy trumped common sense again. But, it was not the right thing to do. We have to dispose of PC nonsense. We have to stop being afraid of offending foreign governments that have no vested interest in our national security. Most members of the UN, the so-called "community of nations", are tyrannies, not democracies anyway (An End to Evil by David Frum & Richard Perle). So why should we care about their opinions if they do not care about our safety? During World War II, we helped to save Western civilization from the fascist plague. It is time to step up again. This time we must protect Western civilization from the Islamofascist plague.

I have no doubt that we will win the war on terror. If history is an indicator, good always triumphs over evil. It took Hitler more than ten years to start World War II and he was defeated in half that time. Tens of millions of lives (hundreds of thousands of American lives) were lost. Jews were the primary target. The Muslim Brotherhood, the grandparent of Al-Qaeda, was founded in the late 1920s and World War III was declared in 1998; even though we did not (or did not want to) understand it until 2001.

A large portion of the American public still does not understand it. Islamic fundamentalists have ten times more soldiers and supporters then the Nazis did, and they are more fanatical than the Nazis were. Japanese used kamikazes as a last resort; Islamists used them from the beginning. Millions of lives (thousands of American lives) have already been lost. And imagine that: Jews are still the primary target. Are we chosen, or what?

As an American, I don't want to wait for my country to be raped again. As a Jew, I don't want to wait for another Holocaust. I want to do something. A lot of people are already doing that: The Investigative Project; the SITE Institute; the Middle East Forum, etc. I'm not a soldier or a policeman; I don't have a gun. But I know what could and must be done. I have my brain and my skills, and I am willing to use what I have to fight the Islamist plague. Are you?

If you feel frustrated because you want to take an active part in the war on terror, but don't know how, we can use your help. We would appreciate all the help we can get. Time, money, ideas, anything. If you want to take part in this project, please contact us at Fighters0@mail.ru.

TheRaphi (http://www.theraphi.com/archives/oldindex.html) is a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site; it provides news articles and essays.

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, November 17, 2004.

I am not a particularly observant person although I practice my religion to a small extent, keeping the Holy Days and trying to adhere to the teachings as best as my imperfect soul is able. I should have been born in the 'Show Me' state and not in Brooklyn, because I am always seeking tangible proof of things esoteric or religious.

Yet I find myself fascinated with the Bible and read it frequently looking for passages that relate to current events. Certainly the prophecy of the return of the Hebrew people to their homeland is one of them. But now we are in deeply troubled times regarding war over religion and over the Holy Land. So I turned to the Bible to see what it had to say. It seems it has a lot to say about events happening now and in the near future. Recently I came across the following, and it was like a jolt of electricity down my spine:

Amos 1:6 "Thus saith the LORD: For three transgressions of Gaza, yea, for four, I will not reverse it: because they carried away captive a whole captivity, to deliver them up to Edom. 7: So will I send a fire on the wall of Gaza, and it shall devour the palaces thereof; 8 And I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon; and I will turn My hand against Ekron, and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord GOD."

If I am reading this right, Gaza will be consumed in fire and the inhabitants -- the Arab Palestinians (as called by the ancient name 'Philistines') -- will be utterly destroyed.

Amos 1:6 evens mentions the number of times Gaza has been taken by usurpers. After having been stolen from them in ancient times, it was given back to the Jews by the Palestine Mandate. But Israel lost it through duplicity and war, and is about to lose it again -- a fourth time -- through even more duplicity.

What is even more interesting is the mention of a wall. As we all know, Israel is building a passive barrier -- a wall to prevent the genocidally-bent Arabs from murdering any more Jews. As to the palaces, it is well known that Yasser Arafat had a number of palatial residences, including his takeover of at least one ancient church for his personal use.

Looking at that phrase "...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish," puts me in mind of the Amalekites. The Amalekites were always the sworn enemies of the Hebrew people, repeatedly attacking them and joining with anyone who wanted to destroy the Jews. They also were a nomadic people, mainly occupying southern Palestine. The Bible describes them as the epitome of evil and hatred, given to lying, thieving and murder. Already they're sounding more and more like those Arabs occupying Jewish Palestine today.

These Arabs lie about being 'Palestinian,' since there was never a country called 'Palestine,' and the majority of them came from Jordan and Egypt. In fact, I challenge a single one of them to show me a valid birth certificate, passport, marriage license or currency from the country of 'Palestine.'

These Arabs steal because they are trying to steal the land rightfully and legally given to the Jewish people by the Palestine Mandate, which was internationally endorsed and never abrogated. And as to murdering, their own polls show that the overwhelming majority of them approve of murdering Jews. Smells like modern-day Amalekites to me...

Meanwhile, here is what the Bible says regarding Amalek, leader of the Amalekites:

Exodus 17:14 "And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."

Exodus17:16 "And he said: The hand upon the throne of the LORD: the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

This seemed to be a prophetic statement. Later in Samuel we read that although the Hebrews were commanded to utterly destroy their tormentors -- the Amalekites -- they did not.

Samuel 15: 2 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

Samuel 15:7 "And Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah as thou goest to Shur, that is in front of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive..."

Here's where Israel's big trouble comes:

Samuel 15:9 "But Saul and the people spared Agag..."

Samuel 15:10 "Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying: 11 'It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments."

Samuel 15:18 "and the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19 Wherefore then didst thou not hearken to the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst that which was evil in the sight of the LORD?"

Apparently, in Exodus, God anticipates that King Saul will not follow his commandment to destroy every last Amalekite, for it says in Ex. 17:16 "the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

However, in Amos it predicts "...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord GOD."

It also predicts a wall around Gaza. And it just so happens that there is now a wall, or separation fence, around Gaza where there once was none.

It's sounding more and more that today's Arabs who erroneously call themselves 'Palestinian' are in for a hot time in the old town tonight, courtesy of God.

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles. Her website address is http://hometown.aol.com/goodtree

To Go To Top
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, November 17, 2004.

This is reprinted from the Detroit Jewish News of November 12, 2004.

It was quite a show at the West Bloomfield, Michigan, Jewish Community Center Jewish Book Fair on Nov. 4, watching former Ambassador Dennis Ross mesmerize an adoring audience as to his great contribution to the so-called peace process in the Middle East. His press agent wrote him up as, "A highly skilled diplomat, Ambassador Ross was this country's point man on the peace process in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He was instrumental in assisting Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement; he also successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997, facilitated the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together." Assisted Israel!

Evidently, the man who wrote the promo piece was not on the scene when these events occurred. Ross was indeed the point man along with the other great "assisters of Israel" in Clinton's State Department: i.e., Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haas and, of course, Madeleine Albright and Clinton himself. Their "assistance" has all but brought Israel to its knees.

Way back in April 1991, in a Moment magazine article, former Near East Report editor Eric Rozenman described Ross as a "Jewish Arabist." He wrote that Ross was responsible for shaping the Bush-Baker policy that was "indifferent to what Israel claimed as vital interests and undiplomatically hostile to Israel's prime minister" and had made it "the least sympathetic American government toward Israel in that country's 43 years."

That government embraced the deluded Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Haim Ramon that brought the Oslo Accords, under cover of darkness, to Israel. Along with the Accords came a powerless, discarded Yasser Arafat isolated in Tunisia following the 1982 Lebanese war. Israel then made the colossal error of empowering this lethal enemy. The Palestinian Arabs were given rifles and sophisticated military equipment supposedly for use against riots among their own people. In short order, these weapons were instead, quickly used to kill Israelis.

Despite the obvious Arab lack of cooperation and compliance with the agreements sculpted by Ross, the Israelis continued with the insanity giving up the greater part of Judea and Samaria and all the major Arabs towns to the point where 97 percent of the Arabs were under Arafat's rule. As a sign of his gratitude, Arafat orchestrated the even greater killing of Israelis that continues to this very day. In the 30 months after that date, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (2l3) than in the preceding 10 years - (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). And in the following year, there were over twice as many Israeli terror fatalities.

The period since the Israel-PLO accords has seen the highest level of terrorist killings in the history of the State of Israel. The situation has gone from bad to worse. In the four years of the current intifada, September 2000 to September 2004, 1,032 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab violence and there have been 6,665 casualties.

Nevertheless, Ross continues to promote the same concept. He implores the Israelis to "get out of the lives of the Palestinian Arabs." If the Israelis could only make the Palestinian Arabs accept the gracious deal of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak - all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, unlimited Arab right of return to Judea and Samaria, etc. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Israelis threw Bank out of office immediately after learning of what Barak, Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton and the American State Department had offered. They replaced Bank with another general in the hope that this general would address the issue the way generals are supposed to deal with terror. This general, Arik Sharon, unfortunately has also fallen into the trap of "land for peace" despite the years of its abject failure.

Finally, Ross made the most incredibly, damaging statement of all. He said that he knew at the time that Yasser Arafat was incapable of sticking to any deal he made! Furthermore, in all those years of negotiation, the Ross mediators did not obtain one concession from Arafat himself - that, while Israelis were bleeding to death and coerced to give up more and more vital territory!

It is also obvious that Ross wants his point man job back. Thankfully, this is extremely unlikely with a Republican administration. Unfortunately, at least for public consumption, President Bush continues to urge Israel to accept another terrorist Arab state in its back yard. He has not accepted the fact that such an entity will not help the interests of the United States. It will backfire upon us. America will have one more enemy to deal with and, God forbid, eventually obtain instead, the loss of a fellow democracy and a stalwart military and political ally sold down the river.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host of www.israel-commentary.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, November 17, 2004.

Let's hope that the only thing Condoleezza Rice has in common with Terry Thomas the comedian is a front-teeth gap. Let's hope she doesn't become a big joke. Let's hope she doesn't take over the traditions and beliefs of the State Department. Or maybe she already has - she sure looked cozy with Colin Powell, the guy the UN administrators, the Europeans headmen and the princes of Saudi Arabia had no trouble suckering.

This is an article by Joel Mowbry and appeared today in the Washington Times (www.washingtontimes.com).

In naming Condoleezza Rice as his pick for secretary of state, President Bush is sending his most loyal adviser to his most disloyal agency: The State Department. But no matter what changes she makes -- and many are needed -- the bureaucracy is entrenched almost to the point of being impenetrable, meaning real reform could well prove illusory.

Miss Rice will soon take the reins of a massive 47,000-person operation that is literally sprawled out across the world. It is an insular institution that operates in a remarkably similar way from one administration to the next, typically viewing presidents, as one Foreign Service officer puts it, as the "summer help."

Never has this been more apparent than during the past four years.

After Mr. Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech, U.S. embassy employees in Paris and elsewhere fanned out to assure nervous Europeans that the president didn't mean "axis" and he didn't mean "evil."

When the rest of the Bush administration was following the president's post-September 11 leadership by doing everything possible to thwart terrorism, the State Department was busy keeping open a program known as Visa Express, which allowed every resident in the country that sent us 15 of 19 terrorists -- Saudi Arabia -- to apply for visas at travel agencies.

And anyone who opens a newspaper knows that "anonymous" State Department officials routinely trash the president and his foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. No one from this State Department has received so much as a slap on the wrist for such rampant insubordination.

How did the Foreign Service operate in open opposition to the president, particularly with a loyal soldier like Colin Powell at the helm?

Rather than reforming the State Department and its conformist culture, Mr. Powell saw his role as one of tireless advocate for the Foreign Service and its positions, never putting quite the same energy into getting his subordinates to support the president as he himself did.

But the State Department's rabid distaste for bold new ideas long precedes Mr. Powell, as does its worshiping at the altar of "stability," the doctrine that the world is safest when left unchanged.

The irony is that "stability" also defines the composition of the State Department, because outside of a small number of political appointees, almost all substantive positions must be held by careerists who have no particular loyalty to any president -- least of all this one.

The secretary of state is in many ways a glorified cat herder. All hiring, firing, transferring and promoting is handled not by the secretary, but by panels comprised of members of the Foreign Service. The secretary of state isn't even able to fire a convicted felon -- including when that felony is for defrauding the State Department.

The most effective secretary of state in recent memory, both in terms of motivating the rank and file and getting them to support a president's agenda they otherwise wouldn't, was George Shultz. He had three meetings every morning before 9:30, including at least one with non-executives. Yet though he was loved at State, he was only somewhat effective in getting his department on board with President Reagan.

While many have complained that Miss Rice was not an effective manager at the National Security Council -- with most critics pointing to the raging interagency debates -- there is one aspect of her record that is perhaps more troubling: The makeup of her NSC staff.

Though she often sided with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, her NSC is largely comprised of career members of the Foreign Service and the CIA and foreign policy elites whose worldview could not be more starkly different than the president's.

She needs to reverse that trend if she hopes to change her new agency, because reliance on careerists was Mr. Powell's greatest failure.

Mr. Powell trusted his foot soldiers and consequently ushered in an era of Foreign Service dominance over most key leadership posts -- spots normally reserved for political appointments. Given that the Foreign Service already controlled 99 percent of substantive positions, there has been little internal dissent, or even discussion.

"Powell let the Foreign Service run the place, and the White House won't let that happen again," notes an administration official, who adds that there will almost certainly be a sharp increase in appointments of people more supportive of the president's worldview.

Miss Rice could be a solid secretary of state, but the obstacles in her path are substantial -- and her track record is not entirely encouraging. But at least she meets the first requirement: She knows her job is to serve the president, not the bureaucracy.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth Matar, November 17, 2004.

Dear Friends,

Our son, David Matar, my co-chair Nadia's husband, called us last night.

"I want you to hear it from me," he said, "What I just decided to do, before you hear it on the news. I have sent a letter to my commander General Elazar Stern, who is responsible for manpower in the Israeli Defense Forces, that I am no longer able to do my reserve duty."

The following is an English translation of David's letter in its entirety:

To Chief Manpower Branch IDF
General Elazar Stern

Dear Sir,

My name is Dr David Matar, ID # 015484298, army ID # 4662007, rank: Medical Officer.

I have served as a chairman of a medical committee at the IDF Jerusalem Recruitment Office for the last 15 years, beginning with my regular duty for a year and a half in '89-'90, when I served as Chief Medical Officer in the Jerusalem Recruitment Office, and since then, as a reserve officer on one-day duty, that has usually exceeded thirty days a year. I am supposed to serve, according to the current law, until January 2006, that is another 14 months.

To my great chagrin and sorrow, the Knesset has approved the so-called "disengagement plan" and "evacuation-compensation" law of PM Ariel Sharon. As you know, the term "disengagement" is a euphemism for the forcible expulsion of more than 8000 Jews from their homes and lifework in the Gaza district and the Northern Shomron, and the uprooting and destruction of tens of flourishing communities, including every last synagogue and cemetery.

The Prime Minister has charged the army with the overall responsibility for the execution of his plan, even though the actual act of expulsion is supposed to be carried out by the Border Patrol and Police. The media is full of reports on serious preparations by the army to carry out Sharon's program, including detailed planning, intelligence gathering, training of picked army units on "dummy settlements", and the construction of detention camps for citizens who dare to resist, all with the openly declared intention to use any and all means to suppress any resistance of the Jewish residents to expulsion from their homes and destruction of their life's work.

All this means that the army hierarchy has received and accepted orders to declare war on a large group of innocent and loyal citizens, to define them operationally as a hostile target, and to break into their homes by force, in order to drag out men, women and children. These are preparations for battle, by any definition, featuring planned violence by our security forces against Jewish citizens, which will degenerate very quickly into tragedies reminiscent of the Altalena episode. These self-inflicted losses do not include the heavy casualties in our midst from Arab fire during, and especially after, the period that the plan is carried out.

This insane order is patently illegal, and therefore every soldier, Jew or non-Jew, should adamantly refuse to obey. The IDF was founded to defend the people and land of Israel by fighting Arab enemies - not by attacking Jewish brothers. In addition, as a religious Jew who tries to observe the Torah's commandments, I view any order that conflicts with the commandment of building the Land of Israel as equivalent to a command that attempts to impose the desecration of the Sabbath or the eating of swine. Such orders cross a red line, since they force the soldier to choose between his commitment to the most fundamental ideological principles, as opposed to his loyalty to the institutions of army and state.

Even though I, personally, as a doctor in the Jerusalem Recruitment office, do not expect to receive orders to uproot our brothers from Gush Katif and the Northern Shomron, I am not even now able, emotionally and ethically, to serve in a hostile army that has declared war on me, on my family, on my friends and neighbors, and a large part of our people. This remains true even if a thousand "disengagement" laws are passed by all 120 Knesset members, with the combined sanction of a popular referendum, Israel's Supreme Court, the U.N., and the U.S. State Department.

Therefore, I am hereby returning my army reserves card. I am, of course, ready to bear the consequences of this act - including a court-martial.

I am actually looking forward to an opportunity to raise my views in a public forum, so that others, who serve in the reserves in non-combat positions, can be inspired to do likewise. It goes without saying, that if Sharon's plan is officially shelved or cancelled, that I will be happy to return to serve as I have faithfully done these past 15 years.

Dr. David Matar, IDF Medical Officer

It is fortunate that David warned us, because the airwaves are now full, pro and con, of his decision not to be party to the illegal expulsion of 8,000 fellow Jews from their homes.

David is our first born son. He has always been our pride and joy. He did his premed studies at Columbia University in New York where he graduated summa cum laude. Subsequently he completed his studies at Harvard Medical School, where he chose Pediatrics as his specialty.

The possibility of Jewish mothers with babies being forcibly dragged out of their homes has long loomed like a nightmare in his mind. He felt, I am sure, that he had to personally do what he could to stop this insane illegal plan to wage war against fellow Jews.

Michael and I are, of course, very proud of David. But, as a mother, I am concerned about the army's threat to court-martial him. However, we both respect our son's decision and pray that others serving in the reserves will have the courage to follow in his footsteps.

With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 17, 2004.

Where do you last recall hearing that now well known infamous statement: "I was only following orders!"? We heard it often at the Nuremberg Tribunals after WW2 from the lowest German soldier to the highest ranking officers in the SS/Gestapo. From camp guards to Camp Kommandats (Commanders) all pleaded that they were "only obeying orders!"

I have no doubt that there must have been at least 10 soldiers of Hitler's who were assigned to rounding up the Jews who vehemently refused to drag Jews from their homes but, nevertheless they "obeyed orders". Some must have felt badly at the train depots when they pushed the Jews into the cattle cars so densely packed that even the dead were held up because there was no room to fall but, those soldiers were merely "obeying orders".

In an army, soldiers are expected to obey orders even if it put them at risk of their lives. But, soldiers who come from civilized democratic societies who knew and understood human law, they knew when ORDERS exceeded the role they would be asked to play and obey.

In Israel, a group of men called leaders had an idea. They would vacate the land and homes of Jews being assaulted by Arab Muslim Palestinian Terrorists. With no Jews to be angry at, the "Hate the Jews" syndrome would vanish - or so the so-called leaders proclaimed. So, "orders" were given by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to forcibly evacuate the Jews who have lived and worked the land for over 30 years and three generations. The Rabbis said: "No, it was forbidden, that this is not within the laws of Judaism and advised Jewish soldiers NOT to obey should they be ordered to virtually attack the Jews of the Gaza/Gush Katif."

But, it wasn't the Rabbis who first issued such a statements. It was Arik Sharon in 1995 as a Member of Knesset in the Opposition who stated plainly that the Israeli soldiers should disobey orders for the transfer of Jews and that they should accept the consequences.

The anti-Jewish Jews such as Sharon, Tommy Lapid, Shimon Peres - among others - went ballistic at being challenged. "Who are you to defy us?" they declared to the Rabbis, Jews of Gaza/Gush Katif and the Jewish soldiers. "We will drag you out of your houses. We will put you in concentration camps for resisting being uprooted. We will put you in jail for 3 to 5 years if you resist. You will obey our orders - or else!"

The loudest and most threatening of these non-Jewish Jews have never wanted a really Jewish state. They wanted to use the vague description of "Jewish" to have a State where there was no Jewish law - based upon the 10 Commandments or the 613 other Mitzvahs (good deeds) - Laws given to Moses to teach to the Jewish people. Israel was to be a Jewish State in name only. It was to be, according to the earliest plans, to be a de-Judaized nation and secularized like all other nations - so the new Jewish State would "fit in" to the rest of the world and be "liked" by them. According to the plans, Jews were supposed to be like all other peoples and thereby to be no longer subjected to anti-Semitism and the hatred taught by the major religions of Christianity and/or Islam.

Were the Jews to convert en masse to be Christians and/or Muslims in order to be free of prejudice against them? No, according to plan, they were to be absolutely nothing as per the role models created by Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Arik Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Yossi Sarid and Tommy Lapid, and all the others dedicated to the new state of nothingness.

One can imagine the fury of these folks being thwarted by real Jews, the very Jews they wanted to be de-programmed and de-Judaized into merely a non-denominational people milling around on a bit of land, doing business.

Today more Jews are returning to Torah and obeying a higher set of orders than the de-Judaizers would like. They continue being the stiff-necked obstinate Jews, the world has tried to dispose of for several thousand years. Sharon, Peres, Beilin are not the first almost Jews who tried to de-program Jews. We have had lowly kings who hated their Jewishness, hated the Prophets, and did try to kill them. Today we have non-Jewish Jews, attempting to please the International Community by selling off the patrimony of Abraham given by HaShem to the Jewish people in His Covenant forever.

This is about the most rotten bunch of quislings and betrayers the Jewish people have ever had to contend with. But, they were clever. They were elected under the Banner that they would protect the Nation and deal harshly with the Arab Muslim Terrorists. Instead, they accepted the diktats of Super Powers and using the Army of which they had temporary control, ordered them to attack the Jews of Gaza/Gush Katif at a time of their choosing.

These non-Jewish Jews were going to use the law to forcefully remove Jews from the Land, their homes and those who resisted would be re-located to concentration camps for better control and jail terms for conscientious resisters. Those soldiers who comply would later say to their friends, relatives, possibly a Peoples' Court, "But, I was only obeying orders!"

When Sharon was asked to hold a referendum by the people, he refused. The People and the Nation belonged to him and therefore, must obey him just as they must the soldiers he orders about. Regrettably, a weak Likud Party and Knesset member of the Right were too cowardly to stand up to a Prime Minister who had adopted the role of a regional dictator, even after the rank and file of the Likud Party had voted overwhelmingly to abrogate the Sharon "Disengagement Plan".

The Leftists who always wanted a de-Judaized nation were drawn to Sharon like a magnet, if only temporarily as he rampages through Gaza and stripped it of its native Jews. After Sharon completed his betrayal of the Jews of Gaza, they will turn on them and collapse his government. But first, they needed a betrayer to give away Gaza, Judea and Samaria, the Golan Heights and half of Jerusalem. The Left could not perform this treachery by themselves but, with Sharon paving the way, they will have their Oslo and Geneva betrayal and deliver up the Road Map all tied up in one nasty package.

When, not if, the Arab Muslim Palestinians, with the Mujahaddin (Islamic Holy Warriors) begin to attack the main cities of Israel, Sharon, Peres, the Labor Leftists will scurry like rats leaving a sinking ship. They will not be able to walk the streets lest someone recognize them. Some may try to escape to Europe or America but, I suspect those borders will be closed to traitors - even if they acted on behalf of the American and European interests.

Perhaps Sharon could build a wall around his farm for all those who subverted the Jewish nation, including those of the Left.

The next questions are: "Will Jews accept orders - as did the German soldiers - without questioning those orders? Will Jewish soldiers and/or Jewish policemen and women obey orders which conflict with their conscience when it comes to dragging women and children from their homes?"

Tommy Lapid, Minister of Justice (which for him is quite an oxymoron) who has never fought a real battle, tells the nation he will jail resisters. We did learn during WW2 how ordinary men with no training, became high ranking officers - particularly when they showed a certain enthusiasm in carrying out orders for the disposition of Europe's Jewish population. All you needed was a willingness to "Obey and/or Give Orders which others must obey". Thus, they could say with conviction: "I was only obeying orders" became the unified statement of defense for the ordinary German soldiers of the Nazis throughout the officer corps of the SS - the feared Gestapo.

Will Jewish soldiers one day have to respond for rousting Jews: "I was only following orders." Sharon crossed the line and went far beyond the job description of an Israeli Prime Minister. He morphed into becoming a Dictator who demands obedience even when his plans are so flawed that his high Generals tell him he is grossly mistaken. Sharon has always thrived on conflict. It doesn't matter if he is attacking Arab Muslim Terrorists or his own Jews.

Mankind has adopted Laws so that we humans can live with each other within defined borders of our own personal space. These are the rules we agree to live by. Those that break rules can be criminals, by mistake or those who can give orders under various threats who are called dictators.

Those who disobey orders which are cruel and so obviously unfair, can be accurately called brave, heroes, people of conscience, egged on in civil disobedience. They know that those in power, particularly if they are tyrants, will try to punish them. Better to get rid of the tyrants than allow the people of conscience to suffer.

Someone of perception once said: "The Law is an Ass" - which is often accurate.

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by NGO Monitor, November 17, 2004.

This is part of NGO Monitor Analysis (Vol. 3 No. 3), 15 November 2004.

On 15-17 October, London hosted the European Social Forum, a very large and well-publicized gathering of non-governmental organizations associated with radical left-wing and anti-globalization causes. The ESF is affiliated with the World Social Forum, whose meeting in India in January 2004 served as a vehicle for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement.

Despite organizers' claims to be promoting peace in the Middle East, the ESF included a wide variety of very coarse anti-Israel activities in its program. That the ESF would be a major source of hatred and demonization, characteristic of the new anti-Semitism, comes as little surprise after a closer examination of some of the characters and organizations taking part. Chief among these is Belgian Senator Pierre Galand, the European Chairman of the Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP) and a central figure in anti-Israel NGO activities in the United Nations and Europe. Galand is a leader of the "South African strategy", designed to delegitimate Israel's right to exist through insidious comparisons to South Africa under apartheid. This theme was also promoted by South African academic Dennis Brutus, who urged the ESF audience to support "boycotts, divestments, embargoes and sanctions". Brutus and Galand were also active at the September 2004 UN "International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People".

Indeed, the ESF session in London adopted the aggressive rhetoric of this UN event and of Galand's ECCP, including "a unified policy of sanctions" against Israel. The ESF's "Call of the Assembly of Social Movements" placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict near the top of its agenda, calling for "an end to the Israeli occupation and the dismantling of the apartheid wall" and for "political and economic sanctions on the Israeli government as long as they continue to violate international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people."

A number of highly politicized Palestinian NGOs were able to promote their agendas in the ESF framework. Mustafa Barghouti of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees reportedly stated to a large audience "Sharon must be put in jail". Other such participants included the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON), whose activities are usually not linked to "green" issues.

Other speakers and NGOs participated in sessions such as "The Apartheid Wall: Palestinian Resistance and European Solidarity" and "Palestinian Human Rights and International Law: Ending Israeli Violations, Defending the Right of Return", featuring Jeff Halper (Israel Committee Against House Demolitions). Despite his extreme agenda and rhetoric of demonization, which places him on the fringe of the Israeli political map, Halper is able to use funding from the EU and European governments to promote his private ideological agenda at gatherings such as the ESF.

In this atmosphere of incitement, a stall at the ESF belonging to the mainstream Union of Jewish Students had items stolen and litter dumped on its table in what was believed to be a racially motivated crime.

Although other ESF-affiliated NGOs - Amnesty International and Oxfam - did not participate in the anti-Israel activities at the conference, their involvement demonstrates the deep penetration of political issues under the guise of universal human rights claims in the ESF and other such ideological activities.

The NGO Monitor organization (www.ngo-monitor.org) promotes critical debate and accountability of human rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict.

To Go To Top
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 17, 2004.

Yasir Arafat's effect on global politics is one of the most extraordinary stories of modern history. Indeed, Arafat is the godfather for this era of global terrorism and radical Middle East movements.

As leader of a numerically small people without no state or material resources, Arafat's international impact is particularly remarkable. This is made even more true given the number of disasters Arafat survived, which in turn is a point magnified further by the fact that he himself caused so many of these setbacks.

Briefly, Arafat's disproportionate impact on the world can be attributed to four factors:

  1. Using the Arab states as a force multiplier magnifying his importance. Arafat always claimed that he could control the policy of Arab states; that those who crossed him would face their wrath and those who pleased him enjoy their largesse. The power of oil money and the growth of Islamic-oriented politics seemed to reinforce this power.

    On one level, this was pure bluff. The Arab regimes held him in low regard. They did not consult him on their actions or heed his threats. When it suited their interests, they cut off his money and killed his men. Yet in a sense Arafat's claim was partly true because the Palestinian issue was indeed useful for the regimes. It was the great excuse of Arab politics. The conflicts continuation was used to explain why the Arab world lacked democracy and failed to progress economically and socially. It was simply too useful to end and Arafat, by battling on, kept this system going.

  2. Arafat's brilliance at public relations also allowed him to reinvent himself periodically, to avoid responsibility for his defeats, intransigence, and terrorism. As early as the 1970s, American officials called him the teflon terrorist. He took advantage of others wishful thinking that peace could be obtained or their vanity that they might be the one to solve the great Middle East problem if only they were nice to Arafat. He showed how easy it was to fool the well-intentioned West and how quickly they forgot what he did last time.

  3. The power of terrorism as a systematic strategy. During the 1960s, Arafat had already developed his plan for victory. By deliberately targeting Israeli civilians he thought he would bring about Israel's collapse. To his dying day, he never lost belief in the efficacy of this method. But while this failed, terrorism had certain other advantages. It grabbed headlines, making the rest of the world feel both frightened and that it was urgent to resolve such a violent issue. It also proved very popular among Arabs and Muslims, while he was able to pass this off as revolutionary plan to the armchair left.

  4. Who he was fighting. If Arafat had not been fighting Jews, however, much of these factors would still not have added up to the global impact he would have. While Arafat tried to avoid direct antisemitism, he did so by the simple method of transferring all the traditional antisemitic feelings and stereotypes to Israelis. Fighting in a land with which the world was obsessed guaranteed attention. Murdering what might be called the world's most despised people ensured a sympathy that would otherwise not have been forthcoming.

Given this background, Arafat played a major role in affecting global politics. Of course, other considerations here include his long career; his involvement in so many wars, incidents, and diplomatic efforts; and other things. But if one wants to look at the deeper impact of Arafat it was in proving some key principles which were learned by imitators:

  1. Terrorism is a very effective tool for mobilizing people if they are willing to overlook the moral issues and rejoice in the deaths of other ethnic groups. Of course, terrorism had been used many times before in history but not really as a populist revolutionary tool for building a movement. Arafat proved how politically profitable a terrorist strategy could be, thus encouraging imitators.

  2. Terrorism could be carried out without paying a price for it. For years, Western politicians have warned of the terrible punishment awaiting terrorists. In fact, though, few of those who killed under Arafat's command were imprisoned, and many of them were sprung from jail by further attacks, hostage-taking, or political deals. Arafat proved that being a terrorist was much less riskier than it seemed, another factor inspiring imitators.

  3. He made the Palestinian issue a central concern of the world, through terrorism, propaganda, courting sympathy, threatening to unleash the wrath of the Arab and Muslim worlds, and ensuring that the conflict would not go away.

  4. He showed how much can be achieved through intransigence, the power of saying no, and the constructive use of weakness. When Arafat refused to make peace or stop terrorism, he showed how he could make his adversaries and bystanders give him more concessions.

  5. Arafat played a major role in the contemporary renewal of antisemitism to its high traditional level. By constantly portraying Israel and - albeit more subtly - Jews as evil, Arafat returned this stereotype to international acceptance, thus reversing the impact of the Hitler regime and Holocaust. It is especially noteworthy that this event happened after Israel offered to give him just about everything he claimed to want, making his achievement all the more impressive.

  6. Equally, he had a large effect in spreading anti-Americanism globally. While it is easy to attribute Arafat's hostility to the United States to U.S. support for Israel, it was actually part of his revolutionary ideology from the beginning, going back to the early 1960s long before the United States even gave any aid to Israel. Again, the true blossoming of this effect came only after President Bill Clinton tried so strenuously to produce a political solution which met Palestinian needs and interests.

  7. Using Western morality and moderation as a pressure point. Since the West so sincerely wants to do good in the world, this desire can be manipulated by totalitarian movements or states which no how to portray themselves as victims and progressive forces fighting oppression.

  8. Perhaps the single most powerful wider political effect of Arafat was his contribution to maintaining the status quo in the Middle East. By fomenting terrorism, extremism, and anti-Western sentiment and especially by refusing to make peace in 2000, Arafat helped destroy the incipient trend toward moderation in the Arab world. In this way, he gave Arab dictators the perfect rationale to crack down. With the Arab-Israeli conflict still going on, the Palestinians still - albeit by their own leaderships decisions - without a state, and violence continuing, Arab rulers could explain that reform was a trick by the hostile West and democracy an unaffordable luxury in a time of war.

In short, Yasir Arafat's global impact has been disastrous. That is a travesty. At the same time, it has been catastrophic for Israel, which has lost hundreds of lives to terrorism after taking risks and making concessions for peace, and the Palestinians, who might long have enjoyed peace and an independent state under a more moderate leadership. That is a tragedy.

Barry Rubin, an FPRI senior fellow, is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography and Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2004). His columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html

This article is archived at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/2004/11_08.html

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 172004.

So let's see if I get this right.

DeMockracy according to Sharon means that elected representatives do not have to represent those who elect them but can, by implication, represent those who did not elect them. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to "threaten" to not reelect them because you do not want them but you must reelect them even if you don't want them.

Did I get this right?

This article comes from Independent Media Review And Analysis (IMRA) and is archived at http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=22817 Contact IMRA at their website at http://www.imra.org.il or by email at imra@netvision.net.il

PM Sharon: It is unacceptable to threaten MKs that they won't be reelected if they defy constituents

The following is Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's reaction to a campaign to advise Likud MK's that if they support the disengagement plan, that was rejected in the Likud referendum, that they will not be reelected. "There are incitement and threats and pressure on MKs. I want to tell you that this situation of threats and pressure is insufferable."
-- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at a political meeting Tuesday with local council heads from the Likud, who were invited to his Jerusalem residence.

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 Mordechai Ben-Menachem, November 17, 2004.

A good friend of mine, who prefers to remain unnamed, has recommended the following books. Unfortunately, I do not know the work of Giles Kepel and David Pryce-Jones, personally, but I strongly recommend the work of Rapael Patai, a well known and internationally recognized scholar.

The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West by Gilles Kepel
The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs by David Pryce-Jones
The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben-Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Michael Freund, November 17, 2004.

By now it should be clear that George W. Bush wasn't the only big winner to emerge from this month's US presidential election.

In terms of flexing political muscle and shaping the outcome of the vote, no group proved more successful than America's evangelical Christians. They flocked to the polls, boosting the incumbent and helping to set the country's political agenda for the next four years.

While some American Jews view this development with mounting concern, my reaction is far more sanguine, even upbeat: Israel should be thanking God for the rise of the Christian Right. They are the best hope for ensuring long-term US diplomatic support for the Jewish state in an increasingly hostile world.

Sure, American Jews still wield a great deal of political power, thanks to their concentration in key states and their extensive involvement in the political process. But the American Jewish community is in the throes of a protracted demographic decline and their power will inevitably diminish over time.

By contrast, US evangelicals, many of whom proudly refer to themselves as Christian Zionists, are clearly on the upswing.

According to the Pew Research Center, evangelical Protestants accounted for 23% of the entire American electorate, or nearly one out of every four voters, in the recent election.

And, as the Los Angeles Times noted, "Christian evangelicals provided much of the passion and manpower for President Bush's reelection" (November 12).

Indeed, political guru Arthur Finkelstein was even more blunt, telling the Israeli daily Ma'ariv that "Bush's strategy secures the power of the American Christian Right not only for this term. In fact, it secures its ability to choose the next Republican president."

Even outside the ballot box evangelical Christians are a force to be reckoned with.

A recent study by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that an astonishing 38 percent of all Americans describe themselves as being "born-again" Christians.

In places such as the southern United States, the survey revealed that a majority of residents, or 52 percent, fall into this category.

And because of their attachment to the Bible, more and more evangelical Christians are stepping forward to embrace Israel, demonstrating a level of commitment and support that is both sincere and deeply-rooted.

For years, groups such as the Unity Coalition for Israel have been toiling both to build grassroots political support for the Jewish state and to explain Israel's case to members of Congress. They have helped win Israel numerous friends in mid-western American states such as Kansas, where the Jewish community is small.

Others, such as Pastor Robert Stearns of New Jersey, have succeeded in organizing evangelicals to pray on Israel's behalf. Last month, Stearns launched an annual "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem, a worldwide effort that involved tens of thousands of churches from Korea to California.

Organizations such as Bridges for Peace, the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem and the International Christian Zionist Center have been at the forefront of encouraging Christian tourism to Israel and raising funds for various social welfare projects, while leaders such as the Rev. Pat Robertson have been outspoken on Israel's behalf.

Hence, it is about time Israel and American Jewry put aside many of their reservations and doubts and started to engage evangelical Christians more candidly and openly.

Of course, we must remain on guard against missionary elements seeking to proselytize Jews. But it would be unfair, and even wrong, to suspect all Christian supporters of Israel as being surreptitious soul-snatchers.

Many are sincere and devoted in their love for Israel, their sole motivation being to live in accordance with God's promise to the patriarch Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you shall be cursed."

To turn down their friendship and backing because of misguided stereotypes regarding their motivations would be an act of sheer folly on our part.

As Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder of the International Federation of Christians and Jews and a pioneer in the field, has argued, "It is wrong and shortsighted of Israel and the Jewish community not to reach out to these people, even as they become more and more powerful. The Jewish community needs to get its act together."

That message is beginning to get across. MK Yuri Stern recently created a Christian Allies Caucus in the Knesset, which works to promote better relations between Israel and Christian groups. And the Israeli Ministry of Tourism has been working more closely with US Christians to promote visits to the Holy Land.

But far more needs to be done. The bond between US Christians and Israel has all the makings of a historic alliance, one that could both heal the painful wounds of the past while paving the way for tremendous accomplishments in the future.

Properly cultivated, the relationship could help strengthen our position immeasurably and guarantee bedrock US support for Israel for years to come.

The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ ShowFull&cid=1100578393478&p=1006953079865

To Go To Top
Posted by Boris Zubry, November 17, 2004.

I believe these are the right words to be said when one wants to bless something positive and to thank God for that. God did something good for me and for you, and I want to thank him for going out of his way and taking time, when his time is so precious, to do it. We all know how busy God is with all this craziness going around: religion, weather, politics, gays, smocking, and elections. Who has time for terrorism and other problems of the secondary importance? So, Boruch Hashem!

Many years ago we, Jews, were cursed for something unknown to me (but I am still searching for answer) and the darkest evil called Yasser Arafat was allowed to roam the world terrorizing the Jews and the Christians, and spilling more Palestinian blood than Jews could ever dream off. Yasser Arafat, the deadly disease of the twentieth century, lived a long and prosperous life. He accumulated an uncountable wealth and he fought. He was the angriest bustard the world even knew. What did he fight for? What did he kill for? What did he accomplish? Was anyone, but himself, better off as a result of his actions? The system of terror born by Arafat and his closest associates, nourished by the Russians, the Cubans and the Communist Party in general, and well financed by the Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Jordanians, the Saudis and the all Arabs and Muslims of the world lasted for over thirty years. Arafat graduated in blood shedding and he succeeded in terror. The world was and still is bleeding. He wrote the book on how to inflict the most pain and suffering to the innocents and how to blame the same innocents for that. He hurt his brothers Palestinians more than Arabs, Crusaders, Turks and the Jews ever did. Actually, Jews were the lesser of the lot. They did more good than bad to the brothers Semites.

And what of his good deeds? Well, they did not last for longer then a fraction of a second. He may have some good thoughts but deeds\x{2026} Oh, yes, a little park was build and named after a suicide bomber. That should be enough. Now children can play there remembering the hero and dreaming of becoming one. After all, one could get from Yasser Arafat anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 (money donated by the Iraqi Saddam Hussein) for being a suicide bomber and, in addition to that, the family may get another $5,333 from the Saudi Arabian quasi government. This was good but good always took the secondary place in the mind of this son of Allah. He knew that even, if he asked the faithful to kill the infidel Jews and Christians just for the sake of Allah, they would gladly do it. The virgins in paradise and the ample bosom of Allah were a reward one could not buy for any amount of money. So, money was just a nice addition to an already plentiful reward and considered to be on the second place.

How would we remember the great Yasser Arafat? Would we remember him for hospitals and schools, for peace and love, and for laughing children and flowers growing on every street? Would we remember him for happiness and prosperity of his people, Palestinians, who were considered, even before he was born, the drags of the Turkish Empire? Turks are still calling Palestinians that and Arabs would not allow them to live in the Arab countries. Arabs do not grant the citizenship to Palestinians and I wonder why. Palestinians are hated by Turks and the Arabs alike and almost as much as we hate rats infesting our homes. Do I hate them? No. I feel sorry for them and am ready to stretch my hands out and help them to clean their hand from the blood of my brothers - the Jews. Yes, I am willing to do that for as long as they are willing to keep their hands and minds clean from murder. I will do it if there even a slight chance for success and I will fight them to death spilling their blood if the blessed by Allah wholesale murder continuous. I don't know any other solution. Do you?

Are they living better now? Yes, the Jews planted the flowers and the Jews built the hospitals and the schools. The same hated Jews gave Palestinians jobs and helped their children to learn how to read, write and laugh. Would we remember Arafat for that or for the mountains of Jewish and Christian broken bodies, lakes of tears and rivers of blood where small but constant streams kept inserting the blood of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Israeli, Palestinians, Americans, British and many many more. Every little stream added new bright red blood to the river of darkening thickening blood of the bleeding humanity. What good has he done? I believe he should join the ranks of Hitlers and their henchmen. I can see the wall of the human stain, the worst of the worst, the cancer of the social order. There, among the big bad boys as Attila, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Robespierre, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and as such, our little friend will have the place of honor. It does not matter that his body count was less. He had less to play with. And again, if not for him, the Israeli wars may not happen and Bin Laden may not develop in to whatever he is now, and September 11th may not become a fact. Yes, Yasser Arafat left a very deep impression in the modern history. His impression is many thousand bodies deep including the small children bodies imbedded into remained of the blown up bosses. Can you see them? I see the all the time.

I thank all gods for relieving us from this memorable statesman from the equally memorable state. I thank Allah for taking the bloody Yasser Arafat to his abundant bosom. May he suck it dry. I only wonder why Allah the Merciful has not done this act of mercy thirty years ago or even better yet, when Arafat was born? Come to think about, Arafat did not have to be born at all and so goes for many of his followers. Inshallah! But we cannot have everything, can we? One thing at the time, one step of many. If you love Arafat, please, collect the soles of the old shoes, as much as you can carry and ship them to the Palestinian authority. Ask them to place the soles of the shoes on the top of his grave. This is something every Muslim understands and it will shoe the level of your respect exactly.

I don't know what he died from. He had so many symptoms and not too many parts of his body worked right. It could be age, poison, AIDS, any number venereal diseases, or just his rotten to the core and truly black heart. It could be his own poison. Can the poisonous snake die from its own poison? I think so but you can correct me if I am wrong. He had a nine years old daughter and I never heard of any other children. How could that happen? At his age? That was a shocking discovery. What did he do before that? Some say that he liked boys more than he liked girls and that resulted in a sudden case of AIDS. That is why his medical records are not released yet. Oh, we will know the truth one day rather soon. That could be catastrophic for the dead Muslim leader. It could shake Islam to its rotten foundation. And, then what would they do? Possible, everything is possible with this miracle of the twentieth century called Yasser Arafat. He is memorable all right. No matter what the reason for his death was, it was not soon enough. He deserved more pain and more suffering. I would rather see him prosecuted and executed using one of really outrages ancient methods. Hm, may be even the one they still use in Saudi Arabia - decapitation by the sword. Well, God was willing to let him to escape the punishment he deserved. I can't argue with God. Maybe God has something special in store for him, Yasser Arafat - the son of the dog and the grandson of the donkey. God has his reasons and he has the power.

Do we have a blessing for the dead and really hated enemy? Of cause we do. We have blessing for every occasion and even as good as this one. Lets bless this son of a dog and the grandson of the donkey, his family and his friends and wish them the speedy but painful end.

Boruch Hashem! Allahu Akbar! Inshallah!

Boris Zubry is a mechanical engineer. He was born in the Soviet Union and now lives in the United State. Mr. Zubry is also author of "Chess Master," a political thriller; "Miles of Experience," a collection of short stories and "Arrogance of Truth," a collection of satiric short stories and poetry. Contact him by email at boriszubry@comcast.net or at his website, http://www.boriszubry.us

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 16, 2004.


"In a move partly designed to reward PM Blair for past support and to reach out to European leaders, Pres. Bush will signal after this week his intention to renew American engagement in efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The Labour Party expects a payback for Britain's support of the American-led invasion of Iraq, to placate it and "British public opinion, which has become increasingly disapproving of Mr. Blair's closeness to the president." (Jamie Dettmer, NY Sun, 11/9, p.8.)

This move was forecast a few weeks ago. At that time, this bold prediction was too intangible for me to report. Now the "NY Sun" states it as a matter of fact. Pres. Bush is not standing on principles. I haven't been able to discern any in him.

Labour is implying that Britain is not a loyal ally on the need to combat international Islamism. Britain is a mercenary state, which lends its troops in anticipation of an antisemitic payback. Oh, did some of my fellow Jews prefer voting for Bush in the belief that he is pro-Israel? He sells out Israel as a horse trade. Horses are not being traded, but people's lives, perhaps millions. Nor is it a case of saving American lives, since the PLO murders Americans. In pressuring Israel to permit P.A. sovereignty, the US would come under much greater terrorism, as would Britain.

You might wonder why would the P.A. commit terrorism against the country that does so much for them? First, the Arabs are ingrates, filled with self-pity. Therefore, they rarely acknowledge sincere attempts to befriend them. The may condescend to give a glancing acknowledgment of some favorable policy. Second, not mollified by infidel favors, the Arabs persist in hating unbelievers. Don't forget that these are fanatics, out to conquer the world.

The reporter misstated the conflict as "Israeli-Palestinian." It is the Arab-Israel conflict, part of international jihad. Arab states' attack on Israel prove it. Nor is there a Palestinian nationality.


As we reported some time ago, during the Iraqi uprising, terrorists blew up many Christian churches. The Lebanon Information Minister explained who sponsored that. His unsubstantiated and illogical charges come in swift succession, making them difficult to follow.

It runs like this: (1) Jay Garner destroyed the Iraqi army "in order to create suitable conditions for dividing Iraq." (2) He wanted to justify the flight of Christians, not only from Iraq, but from all Arab countries. (3) The destruction was "done under Zionist supervision." (IMRA, 11/9 from MEMRI.)

You know that the US does not need Israeli help in demolition. Israel probably was named because the Arabs like to blame Israel for everything. The Arabs have been ruining Israel's reputation in a world that now welcomes smearing of the Jewish state.

The implication that our very Christian President wishes to oust the Christians from the Mideast, and to do so by violence, makes no sense. Nor did Christian flight originate during the Iraq war. It has been going on for centuries. The Mideast formerly was primarily Christian. Muslim pressure has been squeezing them out. Muslims have attacked Christians in Lebanon, Egypt, and the P.A. for years, but the Lebanon Information Minister seems not to know about it. Obviously, the Muslim Arabs are blaming the US for their bigotry.

If the US had divided Iraq, half the contention in it would dissipate. The US insists on unity. The Arabs have paranoia about infidels dividing them, but the Arab world is quite divided. The Arabs often are at war with each other. Iraq was.


Like al-Qaeda, Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization. The two organizations' roots and views are similar. They have cooperated.

Hamas is powerful politically in the Gaza Strip, whereas Fatah's influence has been declining. If Israel evacuates from Gaza and, under Western pressure, does not control access to it by air and by sea, Hamas may take over. Hamas conceivably would invite al-Qaeda to make a headquarters there. Thus, Western and Sharon policy may set up al-Qaeda for deadly mischief (IMRA, 11/9 from the Inst. for Contemporary Affairs).

The West hates Israel so much, that it is trying to establish another terrorist Arab state at Israel's expense, even though that state also would be anti-Western. This is foolhardy as well as evil.


"The beauty of the roadmap is that it does not actually require Palestinian compliance. Instead the Quartet is to decide if the performance of the Palestinians can be considered sufficient, as compared to Israeli activities, to "progress" through the stages of the roadmap. Thus, even if the evidence is overwhelming that the Palestinians have not fulfilled their obligations, the Quartet can make the political decision to ignore the truth, claiming that "objectionable" Israeli activities offset Palestinian noncompliance." (IMRA, 11/6.) Why does PM Sharon endorse it?

In other words, the plan is a fraud, lip-service for balance, a scheme against Zionism.


Although Arafat's doctors say they don't know the cause of his illness, and perhaps they don't know it, a P.A. mosque sermon expressed certainty about the cause. The cause is poison. It was wielded by - drum rolls Jews. (The Jews are described as "apes and pigs" by the Muslims, toward whom political correctness dictates that we be "sensitive". Then demand it of them.)

How easy for Arabs to be sure of matters, since they who do not believe in proof or evidence. No wonder their science is not original but copied! A couple of prominent Israelis speculate, too, but they do not express certainty. Their guess about his illness is AIDS from homosexuality.


In recent months, masses of his subjects rallied in his support, in Ramallah. Their fervor was purchased by the funds he stole from them (Arutz-7, 11/8).

There is a scramble first to find out where his billions are located, and second to acquire them. My concern is that victims of terrorism suing Arafat and his PLO and P.A. for punitive damages may be cheated of compensation.


Syria is smarting over U.S. accusations that it launders money. (Whose? Earned by drugs?) It is negotiating with the US in an attempt to have the charges retracted (IMRA, 11/6).

The exact charge was not specified, nor was it stated how Syria hopes to be freed of the charge. Why was the story muffled. How would the charges get dropped, by some rotten deal?

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, November 16, 2004.

We celebrated all week. Candies and cakes were being passed around, because - unlike the Arabs who distribute sweets and party over Jewish blood - we were affirming life and its miracles.

That the beast who gave terror a bad name fell critically ill while I was preparing for one son's Bar Mitzvah, and that Arafat's death was made official on the morning of my eldest son's 21st birthday was just an added plus- and I'm very grateful for it.

I promised myself and my family that I would do my best to switch gears and pry myself away from the international scene, national situation and Internet for a couple of weeks in order to concentrate on simchas. But every once in a while I snuck a peek at the Arafat Freak Fest via CNN.

I watched how the world media and Palestinian powers-that-be haggled over the terms of his demise like he was an item up for sale in a Baghdad Bazaar. Recall how anxiously they were "preparing for his burial" while he was "still alive". Henceforth he should be referred to as "The Knight of the Living Dead". I guess I derived a certain satisfaction from knowing that the world and his people essentially buried him alive -a death befitting such a repugnant personality. I watched as the bizarre farce over his illness turned into a ghoulish lament come burial time, and nobody does it better than CNN's Christian Amanpour. But why should we be shocked by the coverage given to the scum when it's a well-established media standard that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? In a world of shifting sands and mores, is the definition of humanity an issue of relativity, or are there still firm and consistent codes and criteria which make us definitively human and provide us with the stability and clarity that so many of us crave?

As Jews, we are commanded to keep hundreds of intricate laws, whereas non-Jews are expected to follow seven universal laws that date back to the time of Noah. The following decrees were established with the purpose of ensuring a just, peaceful and creative world:

1. Do not worship false gods
2. Do not to blaspheme G-d.
3. Do not murder.
4. Do not engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial or homosexual relationships.
5. Do not steal.
6. Do not eat a limb torn from a living animal.
7. Do establish courts to ensure obedience to the above six laws.

Our tradition views those who scrupulously adhere to these noahide laws to be righteous individuals who are assured a place in the world to come (unlike the price of admission to the Islamic version of paradise which can be attained by immolating oneself along with others) .

I suppose that a minority of the folks in today's world actually hold to the exact letter of these laws, but it's a rare and evil bird who somehow manages to break every one of the seven edicts. Arafat was such a creature...

The following excerpt from an editorial in The Washington Times succinctly sums up his legacy of theft and murder:

While millions of Palestinians continue to languish in squalid refugee camps throughout the region thanks in large part to his obduracy, Yasser Arafat became rich. Forbes magazine recently estimated his personal fortune at approximately $300 million - wealth accumulated largely through questionable business deals and stolen foreign aid money. Other estimates put the amount embezzled at more than $1 billion. This is the legacy of Yasser Arafat - a man who became very rich while trafficking in murder and theft and sabotaging the national aspirations of his own people.

Arafat's refusal to establish an effective system of justice was exposed in an article featured in Christian Action for Israel"

Abu-Rahama [Palestinian Authority's Prosecutor-General] is not the only one who has criticized the Palestinian judicial system. Other lawyers have also sharply criticized this judicial system, but they have refused to be named for fear of the steps which the Palestinian Authority is liable to take against them. Even former judges, who were appointed and dismissed by Arafat, are afraid to publicly express their opinions on this issue. Intellectuals, writers and civil rights activists are also filling their mouths with seawater. They have all learned that only one man represents the Palestinian judicial system: Yasser Arafat. He is judge, prosecutor and defense counsel, and, if necessary, he is above the law.

To get a taste (sic) of the blood lust that was so much a part of Arafat and emboldened his disciples, read this account which appeared in an article from The Atlantic Monthly:

Black September's first operation was the assassination, in November of 1971, of Jordan's Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tal, who was gunned down as he entered the lobby of the Sheraton Hotel in Cairo. While Tal lay dying, one of the assassins knelt and lapped with his tongue the blood flowing across the marble floor. That grisly scene, reported in The Times of London and other major newspapers, created an image of uncompromising violence and determination that was exactly what Arafat both wanted and needed.

And yes, filmed evidence of PLO aberrations were freely circulated years ago, as this account by the internationally acclaimed and now deceased Yoga Master, Swami Vishnu-devananda, illustrates in Yoga Life (note: I met personally with the swami, practiced yoga with him and can attest to his truthfulness and sincerity):

I saw on a newsreel the graduation of the P.L.O. from training camp. Do you know what they have to do to show their courage? They are going to kill every Israeli; to prove that they have to take live chickens and live rabbits and bite them with their teeth and tear them apart. They are ruthless; they are going to kill everybody. They literally bite into live chickens and live rabbits, tear them apart with their teeth, to show their courage. That's the type of monster we are creating on this planet earth.

(One has to wonder why and how all of those liberal human and animal rights activists proudly sport those keffiyahs around their necks as they demonstrate on behalf of "humanity")

That Arafat engaged in homosexual acts is also well-documented:

Arutz-7 recently quoted former Romanian deputy foreign intelligence chief Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, regarding Arafat's murderous tendencies. Pacepa's memoirs also have much to say about Arafat's homosexuality, noting that the Romanian government bugged Arafat and recorded his debauchery with his bodyguards.

Seems we've covered Noahide code numbers 3,4,5,6, and 7. So let's move on to idolatry...

In a desperate attempt to prove their ancient connections and claim to the Land of Israel, the Palestinian Authority a.k.a. Arafat stooped to all levels. In 1997 the Jerusalem Post filed this report:

The PA staged an elaborate pageant in Sebastia reenacting the legend of the Canaanite god Baal, including youths dressed in period costumes, chariots designed to specifications found at the Megiddo excavations and torchbearers dancing around an elated Minister of Culture Yasser Abd-Rabbo.

Turning oneself into an icon or god also constitutes idolatry and Arafat was good at that. He publicly ranted at the following correspondents:

Do not forget, you are speaking with Yasser Arafat (James Reynolds BBC).
Do not forget you are speaking to Yassar Arafat (Hala Jabar London Telegraph)
You are speaking with Yasser Arafat, You are attacking me. (Ted Koppel ABC Nightline)
You are speaking with General Yasser Arafat. Be quiet! (Christian Amanpour CNN)

It should be noted that, for the most part, the press enjoyed the abuse -they lapped it up and begged for more.

Rule number 2 commands us not to blaspheme G-d. Arafat was a walking desecration - a sacrilege of everything right and good. His complete contempt for human life constituted total denial of G-d and was in itself definitive blasphemy.

Any nation, leader, diplomat, or news commentator who felt it necessary to pay their respects to an utter abomination had best pause for thought and look where and on whose blood they are standing, and tremble. Those who were able discern the evil in Arafat and avoid contact with him and those like him, at all costs, have reason to rejoice.

Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter and columnist for www.Israelnationalnews.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 16, 2004.


An Iraqi cleric complained that insurgents blow up Iraqi schools and police trying to rebuild the country and enhance security. He suggests they restrict their "resistance" to attacking military convoys of Americans on the highways (IMRA, 11/1 from MEMRI).

"Resistance" to what? What does he think the Americans still are there for? Doesn't he realize that the US troops are there to provide security and rebuild the country? Whose money does he think is being used to rebuild the country? Why doesn't he urge resistance to the insurgents that are destroying their own country? Has he no understanding of insurgent goals - domination and oppression, either personal or religious?


Twice as many Arabs have joined the civil guards in Israel, in three years. It now exceeds 7,000. Most are from towns that clashed with the police, a few years ago. They do a good job.

Some of these volunteers act as uniformed police, others just patrol streets, in civilian clothes. None has stolen weapons or used them inappropriately. They are asked to work outside of towns in which they live, in order to avoid clan disputes. Some Arabs approve of Arab guards as taking part in Israeli society. Others condemn it as "collaboration" (IMRA, 11/1).


Supporters of PM Sharon's abandonment plan claim that opponents are being solely ideological about it (not that that is wrong). Actually, opponents have pointed out many security problems with the plan. Those criticisms have not been answered by the sponsors of the plan (because they cannot answer them - the plan is more senseless than merely flawed). Nevertheless, proponents within the government, who admit they don't know what would happen if the plan took effect, maintain their support on the grounds of being loyal to PM Sharon (IMRA, 11/1).

But PM Sharon is being disloyal to the Party and to the State. It is unconscionable, when serious security questions are raised about a plan, to blindly support the plan out of loyalty to the misguided individual who originated it. Their duty is to study this fateful plan and criticism of it.


A Reuters dispatch described the heads of some PLO factions as "veteran moderates." IMRA calls that way of putting it a "fabrication." (The PLO is a terrorist organization. Its leadership never was moderate.)

Without reflection, Reuters disseminated Arafat's condemnation of recent terrorism and his aide's noting that such terrorism makes it difficult during this trying time of Arafat's illness. IMRA points out that condemnation or not, Arafat never cracked down on the factions committing the terrorism. (Current news is of his recent paying for it.) The terrorism would be impermissible even if Arafat were not ill.

Reuters made an insignificant distinction, saying that the recent attack was the first attack inside Israel since Arafat left his compound. IMRA points out that there were others, but they were thwarted, and there were successful attacks on Jewish communities outside the State (IMRA, 11/2). Reuters tended to minimize constant terrorism. Was that its intent?


P.A. police and unofficial terrorists had secured an ambulance, driver, and bomb to be driven into crowds in Israel. They also had enlisted some teenagers to shoot passers-by in Jerusalem neighborhoods. Before they had mapped out the route from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, their cell was discovered by Israeli security forces. So were other cells in the area (Arutz-7, 11/4).


Hamas has 20 Internet sites encompassing 7 languages. It publishes an on-line magazine for children. It teaches them to hate Jews and their State and encourages them to engage in suicide attacks. Tales from history and legend draw attention away from brainwashing. The format has illustrations, poems, and stories attractive to children, but the content has hate indoctrination.

For example, the magazine displays the severed head of a recent suicide bomber. In the Arabs' flowery wording, it extols her as being "pure" and now enjoying eternity in Heaven. She is the equal of men, for that deed, the magazine explains, though otherwise it does not advocate gender equality.

A frequent feature is the last will of terrorist bombers, probably written by the handlers. It glorifies the deed. The objective is to make these terrorists a role model. The religious incentives are added to make the act seem like reward-incurring than self-sacrificing.

Biased and fabricated stories depict Israelis as wantonly injuring Arabs. The loss of an eye in the fray is cited as proof of evil by Israelis and virtue by the Arabs. The disproved hoax of the shooting of Muhammad al-Durra is reiterated, using descriptions of the Israelis that make them seem brutal. This invokes hatred.

To such propaganda, Hamas devotes great resources at all levels of education and in the media (IMRA, 11/4). It calls its propaganda branch the "non-military wing," but recruitment is military.

The Nazis had utilized modern methods of propaganda and warfare to promote a barbaric notion of society. Hamas does the same. It means the US must be careful to control its technology, lest these contemporary barbarians turn it against us.

Western society, especially the humanitarian organizations, devotes itself to criticizing Israel because Arab children get killed in the course of battle, where the P.A. lets and encourages children to mingle. The terrorists prefer morbid headlines about children's deaths, for their propaganda value, to preserving the lives of those children. The naive or antisemitic human rights organizations fall in with this Arab tactic. These groups publish casualty statistics that imply Israeli responsibility for the children's lives. Actually, international law indicates that the Arabs are guilty of war crimes for their deaths. The reason is that the terrorists station themselves among civilians, and encourage children to watch battles closely and to commit terrorism. The statistics are misleading in other ways, as by counting most militiamen as civilians, because they are not uniformed.

The human rights organizations neither emphasize Arab indoctrination and mobilization of child terrorists nor the resulting deaths and injury to Jewish children.

Obviously, Hamas is utilizing religion in its warfare. Is it faithful to that religion or is it misrepresenting it? It fits within the elastic bounds of Islam, which does not separate religion from politics, and which authorizes any means useful to its promulgation, regardless of how inhumane and unethical we unbelievers find it. The difference between these Islamists and other Muslims seems to be one of emphasis and taste.


On trial for forwarding her jailed client's instructions to terrorists, Lynne Stewart was asked her opinion about violence. She favors it. She said that our capitalist and educational systems must be overthrown, and only violence could do it. Violence against whom, she cagily did not say.

She maintains that she opposes violence against civilians. (But no civilians run our educational system. Against whom would she direct violence there?) One cannot always exclude civilians from violence aiming at combatants, she averred. Then what does she think about the attacks on an English stock exchange and Israeli nightclub that killed civilians?

Her answer "understood" both sides. She replied, "People get killed who are in proximity, and it's completely unfair, and people doing the attack, they see their lives as unfair (Larry Neumeister, NY Sun, 11/9, p.3). Prosecutors proved her pro-terrorist. Since the trial was whether she broke her word not to take the prisoner's messages out, prosecutors needed to prove her untruthful.

Both referenced attacks were solely on civilians. They are classic terrorism. In mentioning the unfairness of getting killed for being nearby, she is dissembling. The Israelis weren't bystanders, they were the object of attack! Her reply reveals an evil nature and willingness to deceive.

Her reply put the terrorists' sense of injustice on a par with the injustice they commit against their victims. She equates terrorists and their victims, and thus she, herself, commits an injustice. She is not just a lawyer for unpopular causes. She is an apologist for terrorism and a public enemy.

She excuses the terrorists for seeing their own lives as unfair. Is it unfair? If unfair, who makes it so if not their own corrupt leadership? But they blame Israel. They have many motives: bigotry, religion, money, and need for approval. They feel victimized by Israel, thanks to their indoctrination in bigotry, not education in reality. She selected the one motive that seems the most excusable and implies Israeli guilt, but doesn't actually say so. If she did, she could be shown wrong and the terrorism would be seen for the war crime it is. Besides, she upholds the Arab excuse of revenge against anyone of the same nationality as the one against which the Arabs have some grievance, real or imagined. That is false stereotyping. Fact is, the Arabs pick on innocents, because they hate and disrespect non-Muslims. Nor do they do so for grievances. They don't have grievances. They have bigoted and imperial drives and a lust for blood. And that is the valid understanding of terrorism. Most poorer groups don't murder innocent people.


Pres. Bush failed to carry forward the process of his predecessor, and disengaged from the Arab-Israel conflict just when P.A. and Israeli negotiators were near agreement. IMRA noted that his predecessor ended the process and out of disgust with Arafat.

Even if Bush wanted to intervene, he is afraid to jeopardize his narrow political base, "particularly the powerful Zionist lobby now dominated by Sharon's right-wing Likud." IMRA remarks that the election showed Bush's base not to be narrow (IMRA, 11/4).

Like Pres. Clinton, Bush found that Arafat would not negotiate or acts in bad faith. The negotiators the author is referring to must be the amateurs. Nor were they near agreement. They stated general principles and left the details to an appendix never completed. Why not completed? I believe it was because they could not agree on it and if they did agree, most Israelis would be horrified. Therefore, this criticism of Bush is not valid.

Sharon has a left-wing policy that is anti-Zionist. The Arabs continue to demonize him, not wanting to recognize that he is not as popularly believed. The Arabs ever play the victim.


The Netherlands may be. The gruesome murder of a Dutch critic of Islamists - shooting him many times, next slitting his throat, and then driving a spike into his chest with a note threatening to take down the country - has ended the political correctness of silence about the Muslim threat to Dutch security and culture. The critic had been insulting, but that did not justify murder. Murder is the Islamist substitute for debate. Islamists issued death threats against him and his screenwriter. They call for murdering homosexuals, and promise paradise to whoever beheads a certain political opponent in Parliament.

The Dutch no longer can hope that their tolerance would be appreciated by the Muslims, who are intolerant and hate them. (Certain liberals, by condoning drug-taking, enrage the Muslims.) Now the Muslims are seen as a fifth column. It is a large one, constituting one million out of 14 million. Many of that million are militant, others are potentially so.

As some Dutch scurry for cover, others demand action. A Social Democratic Parliamentarian suggested beefing up Dutch security forces to fight terrorists.

Most Dutch think that the problem is that Dutch schools are segregated, so the immigrants do not learn the language and are unemployed and disaffected. Muslim children watch Hamas web sites and become radicalized (Dina Temple-Raston, NY Sun, 11/9). Sounds like an unproved rationalization and unlikely.

Some of the sentiment expressed in the 11/9 edition advocated reconciliation. In the 11/8 edition, Dutch people proposed practical measures, such as deporting Islamists of dual citizenship.

The Dutch cannot integrate the Muslims, who readily segregate themselves and radicalize. Neither would greater security measures and education suffice. The problem is the large fifth column. The Netherlands must change its immigration policy. It must not let the EU rule of open movement within member states permit Muslims from other EU states to enter the Netherlands. It should reverse its Muslim immigration. Tolerance towards fanatics means murder.


Fear of more wars, sadness, resignation, and hope that Pres. Bush will have learned about the realities of the Mideast. The Arabs seem to attribute the war in Iraq to "super-power arrogance." IMRA notes that the Arabs' favorite denigration of the US is to call it "arrogant." (IMRA, 11/4.)

That is what the Arabs call whoever does not submit to them. In other words, they are arrogant, whereas the US was attacked. There's a difference.


Sen. Kerry campaigned well, despite his poor slate, irrelevant issues about Vietnam, and a radical base that hemmed him in. "This is a Democratic Party in which nostalgia for tradition is too often considered racism, opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, misgiving about abortion is misogyny, Christian fundamentalism is like Islamic fundamentalism, discussion about gender roles is sexism, and confidence in America's global purpose is cultural imperialism. To put it mildly, this is not the values system to which most Americans adhere." Voters did not like the Democrats making fun of the President with whose stated values they agree (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/4, email.)

Whose fault was it that he emphasized Vietnam, bringing out his alien values? I think that Bush had a poor domestic record, but the Democrats know how only to complain, not explain.


Our grievance against Islamism is its violation of human rights. Mostly conservatives take issue with it over those violations. Against global jihad, however, the liberals don't march in protest, agitate on campuses, or take out full-page ads. (The jihadists are not Jews.)

Liberals mostly ignore the violations or blame them on the US. In the liberal view, conflict is the result of Western aggression. (How ethno-centric and masochistic! The West has committed its share of sin, but to sin is to be human. Few societies are untainted. Let the liberals compare the West with other societies, and not flagellate their own so much!

This liberal view of the US is similar to that of the jihadists. The US Left is making common cause with those and other enemies of the US. Instead of acknowledging the causes of 9/11, the Left searches for invalid "root causes," so it can blame the West. Its anti-anti-terrorism stance emerged form its anti-Americanism (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/4, email from Robert Spencer) and its exaggerated notion of civil liberties and lack of understanding of the fanatics' menace.

This may be unfair to many liberals. They acknowledge the danger of terrorism, but think that Iraq was not part of it or they don't realize the swift and irreversible danger from weapons of mass-destruction, so that the US cannot wait to be attacked by components of the Evil Axis.

The trouble with much conservative social commentary is that it fails to distinguish among and between liberals and leftists. Mr. Spencer is describing the Far Left in the extreme cases, and the whole Left in the case of not reacting to jihadist human rights violations.


Unable to exist or at least thrive without contributions, Jewish organizations have been selling themselves to the highest donors. Hence wealthy Bronfman and Lauder head major Jewish organizations, though they do not practice Judaism or lack loyalty to the Jewish people.

Edgar Bronfman is head of Hillel Foundation, operating to promote Jewish identity, but he calls Jewish identity "racist." He likened Jewish identity, with "pure lines," to Nazi concepts. Judaism is not a racial concept. (Converts are accepted, because belief and practice govern, not just family lines. Nor do the Jews wish to harm non-members. One of the highest Jewish concepts is to repair the world morally. One of the chief Nazi concepts was to conquer the world and eradicate morality.)

Bronfman opposes condemnation of intermarriage of its people, such as his own. He argues that it cannot be stopped. Therefore, he would try to enroll the spouses and offspring in Judaism. He thinks that anyone who wants to be considered Jewish should be. (This is contrary to Judaism. It is illogical, for if every degree of practice and of non-observance is Jewish, then being Jewish means nothing. Who then would join or stay?) Certainly Bronfman has disqualified himself for a leadership role in Jewish matters (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/4 from the Jewish Press).


When the Israeli media reported that Arafat was in a coma, his wife called them liars. Now his spokesperson admits he was in a coma (Arutz-7, 11/5). His death cheats the gallows.

So much for "Israeli lies." It's Arab lies.

Who will get the billions he stole and extorted: the wife-in-absentia, a new dictator, the P.A., or the deceived and rightful owners?


Several terrorists have turned themselves in to Israeli security forces. Some do so when they learn they are being hunted. Others are pressured by members of their families who, discovering plans for a bombing, insist that their relatives not endanger their house. This vindicates Israeli demolition of terrorists' houses (Arutz-7, 11/5).


Israel stated that if the P.A. stops its terrorism, it would facilitate attendance at Arafat's funeral by "foreign dignitaries" (IMRA, 11/6).

"Dignitaries," is that who would be attending the funeral of the founder of international terrorism?

The Arabs are not likely to cease terrorism more than a couple of days, and Israel is likely to facilitate foreign attendance, anyway. Pres. Carter will come to honor the leading murderer of Jews.


A group of Arab liberals complained about terrorism instigated by Muslim clerics who issue fatwas. The group petitioned the UNO to establish an international tribunal to try those terrorists. They know that their own countries would not prosecute the terrorists (IMRA, 11/7).

What makes them think the UNO is any better? It favors terrorism against Israel.


For years, France lectured Israel against defending itself from terrorists, although jihad threatens Israel's existence. France demanded that the US not invade Iraq, despite having UN permission. France prefers negotiation, but when Ivory Coast government forces rose up against French peacekeepers, France bombed the local air force and then French helicopter gun ships did a lot of strafing. Observers believe that France employed excessive force (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/7).


A BBC correspondent started weeping when the helicopter bore Arafat away to a hospital. BBC correspondents never showed much sympathy for his victims. The station reported on his life in a balanced way, equating his steadfastness with his leading terrorism (Arutz-7, 11/7). He was steadfast in his terrorism, unreasonable demands of Israel, and corruption.


A panel of scholars and clerics found that the Saudi curriculum denigrates non-believers and Muslims who do not follow the main Saudi line. The curriculum promotes hatred and violent intolerance. Teachers make students fearful of lapsing into heresy by virtue of the most minor deviation. The schools worry about "polytheism" (which may be their way of referring to Christianity) coming in along with forbidden innovations, and about society collapsing morally. Students are discouraged from any public activity other than a religious one. There is no promotion of civic values, discussion of political issues, and legitimacy given to human rights. Only clerics are called scholars. Foreign schools of thought are dismissed as assaults on Islam.

The panelists demanded freedom of expression and more. They emphasized their own religious orientation and desire for reforms to benefit S. Arabia, not to please the West (IMRA, 11/8).

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Yuval Zaliouf, November 16, 2004.

Dear friends,

CNN and NPR are continuing their biased campaign against the US war in Iraq instead of reporting ALL the news. They continue to demoralize our troops and their families while they are engaged in a fierce battle.

Both networks devoted a long time to reporting the incident of a Marine soldier who apparently shot and killed an "unarmed" terrorist (they use the term 'insurgent') inside a mosque in Faluja.

FOX TV on the other hand took much care to explain the circumstances of urban warfare and the fact that on occasions the terrorists use the dead and the wounded as booby traps, or terrorists disguise themselves as wounded and when they are approached by an American soldier, they open fire.

The terrorists in Iraq are very good students of Arafat. They use the very same tactics as the Arab/Palestinian terrorists use by shielding themselves behind civilians and children for the very reason of using their deaths as tools in their propaganda. NPR, CNN, BBC, NY Times and much of the liberal media fall prey to these propaganda technics.

NPR went a step further this morning, they interviewed an Iraqi person who complained about the desecration of the mosque by the American Marines. Who is NPR kidding? The Americans desecrate the mosque, but not the terrorists who use it as their garrison??!! I hope you have not forgotten the Arab/Palestinian terrorists who occupied the Church of the Nativity in Beit Lehem. Same thing. Did the NPR correspondent ask this Iraqi man whether, in his opinion, the terrorists also desecrated the mosque? But of course not, or if the correspondent did ask the obvious question, NPR's editors chose not to broadcast the answer.

No war is beautiful! Think of the young Marine who in the heat of urban battle enters the mosque and sees a terrorist on the floor still moving, same terrorist who had shot at the Marine minutes before. Would you not kill him?

Now the entire liberal media will play vendetta against this poor soldier. Shame on them, and shame on NPR, CNN and the others who act in America as if they were a branch of Al-Jazeera.

Now, some of them will claim that an expert or a commentator later explained all the aspects, but that is not enough. I think all the angles of the incident must be explained at the same time and not be left for another occasion. This kind of editorializing is as bad as not telling the whole truth.

Why do we allow photographers anyway? Where is the US military censor? Have we gone crazy to supply the Arabs with such material and incite them for more violence and anti-American propaganda material?

Your Truth Provider,

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 16, 2004.
1. Eyal Sivan is an ex-Israel French anti-Israel propagandist. He makes venomous propaganda movies against Israel and Jews. In one of his recent movies, "Route 181 - Splinter from a Trip in Palestine-Israel," he devotes much of the screen time to justifying the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 desinged to annihilate Israel (and its population) and which coincidentally gobbled up the land the UN had allocated to an Arab state of Palestine. The Arabs, declares Sivan, were in the right when they attacked Israel because they were seeking a nice bi-national state with an Arab majority in which the Jews would be treated almost as well as the southern Sudanese Christians and animists. The film also alleges all sorts of gory Israeli "war crimes" against the poor innocent Arabs of 1948, including alleged rapes. The film is capped by scenes of railroad tracks designed to be associated in the minds of French viewers with scenes from the "SHOAH" movie about the Holocaust, and of course with Israel in the role of nazi Germany. Alain Finkielkraut, the French Jewish author, denounced SIvan for this movie, claiming Sivan is an "anti-Semitic Jew". Sivan then decided to file a Neve Gordon-style malicious SLAPP harassment suit against Alain Finkielkraut for "libeling" him.

Meanwhile, other French intellectuals petitioned the Pompideau Center and other institutions not to screen the scurrilous propaganda film of Sivan, successfully. It was not screened.

But now, the same anti-Semitic film by Sivan that French institutions refuse to screen, yes it is even too anti-Semitic for FRENCH tastes, is to be screened by the far-Left anti-Israel Jerusalem Cinematek, which always is on the lookout for anti-Israel propaganda that it can screen as "art". You may recall its role in promoting the Goebbals-like film "Jenin Jenin". The Cinamatek is funded by the Jerusalem Municipality and by Jerusalem tax payers. The architecture department at the Bezalel College will also be showing it.

Last weekend a conference of Israel bashers was held in Paris and featured the very same Sivan and also Haifa University's Ilan Pappe (see next item).

If you want to tell the Jerusalem Mayor what you think of this, his email is mayor@jerusalem.muni.il,

If you want to tell the heads of Haifa University what you think of Pappe's latest shenanigans, go to http://pr.haifa.ac.il/english/MannagementTeam/ for information

If you want to tell Limor Livnat, Minister of Education, what you think of Bezalel screening it (Bezalel is taxpayer-funded) she is at llivnat@knesset.gov.il

2. Find the Israeli Academic at the Anti-Semitic Conference in London and write to the Rector and President of his university about this:

Anti-Israel Conference at the University of London

On December 5th 2004 a full day conference will take place at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, "Resisting Israeli Apartheid and Principles".

This conference will deal with the cultural and economical boycott of Israel. One of the important objectives of this conference is building the Boykott of Israeli Academics. See the programe at: www.pngo.net/events/SOAS_Dec_5_conference_on_Palestine.pdf

List of Speakers:

* Tom Paulin, Oxford University, UK
* Mona Baker, UK
* Omar Barghouti Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, supporter of the Presbyterian Church's Decision to Divest from Israel
* Haim Bresheeth, UK, Chair ofd Media and Cultural Studies, University of East London
* Victoria Brittain, UK research associate at the London School of Economics in the Crisis States Program, (formerly associate foreign editor of The Guardian)
* Lawrence Davidson, USA Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, Indiana University
* John Docker, Author of "Raphael Lemkins History of Genocide and Colonialism" published for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, Washington DC, visiting fellow in the Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University; currently he is an adjunct visiting professor in the Australian and New Zealand, Studies Centre, Georgetown University.)
* Betty Hunter, PSC, UK
* Nur Masalha, Senior Lecturer and Director of Holy Land Research Project; St. Mary's College, University of Surrey
* Karma Nabulsi, UK Research Fellow, Nuffield College Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford
* Ilan Pappe, Israel, University Haifa
* Hilary Rose, UK and Steven Rose, UK who launched the boycott of Israeli institutions
* Ur Shlonsky, Israel & Switzerland, Associated Professor, Département de linguistique générale, Université de Geneve
* Dr. Lisa Taraki Coordinator, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel; teaches sociology at Birzeit University in Palestine An Open Letter in Support of the Presbyterian Church's Decision to Divest from Israel
* Ben Young, UK, Jewish Students for Justice for Palestinians, UK

Please help to monitor this conference and support the Protest against call for European Boycott of Academic and Cultural Ties with Israel - Petition at http://euroisrael.huji.ac.il.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 16, 2004.

This is really intolerable. The Secret Service should not be allowed to interfere in freedom of speech or religion. The proper thing to do is to establish a special Islamic protest area and allow those who so wish to burn themselves or blow themselves to death. All those sympathetic to the protester would be allowed accompany him or her and join in the event.

This is an item from yesterday's Fox News and is archived at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138621,00.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A man set himself afire Monday just ouutside a White House gate and repeatedly yelled "Allah Allah" after Secret Service (search) officers put out the flames and one held him facedown on the sidewalk.

Alan Etter, spokesman for the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services, said guards at the gate quickly extinguished the flames, and the man had second and third-degree burns on about 30 percent of his body.

The man had burns to his head, back, arms and face but was conscious when medics took him to Washington Hospital Center, Etter said.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, November 16, 2004.

If one reads the bible and later literature, one sees that descendants of Ishmael have always "supported themselves" by various forms of thievery. Remember, these were the people that went into Africa in the sixteen, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to enslave the populations and profit from this awful inhumanity; they were the same people that the young United States fought against -- the Barbary Pirates -- in the beginning of the nineteenth century (the Marines still sing about it, it was the US' first foreign war). Theft, bribery, graft and every form of corruption are the most basic parts of their culture. Here, in Israel, we have lived with them for over a hundred years, and we are still fighting it, daily. In every Arab country (bar none!) it is LEGAL for a father or brother to kill his sister (honour killing) if she has spoken with a man without express permission.

I see no reason why any of Saddam's "peccadilloes" should be at all a surprise. After the PLO was thrown out of Lebanon twenty years ago, it was rumoured that Arafat and his gangs stole $13.5 billion from the Lebanese treasury. Why have the Lebanese not attempted to recover any of this? Because THAT would be surprising, the theft was expected. They also raped every third woman in the country. This is similar to what they have done in Bethlahem and other Christian towns in the Samaria area ("West Bank"). For some reason, fellow Christians turn a blind eye. When the PLO gangs came there, Bethlahem was 90% Christian. Today, they remain less than 10%.

Saddam did not do anything that any Arab would find surprising -- except getting caught. Thank G-d for GWB and the efforts of the United States to finally bring humanity to this region. I do not expect that this can succeed, but the effort will have been worth while, even if it succeeds only very partially.

best regards,

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben-Gurion University. He can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 16, 2004.

The timing was just too much.

I had just read of Western journalists crying uncontrollably at the news of Arafat's death, watched as the murderous ghoul's carefully-nurtured masses cried out slogans for Israel's destruction at his burial in Ramallah, and read repeated editorials virtually canonizing the Egyptian master butcher of Jews.

Next, I heard someone interviewed about the situation in Iraq referring to the Pesh Merga -- the fighting force of the Iraqi Kurds--as being the most effective army of its kind in Iraq. Then, to top it off, I came across an article about the Kurds in the November 14th Boston Globe by Thanassis Cambanis. While the article was informative and fairly balanced, please note its title: "Kurds Separatist Ambitions Pose Challenge To Iraq."

It just all came together.

Once again, the stench of hypocrisy and double standards was unbelievable...nauseating.

For decades, the very same journalists, academics, politicians, Hollywood-types, and other would-be sources of ethical enlightenment who have been in the forefront of the fight for the creation of the Arabs' 22nd or 23rd state (second, not first, one within the original 1920 borders of the Palestinian Mandate) have either totally ignored or denigrated the aspirations of some thirty million truly stateless and much oppressed people, the Middle East's Kurds. While slanting his courses on the Middle East in favor of the Arabs and "Palestinians" in particular (and woe unto you if you disagreed with him), the only time I ever heard the tenured Carter Findley ever mention Kurds during my extensive doctoral studies at Ohio State in the '70s was when he mocked them telling of his travels in "so-called Turkish Kurdistan."

Unlike Arabs, who could have had that additional state decades ago if they just didn't keep on insisting on denying Israel's Jews (half of whom who were refugees themselves from "Arab" lands) their microscopic one, Kurds were never offered such a deal or partition over lands in which they have lived for thousands of years. Kassites, Hurrians, Guti, Medes, and other Kurds predated the Arabs by millennia in Mesopotamia. Yet, when the Middle East was partitioned after World War I, while the Arabs wound up with the lion's share of Palestine after Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill convened the Cairo Conference in 1921 and orchestrated the award of Transjordan--some 80% of the total--to his Arabian Hashemite allies the following year, there would be no such division in the much larger Mandate of Mesopotamia...despite earlier promises made to the Kurds. The Arabs were awarded the whole shebang...the oil-rich Kurdish areas and all.

While spread out over a half dozen modern states, the Kurds sought only one Kurdistan for their scattered peoples. Arabs, on the other hand, insisted that all lands that they formerly conquered in their own age of Caliphal imperialism were destined to be part of the "purely Arab patrimony" of the region...despite the presence of scores of millions of native, non-Arab peoples. For a Kurd, Copt, Berber, Jew, black African, and so forth to gain some semblance of acceptance in such a polity, they had to play along with the rules of the Arabizing game. The ongoing genocide against blacks in the southern Sudan, and the plight of North African Berbers, Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, kilab yahud -- native "Jew dogs" -- Egyptian Copts, and others as well are the result of this domineering and oppressive mindset.

So, why is it that, while the "moralists" of the world shed tears and sing praises to Arafat's name, they remain largely deaf, dumb, and blind to all of this? Where are the Michael Moores and their pathetic Jew stooge choirs on such matters? Where is the New Left regarding these things? How about President Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, & Co.? They all certainly have plenty to say about those "oppressive Israelis."

How can the liberal press and media, United Nations, European Union, and others as well (including the Foggy Folks) insist that Israel cave in to virtually all that Arabs demand (while even the Arabs' "moderates" label all such "peace"-making with the Jews as merely a "Trojan Horse"), while ignoring the plight of Kurds who have been repeatedly slaughtered en masse by the very same Arabs whom the world still insists that Kurds not separate from? How many more Halabjas must there be? Did those same folks insist that Serbs, Croats, Albanians, and others stay together for the sake of the unity of Yugoslavia after the death of Tito? If the latter was said to be an artificial state, then so too--most certainly--is Arab "Iraq"...put together to further the goals of British petroleum politics in cahoots with Arab nationalism after a British Mesopotamia was awarded the oil-rich areas around predominantly Kurdish Mosul in 1925.

With the Arab portions of Iraq once again in turmoil (did you ever wonder why the Arabs can't come up with anyone except dictatorial, ruthless autocrats for practically all of their leaders?), is it fair or reasonable for the world to insist that the Kurds--whose areas already have much of the democracy and calm missing to the south (which is now devoid of its latest bloodthirsty autocrat)--stay united with Arabs who have repeatedly massacred them, periodically outlawed their culture and language, and such in years past? And who have already promised yet more revenge against them for being America's staunchest allies in Iraq?

While "Palestinian"--regardless of how you define the term (most were Arabs who migrated into the Mandate from elsewhere)--Arabs form the overwhelming majority of Jordan's population, and Jordan itself comprises the bulk of the original Mandate of Palestine, the world insists that yet another state for Arabs be created in "Palestine."

These folks share the same culture, language, religion, and history (but also with local loyalties and stories to tell), yet the world accepts their "need" for some two dozen separate states. Think about that Boston Globe article's title again...

And at the same time that the world's moralists still debate whether or not Arabs, who deliberately blow up civilian busloads of Jewish innocents, are militants or terrorists, folks like David Ignatius of The Washington Post have no problem using the "T" word for Kurds. While these same voices insist that there be that 22nd or 23rd state for Arabs, somehow 30 million Kurds remain, forever, undeserving of one. Furthermore, their quest is more often than not negatively labeled as that of mere "rebels" or "separatists."

Ignatius, while writing on September 16, 2003 of the danger in playing America's Turkish card in Iraq, when referring to Kurds, labeled them only as terrorists or rebels.

Too many other examples of this hypocritical, double standard treatment abound.

More often than not, the Kurds and other victims of Arabs are simply ignored by the very same academics and others who readily demonize and seek to divest from Israel. And besides Ignatius' comments, we have seen more recent ones similar to them in the Boston Globe and elsewhere. Even more pathetic was an op-ed in the March 26, 2003 New York Times in which that self-anointed expert, Thomas Friedman, advised that Kurds should be told point blank, "what part of 'no' don't you understand? ...You Kurds are not breaking away." This is the same guy who has written volumes demanding that Israel cave in to virtually all Arab territorial demands despite the fact that, in the wake of the '67 War, U.N. Resolution #242 itself recognized the need and called for a compromise here.

During these days when we wonder what will happen next in an Arab Iraq that is once again showing its true colors after the traditional iron fist becomes missing (especially typical in societies that Arabs tend to breed), or among the "Palestinian" Arabs in the wake of Arafat's departure, or in a dozen other places involved in turmoil in the "Arab" world, is it not time for the Kurdish question to at long last get the attention that it deserves?

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites.

To Go To Top
Posted by Irwin N. Graulich, November 15, 2004.

It only begins with the Jews. Jew-Hatred should be a wake up call for all decent human beings of every religion and no religion. Hitler's initial target was indeed, the Jews. But that was only the beginning of his plan. He invaded Czechoslovakia, France, England and would have eventually progressed to the rest of humanity.

Attention planet earth! Antisemitism is not exclusively a Jewish problem, because it never ends with only Jews. The latest example of this phenomenon is the Arab and Muslim world, which has despised Israel since 1948. Anti-Israel and antisemitism are virtually synonymous terms. However, this time, the antisemitic cancer has metastasized further than previous masses, growing into anti-American and anti-Western tumors.

The hatred of a tiny Jewish state should have been an early detection warning for the world that this diseased lump would eventually spread. Had the West biopsied the problem immediately, perhaps 1 million black Sudanese Christians would still be alive, and 3000 Americans who perished on 9/11 would continue to hug their children, parents and spouses to this day.

What is even more amazing is that Jew-Hatred does not stop with murdering all other groups. As displayed clearly in Iraq and Afghanistan today, these Jew-Haters are more than happy to murder their own innocent Muslims using car bombs, suicide bombers and other tactics.

As America's great moral beacon, Dennis Prager, has continually explained, "The Jews are the miner's canaries for the world." Miners have been known to take canaries down into mines when working. It seems that canaries are much more susceptible to noxious fumes than humans. When the miners see the canaries dying, they know it is time to fight the fumes, and get out of the mines, or they too will die.

Let the world know, that Jews play the role of miner's canaries for good people everywhere. When there are "noxious moral fumes," the Jews die first. But it does not end there. All innocent people are next in line. For 25 years, Israel was at the top of the Islamic world's list. Now, these evildoers are beheading Americans, British, Italians, South Koreans; murdering schoolchildren in Russia; and yes, even blowing up their own children in Baghdad.

Unless the world recognizes from where these horrible, evil fumes emanate, and do something definitive to eliminate these poisons, we can all kiss our families good-bye right now.

Unfotunately, political correctness has crept into this equation, not permitting world leaders to tell the truth--that the real problem is fundamentalist Islam. To call Islam "a religion of peace," at this time in history is a "fundamental" error of gross proportions. Of course there are some beautiful, kind Muslims, especially in America. However, there were some lovely members of the Nazi party during WWII, and even wonderful Communists during the heyday of the Soviet Union.

The bulk of the world's issues with evil today unfortunately fall within one group, and it happens to be a religion. That is the plain and simple truth. Unless leaders like George W. Bush point that out clearly, without fear of offending, Islam will never solve its disastrous problems. Imagine a therapist being "uncomfortable" confronting a patient with their flaws. Pointing out faults and gross behavior is a positive thing for everyone.

Thank God that humanity has never thought of polio, malaria, AIDS or any other disease as a problem for only one group or country. If civilized people everywhere do not fight the battle to wipe out this new "Islamic Terrorist" disease, eventually we will all catch it. America has the cure. Use it! Irwin N. Graulich is a motivational speaker on morality, ethics, Judaism and politics. He is also President and CEO of a marketing, branding and communications company in New York City. He can be reached at irwin.graulich@verizon.net

To Go To Top
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 15, 2004.

As Ariel Sharon is still praised for his leadership in '67, his merit is subtracted by disengagement from victory and patriots.

Jewish Gaza is now a suburban "green line." Greenhouses, industry, schools, synagogues, office buildings, resorts, work ethic, humanitarianism.

Contrast it with the wasteland of smoke lines blackening the skies where jihad enflames the minds and hearts of mad crowds burning Israeli and american flags who profess to blow themselves and Jews into limblessness. As Arab Hamas/Hizb'allah/Al Akza,/al Husseini bank on war against productive Jews and the Arabs and Bedouins who would work for them, Sharon selects his settled to placate the unsettled and unsettling savages of all times, enabling jihad to prosper as it plunders.

As former terrorist Walid Shoebat tours to stop terror, Sharon the fighter is in flight. History will demonize the former hero for advocating for palestinianism, bowing to evil and anti-Semitism, minimizing Israel, ignoring the increasing war threat not only via Egyptian tunnels but by drone and sub and leaving Israel vulnerable. While Israel is quibbling and evading the issues facing Klal Yisrael, world Jewry and democratic civilization, disenabling its resources, its enemies are enabled and rallying to war. History will praise the former terrorist who understood real Judaism as good and for the betterment of all mankind by reading the Bible and now speaking up for the truth and fighting for Zionism.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes."

To Go To Top
Posted by David Haimson, November 15, 2004.

This was published by MEMRI on May 30,2002 and is archived at the Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 95 [ARCHIVES]. It was reprinted today by Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA). It is pertinent becuse Abu Mazen is again being touted as Arafat's replacement and a peace partner for Israel. The MEMRI website address is http://www.memri.org IMRA's website address is http://www.imra.org.il

Palestinian Leader: Number of Jewish Victims in the Holocaust Might be 'Even Less Than a Million...' Zionist Movement Collaborated with Nazis to 'Expand the Mass Extermination' of the Jews

A 1982 doctoral dissertation by Secretary-General of the PLO Executive Committee Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, who is considered second to Yasser Arafat, discussed "the secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist movement leadership." Two years later, a study by Abu Mazen based on his dissertation for Moscow's Oriental College was published in Arabic by Dar Ibn Rushd publishers in Amman, Jordan.

In the introduction to his 1984 study, Abu Mazen referred to well-known Holocaust deniers, raised doubts that gas chambers were used for extermination of Jews, and claimed that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust might be "even less than a million." Abu Mazen claimed that the Zionist movement had a stake in convincing world public opinion that the number of victims was high; thus, it would achieve "greater gains" after the war when the time came to "distribute the spoils."

Abu Mazen's intention was to undermine the legitimacy of the Zionist movement by proving that during a critical stage in the history of the Jewish people - the rise of Nazism and World War II - the Zionist leadership stopped at nothing to achieve its aim of establishing a Jewish state. He wrote, "The truth [about the Nazi crimes] has another aspect" that the West preferred to disregard; instead, the West concealed "a basic partner in crime" - that is, the Zionist movement. The study pointed to a convergence of the interests of the Nazi and the Zionist movements, and the fundamental similarity in the two movements' theories. The central claim Abu Mazen sought to prove is that the Zionist movement, with all its factions, conspired against the Jewish people and collaborated with the Nazis to annihilate it, because the movement considered "Palestine" the only appropriate destination for Jewish emigration.

Abu Mazen wrote, "It might be imagined that Zionism would do all it could, materially and otherwise, to save the Jews, or at least to keep them [alive] until the end of the war. It might have been expected that it would arouse world public opinion and direct its attention to the massacres carried out against the Jews, so that the governments would act to rescue them from their bitter fate." But, stated Abu Mazen, "what Zionism did was the exact opposite of what could have been expected": The Zionist movement sabotaged various aid plans[1] and withheld information regarding the bitter fate of Europe's Jews "in order to free itself from the need to take necessary action." Abu Mazen added, "the Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule, in order to arouse the government's hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them, and to expand the mass extermination."[2]

Introduction: The Truth has Another Aspect

"The Western countries sketched the final picture of the outcome of World War II. They defined the crimes committed, and described the criminals and the ones they victimized - after setting themselves up as a faithful judge with the decisive word in matters of these crimes. They locked up details, facts, and crimes that they didn't want to exist; they ignored names, important people, institutions, organizations, and countries that they chose to ignore. In the end, they charged the Nazi leaders with all the crimes that were committed during the war, and they relentlessly hunted down those still alive, even though the crimes were committed long ago. The Nuremberg [trials] cut down the tyrants and the murderers, and cast a [shadow] on the basic partner in the crimes committed during the war. After they collected [the price] from them - they narrowed the focus on the crimes, criminals, prosecutors, defendants, and witnesses, and set the entire matter in limited frameworks that could not be breached. This was how these countries dealt with half the truth, deliberately neglecting the other half."

The Number of Jewish Victims

"During World War II, 40 million people of different nations of the world were killed. The German people sacrificed 10 million; the Soviet people 20 million; and the rest [of those killed] were from Yugoslavia, Poland, and the other peoples. But after the war it was announced that 6 million Jews were among the victims, and that the war of annihilation had been aimed first of all against the Jews, and only then against the rest of the peoples of Europe."

"The truth of the matter is that no one can verify this number, or completely deny it. In other words, the number of Jewish victims might be 6 million and might be much smaller - even less than 1 million. [Nevertheless], raising a discussion regarding the number of Jews [murdered] does not in any way diminish the severity of the crime committed against them, as murder - even of one man - is a crime that the civilized world cannot accept and humanity cannot accept."

"It seems that the Zionist movement's stake in inflating the number of murdered in the war was aimed at [ensuring] great gains. This led it to confirm the number [6 million], to establish it in world opinion, and by doing so to arouse more pangs of conscience and sympathy for Zionism in general. Many scholars have debated the question of the 6 million figure, and reached perplexing conclusions, according to which the Jewish victims total hundreds of thousands. The well-known Canadian author Roger Delarom[3] said on this matter: 'To date, no proof whatsoever exists that the number of Jewish victims in the Nazi concentration camps reached four million or six million. Zionism first spoke of 12 million exterminated in these camps, but then the number decreased greatly, to half, that is, only six million. Then the number decreased further, and became four million, as the Germans could not have killed or exterminated more Jews than there were in the world at that time. In effect, the true number is much smaller than these fictitious millions.' The [American] historian and author Raul Hilberg thinks that this number is no greater than 896,000. "[4]

"The source of the submission of this large number, 6 million [murdered], is Chaim Weizmann's 1936 declaration before a British committee regarding the fate of 6 million Jews living in Europe if a world war should break out. [According to Weizmann], 'The little green branches are the ones that will survive, while the rest must bear their [bitter] fate.' From that point on, the Zionist movement insisted that all 6 million were murdered, and that none of them survived."

"Afterwards, the Zionist movement attempted to describe how they [the Jews] were murdered in concentration camps and gas chambers, as it disregarded two fundamental facts. First, many of the Jews remained alive; some were rescued by the Zionist movement [which encouraged] their emigration to Palestine, and some [survived because of] the peoples of the world that managed to protect them and take them away from the Nazis, as the Soviet Union did by sending two million Jews to its eastern republics. In addition, hundreds of thousands of live Jews were found in the concentration camps when the Allies liberated the territories [conquered by the Nazis]."

"Second, the extermination of the victims was not carried out only in the concentration camps and gas chambers. Some of the victims fell as a result of their participation in wars and battles, and also due to starvation and disease that struck all the peoples of Europe. In addition, the concentration camps were not only for Jews, but held people from all over Europe, among them fighters, intellectuals, scholars, prisoners of war, and opponents of fascism."

"Regarding the gas chambers, which were supposedly designed for murdering living Jews: A scientific study published by Professor Robert Faurisson[5] of France denies that the gas chambers were for murdering people, and claims that they were only for incinerating bodies, out of concern for the spread of disease and infection in the region."[6]

The Zionist Movement Conspired Against the Jewish People

"It takes little effort to prove the truth [about the crimes of the Nazis] and to document them. World War II did take place, and in it fell millions of victims. It was Hitler. who established the concentration camps in all of Europe to hold all of his opponents and enemies, including peoples not worthy of living, and it was also he who invented the gas chambers. However, another aspect of the truth remains shrouded in mystery, like the other side of the moon."

"How could [anyone with] reason believe that the institutions of the Zionist movement that arose to defend 'the [Jewish] people' then became a cause of this people's annihilation? History has taught us that Nero burned Rome, but he was insane, and his insanity removes from him his responsibility. History has also taught us that leaders have betrayed their people and their country and sold them to their enemies. But they are few, and they alone bear the responsibility for their actions. Therefore, a popular, public movement's conspiracy against its 'people' is something astonishing that demands an in-depth and meticulous examination before it is accused for no reason."

On the Similarity Between Nazi and Zionist Theory

"When discussing declared Zionist ideas, which have been espoused with profound conviction and faith by the movement's followers, one finds that they believe in the purity of the Jewish race - as Hitler believed in the purity of the Aryan race - and the movement calls for finding a deeply-rooted and decisive solution to the 'Jewish problem' in Europe via immigration to Palestine. Hitler also called for this, and carried it out. The Zionist movement maintains that antisemitism is an eternal problem that throbs in the Gentiles' blood; that it is not possible to put an end to it or get away from it; and thus it is the basic motive for Zionist immigration. It follows that if antisemitism did not exist it would be necessary to invent it, and that if its flame dies away it must be fanned. David Ben-Gurion defined the Zionist movement as immigration [to Israel] and nothing else; whoever does not immigrate [to Israel] denies the Torah and the Talmud and therefore is not a Jew. These ideas provide a general dispensation to every racist in the world, most prominently Hitler and the Nazis, to treat the Jews as they wish, as long as this includes immigration to Palestine."

The Entire Zionist Movement is Responsible for Conspiring with the Nazis

"In order to avoid error and generalization regarding the various factions of the Zionists, and for the purpose of accuracy, we must point out that the Zionist movement was divided. One part held the leadership and another part formed the opposition. Can we accuse the second group, which was not party to the institutions and leadership [of conspiring against the Jewish people]? This question is relevant in only one incident - whether there were differences of opinion between the two sides regarding the origin of the Zionist theory and regarding the practical implementation of Zionist thought. But if the point of departure and the implementation went together, as indeed happened - then there is no room for question. An Arabic proverb states, 'When differences of opinion arise among thieves, the theft is revealed.' This is what happened with the Zionist movement; when the Labor Party ruled Israel, it refused the Revisionists [the future Likud party] their share, and so [the Revisionists] began to expose the facts and rend the curtain of falsehood. However, in the heat of argument over the roles of the Laborites [in conspiring with the Nazis], they forgot to speak of the role they played, which was no different from that of others. Then came a third side and revealed the positions of all."


[1] In the study, Abu Mazen notes several incidents in which the Zionist movement ignored the fate of the Jews and actively undermined plans to aid them. He wrote, "In 1943, there was an opportunity to send packages of food, medicine, and clothing to Jews in the ghettos of Europe. The International Red Cross, in cooperation with the U.S. government, began collecting these packages, but the Zionist movement objected to the proposal and sabotaged the idea, claiming that the German Red Cross would be the recipient [of the packages]. Because of these positions, thousands died in the ghetto of epidemic and starvation, even before the Nazis began their actions. Infant mortality ranged from 60% to 70% in various places - nothing could be more terrible. Had intentions been good, there were ways and means of delivering the packages, via the Red Cross or some neutral country such as Switzerland, Turkey, or Portugal, and they would have been sent - and all these children could have been saved."

[2] Abu Mazen stated in his paper, "The Zionist movement's most obvious incitement activities against the Jews living under the German conquest were the decisions of the Biltmore Conference, held in the U.S. [in May, 1942]. when the Zionist leaders declared war on Germany on behalf of the Jewish people. When Hitler learned about the conclusions of the conference through his ambassador in the U.S., he was enraged, and declared, 'Now I will liquidate them.' Afterwards he held an urgent meeting with all Germany's leaders, and they developed their detailed plans for the Final Solution. We must not overestimate the importance of the Biltmore Conference and see it as the only reason leading Hitler to authorize the Final Solution, but it is clear that the decisions taken at the conference were one of Hitler's main excuses for speeding up the implementation of his solution regarding the Jews, and therefore this conference can be seen as one of the more important causes that led to the [bitter] end."

[3] The spelling of this name is not certain; the name as it appears in the study is unknown.

[4] Abu Mazen cited p. 670 of Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews as the source of this data. However, an examination of this source shows that no such figure is mentioned. Hilberg writes that between 1935 and 1945 world Jewry lost a third of its number; it dropped from 16 million to about 11 million. It should be noted that the original Russian version of Abu Mazen's study focuses much less on how many Jews were murdered than does the Arabic version, and includes only the figure of 896,000, which Abu Mazen attributes to Hilberg.

[5] A well-known Holocaust denier.

[6] In the original version of this study (in Russian) the question of whether or not gas chambers were used to murder Jews does not appear.

David Haimson send out emails with links to articles both timely and pertinent to what's happening in Israel. To subscribe, write DvHaimson@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, November 15, 2004.

"Centrism" is an amorphous state of intellectual and moral cowardice. Centrism defies ideological definition. What is called "centrism" is the position of people who have no controversial or threatening political convictions.

Since the spectrum of political opinions may shift toward the Left or toward the Right, so does the political mentality of a centrist. Yesterday's centrist may be to the left or to the right of today's centrist.

Consider Israel's two major political parties, Labor and the Likud, regarding the all-important territorial issue. Both have shifted toward the left end of the political spectrum. Labor was once a Zionist party; today it is anti-Zionist. The same may be said of a large part of the Likud. The leaders of both parties, Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon, endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (Yesha).

The past few decades have witnessed the end of ideology in Israel and the ascendancy of what is called political "pragmatism," which in truth is nothing more than political egotism and opportunism. This metamorphosis was obscenely evident in the cabinet vote on Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement/deportation plan. Recall how reputed Zionists such as Benjamin Netanyahu, Silvan Shalom, Shaul Mofaz, Limor Livnat, Danny Naveh, et al. genuflected to Sharon and thereby sacrificed their convictions for their comforts, i.e., their ministerial perquisites. These pragmatists, regardless of their equivocations and hesitations or misgivings, vote with the Left on the issue of a Palestinian statehood.

There is no political center on this issue. You are either for or against a Palestinian state. The days when Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and even Yitzhak Rabin spoke of "autonomy" for the Arab inhabitants of Yesha are over. Avigdor Lieberman can drivel about Palestinian "cantons" and even about repartitioning the Land of Israel, but no serious person can take this obscurantist seriously. He may indeed be a "centrist," a person devoid of articulate, well-developed, and enduring principles and policies.

Ironically, a centrist has no center, since his center is always shifting. He drifts either with the tides of public opinion or with the fancies and impulses of his own ego.

Nevertheless, there are those who take pride in being "centrists"! The Jerusalem Post boasts of being "centrist." Yet the editorial policy of that newspaper is explicitly pro-disengagement and supportive of Palestinian statehood. The only journalist on that newspaper who candidly opposes a Palestinian state and has the courage to call for Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is Michael Freund. Even Caroline Glick, a truly thoughtful political analyst and a forthright critic of Ariel Sharon and the "road map," shies away from Freund's position.

Admittedly, Jerusalem Post columnist Yosef Goell, appalled by the barbaric behavior of the "Palestinians" at the Arafat's funeral in Ramallah, has at last stood up and questioned whether such people deserve a sovereign and independent state. Nevertheless, the weight of that newspaper's articles is overwhelmingly leftist on this life-and-death issue.

There is a related life-and-death issue -Israel's burgeoning Arab population. What makes this demographic issue an existential problem is nothing less than the democratic principle of one adult/one vote. This principle gives the lie to legions of politicians, intellectuals, rabbis, and judges like Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who foist upon the public the deadly disinformation that there is no conflict between democracy and a Jewish state.

How shall we define a centrist on this issue? How is one to qualify the democratic principles of one adult/one vote so as to prevent Israel from becoming, eventually, an Arab or Muslim state, and therefore a very undemocratic state?

The Jerusalem Post dares not address this issue, lest it betray its vaunted centrism. Of course, to broach this issue honestly would almost certainly bring down on the heads of the Post the law on racism and incitement. It's against the law to tell the truth about this life-and-death issue. Much safer to be a centrist - until it's too late to hide behind this lie.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, who writes on Israel's need for a constitution as substrate for government. He is founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached at: eidelberg@foundation1.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Deb Kotz, November 15, 2004.

Send Israeli Soldiers care packages for Chanuka !

Soldiers' packages include:

menorah and candles

Chanukah gelt


jelly doughnuts

Chanuka card

Cost is $8.00 per soldier

Make checks payable to Kever Rachel Fund
(memo: soldiers Chanuka)

Mail to Elyssa Aftel
11527 Monticello Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20902
"Soldiers: Chanuka Packages"

Deb Kotz is an active member of the Brandeis Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintains an email list to distribute articles of interest to the local community. She can be reached at DebKotz@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by David Wilder, November 15, 2004.

Now I can breathe a sigh of relief.

A couple of days ago I met with journalists who came to interview one of the 'fanatic extremists' whose views and opinions are on the very fringe of Israeli society. Of course, many of their questions focused on 'what's next,' following the demise of 'terrorist number one.'

"He's dead, so what will be now?"

My first response was that I am truly sorry - I'm sorry that he didn't die at least thirty five years ago - so many lives would have been saved. I added, 'not only Jewish lives, but Arab lives too' but I'm sure my interviewers didn't take me seriously.

As to 'what's next,' I answered without hesitation. "There is going to be a blood bath. The Arabs don't know any other way. They live lives of violence, that's the way they make decisions, and that's not about to change now. They will inevitably start killing each other as part of a war of inheritance. There's much to gain: power, prestige, and money - lots and lots of money. Maybe a free trip to Washington, a picture with George W., with luck a ceremony on the White House lawn, and if history should replay itself, a Nobel Peace Prize and a big slot in the history books. So, what's a few dead people on the road to such goodies? "

The interviewers looked skeptical. So I continued. "Look, they have absolutely no respect for human life. Look how many of their own they've sacrificed over the years. A couple of weeks ago a 16-year old genocide bomber blew himself up, killing some more Israeli Jews. Fifteen year olds have been apprehended on their way to perpetrate such horrible crimes. Any leadership that sees 15 and 16 year olds as expendables, clearly don't care about life. As far as they are concerned, life is a means to an end, and if it helps them meet their goals, is worthless."

"But," they continued to ask, "maybe something has changed - new leadership, free elections, etc.?"

"Do me a favor," I responded. "There are twenty two Arab states in the Middle East. Find me one democracy. Show me one Arab state which has 'free elections.' Of course, some states, like Egypt, do conduct elections every so often, but there is only one candidate. In other countries, if you vote for the wrong person or party, you simply disappear. And many others, don't even attempt to play the game. The leadership is sold, inherited, or taken by force. That's simply the way it is."

"Now, please explain to me why the so-called 'palestinians' should be any different. These people live by the sword and the gun. This is the way they've lived for centuries. How can anyone expect them to suddenly put down their weapons and start living like Americans in the United States. Their culture does not understand the meaning of 'free democratic elections.'"

"Remember," I told them, "the Islamic fundamentalist culture that they espouse is diametrically opposed to the western culture you are trying to force down their throats. Not only don't they believe in it, they vehemently reject it. The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the terror in Spain, there is no end to it. Years ago, in July of 1997, I wrote an article called "Uncle Muhammad" [http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug97/wilder1.htm], warning of impending fundamental Islamic terror against the United States and the entire Western world."

"A few months ago I interviewed the director of the Norwegian chapter of the International Christian Embassy, Leif Wellerop, while he was visiting Hebron, and asked him his thoughts about the huge influx of Islam into Europe. His response was instant and still resounds in my ears. 'World War Three has already started,!' he exclaimed. The Muslims are attacking western, Christian values, traditions and culture, and their way is, of course, the way of the sword." Imagination. I don't think so. Our Islamic friends have long memories that are saturated with revenge. The Spanish al-Qaeda attacks are a perfect example. The Middle East Info web site reports the following:

In the debris, police found a damaged videotape they said was likely recorded on March 27. Investigators salvaged images from the tape that they said showed militants, their faces covered and brandishing an assault weapon, warning of more attacks unless Spain pulled its troops out of "the land of the Muslims," an apparent reference to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Evoking the history of Christian wars that drove Muslims from Europe, the speaker on the video said, "We all know about the Spanish crusades against the Muslims, the expulsions from Al Andalus and the tribunals of the inquisition," according to a transcript of the recording released by authorities.

The statement echoed aspirations of other Islamic militants, including al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, who in a taped message evoked "Al Andalus," the ancient name for the area. In 1492, the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella ended eight centuries of Muslim rule after a long siege of the city of Granada. [http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article4250.html] And in Time magazine:

"For Spanish investigators, it was a chilling message from beyond. As they searched a bombed-out apartment building in the Madrid suburb of Legan's last week - trying to determine from the body parts exactly how many members of the March 11 train-bombing cell had made their last stand there - the investigators found a videotape in the rubble. On it, an intense man, flanked by two others brandishing Sterling submachine guns, warned of massacres to come. "The Brigades of al-Mufti and Ansar al-Qaeda" - or supporters of al-Qaeda - were in Spain, said Sarhane Ben Abdelmajid Fakhet, 35, to demand that "its troops pull out immediately from the land of the Muslims." Linking Iraq and Afghanistan to the 15th century expulsion of Muslims from Spain and the Inquisition, he demanded "blood for blood!" and "destruction for destruction!" [http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/ 0,13005,901040419-610023,00.html]

In other words, Islamic warriors are presently avenging the deaths of their comrades, almost 600 years ago.

These are the people that the State of Israel are expected to 'make peace' with. These are our 'partners.' The departure of the 20th century's second-ranking terrorist is, according to western leaders, media, and everyone else, an historic changing of the guard, the opening of a 'new chapter,' a 'fresh chance' for peace.

Right, tell me all about it.

So, why do I now sigh a breath of relief?

Yesterday I heard that the 'great Palestinian hope,' Abu Mazen, had been chosen by the Fatah terror organization in Ramallah, to replace Hitler's successor. He was then, according to news accounts, to visit the 'mourner's tent' in Gaza. "Aha," I said to myself, "if he is now an official candidate, undoubtedly someone will try to kill him." And you know what - so it was. As soon as Abu Mazen arrived at the appointed place, gunmen invaded the 'tent' and started shooting. Abu Mazen wasn't hurt, and today is trying to downplay the attack, claiming that it was not an assassination attempt.

He is, of course, playing on Arab intelligence to believe him. Forget the fact that two of his bodyguards were killed. Of course it wasn't an attempt to kill him. They just 'lost control of themselves, and Abu Mazen, by chance, happened to be in the way.


That's the way they live, and that's the way they're going to continue to live - whether we like it or not. Forget about western democracy, forget about free elections. The name of the game is violence, money and corruption. And, of course, the primary element: the desire to wipe the State of Israel, and all it's Jewish inhabitants, off the map. As a first course. This was exactly what I told the journalists, just a few days ago, and it already came true. Not because I'm a prophet, rather because when you know who you're dealing with, it's just common sense.

You remember the story about the guy who said he could train a cat to be just like a human waiter. He found a tame cat, and for an entire year worked very hard, teaching the cat how to walk on two legs, how to carry a tray, how to bow, how to act with proper manners in front of important people.

Finally the day came. The cat entered the hall, wearing a tux and bow tie, spruced-up, looking great. In his 'hands' the cat held a tray filled with exotic delicacies. He started serving table by table, and all the participants laughed with delight. Tray after tray, until finally, he appeared with glasses filled to the brim with an exquisite brew.

As the cat approached the main table, a little boy ran into the room, pulled a mouse from his pocket, and threw it in front of the cat. The tray suddenly crashed on the floor, the drink drenching the important guests. The cat tore off, chasing the mouse, forgetting his manners, forgetting his tuxedo, forgetting his 'human' attributes.

Once a cat, always a cat. Learn how to deal with them, as they are, like it or not.

Once an Arab, always an Arab. Learn what they are, learn how to deal with them, as they are - like it or not.

Because the alternative isn't a tray full of drink crashing to the floor. The alternative is a replay of September 11th, again and again and again. G-d forbid.

With blessings from Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, November 14, 2004.
This is by Professor Gilbert Herbert of the Technion, Haifa.

Dear President Bush and Prime Minister Blair,

The nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea becomes ever more imminent, genocide goes unchecked in the Sudan, and the war against Islamic militancy rages across the globe. In these circumstances to suggest that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the most pressing issue of the day, and its solution (by way of creating a Palestinian State) the highest of all priorities to be addressed, is - if you will forgive my presumption in saying so - a preposterous proposition.

At this critical stage, the time has come for an honest and realistic assessment of the problems facing the democratic nations of the world.

For your own sakes as well as for ours free yourself from the shackles of conventional thinking. The Arabists of the State Department and the Foreign Office live in a bygone era, and old Europe is cynical and corrupt. Don't heed their advice. You will neither gain Europe's favour nor buy off the hostility of international Islamic militants (and the Arab states that openly or tacitly support them) by sacrificing Israel on the altar of appeasement. Nor will you be doing the Palestinians a favour by prematurely thrusting the forms of statehood upon a people in no way ready for its democratic substance. Abandon the shibboleth that somehow a Palestinian State at this time will contribute to a more stable and democratic Middle East, or a safer world.

Israel is a democratic state anxious to live in peace and harmony with its neighbours. We are prepared for peace, but not for suicide. The vision of two states living side-by-side in peace depends upon the establishment of a Palestinian leadership prepared to replace a despotic and corrupt oligarchy with true democracy, one willing to live in peace, capable of controlling the terrorists in its midst, one determined to convince its people that the Jewish State of Israel is legitimate and here to stay. There is no prospect of such a leadership emerging in the immediate future, and re-educating the Palestinian people for peace and amity, after decades of incitement to hate and violence, is the task of at least a generation. Therefore, a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict is, for this generation at least, not a realistic vision but an illusion, a pipe-dream.

The departure of Arafat does not alter this conclusion, at least not in the foreseeable future. Putting one's faith in veteran Arafat loyalists like Abu Mazen and Abu Ala, in ruthless strong-men like Mohammed Dahlan or the convicted multiple-murderer Marwan Barghouti, is like entrusting post-Hitler Germany to Goering or Eichman. There may be some moderates in Palestine, but there is no moderate leadership waiting or able to take over. Transition from despotism to democracy is not an instant process. Post-war Germany and Japan, after the elimination of the entire tainted leadership, and under the tutelage and supervision of the Allied Forces, were guided and educated towards responsible democracy over a long period. The transition in the Soviet Union from Stalin to perestroika and glasnost took decades. For both Israel and the Palestinians - and eventually for the free world - "Statehood Now" will prove to be as dangerous and costly a myth as "Peace Now" has been!

Premature statehood is not the solution of the Middle East conflict, but the creation of a new problem of infinitely more perilous dimensions.

The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, before a generation arose that was fit to enter the Promised Land. The Jews of Palestine developed the instruments of democratic governance for thirty years under the Mandate, before the Zionist enterprise matured and evolved into the State of Israel. The Palestinians need at least as long a period of tutelage and maturation before the concept of a democratic viable and independent Palestinian State can become a reality. To dream of a state may be a starting point, but to achieve statehood demands a learning process, a process of self-assessment and re-education, a willingness to take moral and practical responsibility, a transformation from violence to constructive work, and a long period of reconciliation, both internal and external.

Independence must be deserved, prepared for, earned.

Too much time and energy has been wasted, and too much blood has been spilt, in the fruitless pursuit of a viable two-state solution. This fixation has been at the cost of searching for more creative and realistic alternatives. For all our sakes turn your thoughts and efforts in new and more constructive directions. If you will it, they are there to be found.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, November 14, 2004.

This was a news item in today's Arutz-7.

Noam Livnat, youngest brother of Education Minister Limor Livnat, says that people must be willing to pick up and move to Gush Katif - now, not next summer.

Livnat, a resident of Elon Moreh in the Shomron, is the spokesman of the "Defensive Shield Task Force." The organization was formed, he explains, for the purpose of "making sure that the military orders to evacuate Gush Katif and the northern Shomron are never given."

The general population in Israel is unaware, Livnat says, that the country now stands before "The battle, with a capital T, for which the State of Israel has been waiting for 50 years."

"There is a Hassidic concept," he told Hagit Rotenberg of Israel's B'Sheva weekly, "called 'bizbuz ha'otzarot,' or 'squandering the treasures.' The king spends years piling up treasures and wealth in his palace. But one day, when he faces a large war, he spends all of it, down to the last penny. This is because there is no reason to save anything, for if he loses the war, he will have nothing left anyway. This is our situation today. We must get out all the forces on behalf of this war."

Livnat is not just speaking theoretically:

"A person has to ask himself, 'What am I willing to give so that Gush Katif is not wiped off the map? So that Jewish communities will not be destroyed? So that Jews won't be banished from their homes? So that the Land will not be given over to our enemies, and will not become a stronger base for rocket attacks against us? What am I willing to do so that there won't be massive weapons-smuggling into Gaza, and so that the Palestinians won't receive a tremendous shot of encouragement to step up their efforts ten-fold to destroy us?"

"Are you willing to give a year of your life so that this will not happen? If so, take your family now and go live in Gush Katif. Don't come during the evacuation itself to protest in front of the bulldozers. Come today, in order to stop it before it happens."

Among the fronts on which the members of the Defensive Shield Task Force are working are some they prefer to keep under wraps. For public consumption, however, Livnat talks about the following initiatives: Spreading the rabbis' call to soldiers not to fulfill evacuation orders; petitions with thousands of signatures of soldiers who will not fulfill such orders; enlistment of high school girls in information campaigns and other tasks; and more.

With regard to the soldiers' petitions, Livnat explains,

"It's obvious that the framework will not be able to tolerate a situation in which tens of thousands of people have signed their refusal to carry out these orders. We're not trying to interfere with the evacuation, but rather prevent it from even beginning to occur. If we start this campaign a week before the expulsion, and we have 3,000 people saying they won't fulfill the orders, another 3,000 who say it's not a good thing, and 4,000 who will actually carry out the orders, even if apathetically, we won't have accomplished a thing. But if we start now and show that there are many thousands who will have nothing to do with it, the orders won't even be given."
To Go To Top
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 14, 2004.

This is archived at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003911.php

This came at the end of a week in which Norway managed to forbid Jews from marking the anniversary of Kristallnacht, a step the French haven't yet taken.

The local TV2 News reported that no Norwegian Jews participated in Oslo's commemoration of Kristallnacht."TV2 also reported that the authorities, saying they didn't want trouble, forbade any Jewish symbols, including Stars of David and Israeli flags," according to Israel's Arutz-7 radio station. "On the TV2 evening news, a group of Jews and their friends who wanted to take part in the commemoration were shown being firmly told by a policeman to 'please leave the area,'" according to a dispatch from an American journalist living in Norway, Bruce Bawer, on AndrewSullivan.com. "This in a city where Muslim demonstrations take place on a regular basis, and include signs and banners bearing hateful, barbaric slogans." The ban prompted a protest from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the government of Norway.

To Go To Top
Posted by Arlene Peck, November 14, 2004.

The G-d father of modern terrorism's funeral is barely over, and already, world dignitaries and media are rushing to offer their "condolences." As I opened the morning Los Angeles times, I was startled to see that their resident pro-Arab resident had returned. Per-haps I should have not been surprised about the return of Tracy Wilkinson at this particular time in light of the glorification of Yassir Arafat. Ms. Wilkinson was previously banned from writing about the MidEast because her rabid Anti-Semitic, pro-Arab bias that led to a wave of subscription cancellations by readers appalled and disgusted by her overwhelming hatred of the Jewish State.

Yet, incredibly, dear Tracy has been resurrected. I would not be surprised if "Abu Ammar" has the same experience once; his mosque and burial shrine is in place only ten miles from Jerusalem.

Referring to his death, Ms. Wilkinson called Arafat the "iconic symbol of the Palestinian struggle for statehood and the embodiment of a revolutionary who could not make the transition to governance." Really??!! How totally silly of me to think all this time that he was an Arab reincarnation of Hitler. Instead of being revered, he should have ben crushed like the cockroach he was decades ago. To call Arafat a "statesman" "visionary," "freedom fighter," etc. is a horrendous insult to such luminaries dead and alive.

Somehow, Ms. Wilkinson also managed to convey how sad it was that this great leader was not quite able to make it because "Palestinian borders, airspace and economy remained under control of Israel, and the evolution as taking too long."

I believe I know why Arafat's followers had problems with the economy... The truth is out: it was wife Suha and her obscene shopping sprees in Paris that caused them so much grief and suffering, not to mention (but I will) billions of dollars and euros that were diverted from aid payments from the US, EU, UN and Saudi Arabia in "support of the Palestinians." It is rumored that revered leader Yassir managed to squirrel away between $3 billion to $11 billion into his secret Swiss bank accounts. Now who will win the race to the bank, Suha or her hubby's "advisors" (aka terrorist thugs)?

Actually, I think the impasse has been solved. The grieving widow is rumored to receive an annual income amounting to twenty-two million dollars. And, that dear reader is in addition to the $60 million that recently made it to her Paris checking account!

Somehow, between all that crying and breast-beating while hubby was being "Bernie" from Weekend at Bernie's and dragged around like the "Night of the Living Dead," poor grieving Suha managed to meet with his French lawyers and strike a deal. She gave them the vault's access codes so they could grab their "share."

Pretty terrific for only ten years of marriage... what a widow's stipend! Even better, loving wife Suha managed this while spending half of that time living in Paris, away from her equally loving husband Yassir. Hats off to Suha... she makes Imelda Marcos look absolutely deprived.

Poor Suha... she will suffer in silk and caviar so she can maintain the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. Hey, with that kind of money she could even buy a new burka. Oopsie, I forgot... she doesn't need them in Paris. Well, she could always get her hair done.

The jury is still out regarding former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' (aka Abu Mazen - why do so many of them have "aka's?") eventual share. But for now, Suha has been muzzled, apparently has gone silent over the heart-stopping disgrace resulting from the rape of the poor, impoverished "Palestinians."

Interesting, don't you think, that, at least for now, no one dares mention the "plight" of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs effectively "imprisoned" in filthy "refugee camps." They are in these camps because, as mentioned above, Arafat and his thugs siphoned off billions of euros and dollars to their own corrupt pockets. So much for "champion" Arafat's "struggle" for his victimized people.

Wow! It boggles my mind at the unwillingness of the media, grieving compatriots, EU, UN or American taxpayers to appear that they are even a teensy bit upset or be willing to discuss the fate of all that money. Even I am a little upset that their heritage has and will continue to be squandered in the smart shops of Paris and the purchase of nearby villas, but it really does not matter. The average Gazan family lives on $7 per day, yet they still want to build a mosque above the pedophile monsters grave.

It was hardly surprising that the sub-human savages he trained in terrorism for four decades "reacted to the death of their leader by firing guns into the air and burning tires, sending a pall of black smoke over the city." Why am I not surprised? During several visits to the cesspool of Gaza over the years, that was the first thing I noticed. I saw too many young men lying around, smoking hashish, burning tires and, when they felt especially gleeful, firing guns into the air. Of course, those bullets eventually came down somewhere and killed passerby but, hey, why worry?

Hearing and seeing President Bush blessing this Satan's soul was bad enough without seeing large photos in the L.A.Times of a dirty-looking Arafat kissing the hand of his good friend, Leah Rabin. I remember a speaking engagement Mrs. Rabin had in Pasadena, California. I was given clearance to interview her. However, upon arrival, I was told that my writing was not of the ?tone? that they wanted from someone due to speak with Mrs. Rabin. Evidently, someone had told her that I was among the rare writers who dared to disagree with her late husband's policies.

Nevertheless, I stayed for her speech. How disgusted I felt as she told her audience of non-Jews in the packed auditorium what a good friend of Israel her blessed friend Yassir Arafat was and how wonderful he was to her after the Israeli premier was assassinated - how no one deserved a Nobel Peace Prize more than Arafat did. Folks that was another time I wanted to gag!

I wonder - is it stupidity or anti-Semitism (or maybe both) that motivates world leaders and media to rush to his bedside, and later to his graveside to grieve so copiously for the man who introduced modern terrorism to the World? It was at Arafat's knee that Osma bin Laden learned about airplane hijacking. Where is mention of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the '72 Munich Olympics? The slaughter and injury of dozens of people, almost all children, in the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot in May 1974? Bombing a Swissair jet out of the sky filled with civilians?

The BBC and other media outlet cite "accomplishments" about this monster. They even have the gall to ask about the "mysterious death of this evil entity and would convince us he was such a great man. That he died from AIDS more than a rumor. Arafat's homosexual tendencies have been documented for years, but no one has wanted to hear or read of them.

However, I noticed a lot of that when I was traveling around their cities. After dusk, it was rare to see women out on the streets while I was traveling in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and, especially Gaza. Even now, notice on the television. Do you ever see women when the camera scans the audience?

It was a common site to see young men walking with their arms wrapped around each other. Most often, I saw young boys with older men and I did't not think that they were their fathers.

Finally, I am bewildered... why would Israeli authorities even consider allowing Arafat to be buried anywhere in the area? His native Egypt wouldn't hear of interring him there. Jordan flatly refused to even entertain the notion.

I cannot begin to understand why the Jewish State would want to make Ramallah another ?holy city.? How could Israel even consider allowing mobs of ?Pilgrims? to make a hajj to Ramallah on each anniversary of their leader's death, where I firmly believe the plan is to bomb more innocent Israelis? They will be bringing in hundreds of thousands of terrorists only ten miles from Jerusalem!

The savages we all saw shooting their guns into the air are just waiting to surge in and destroy everything in their path.

What could Premier Sharon and his government be thinking? Why? In the name of heaven, WHY?

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, November 14, 2004.
This was a news item in today's Arutz-7 and is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=72037.

A report by the World Bank indicates that the implementation of Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement/expulsion plan could lead to increased Arab violence against Israel.

The report states that the deep economic crisis in the PA-controlled areas is one of the worst in modern times, and "threatens to impoverish and alienate a generation of young Palestinians." The report states that the crisis is "increasing the popular appeal of militant factions and threatening Israel's security." The World Bank report further threatens Israel with renewed violence: "Unless today's impasse is broken soon, the PA could melt away, leaving Israel with a poor, embittered neighbor with whom dialogue could be much more difficult."

Will disengagement suffice to avoid these dangers? The answer, according to the World Bank, is that disengagement could actually worsen the situation.

The report states that the economic benefits of the disengagement plan "of itself [are] very limited." The plan as currently formulated does not "incorporate a change in border trade regimes," and the report explains that because Israel will continue to "monitor and supervise the outer envelope on land, will have exclusive control of the Gaza airspace, and will continue its military activity along the Gaza Strip's coastline," the situation will not significantly improve. "Israel should, at the least, maintain current flows of Palestinian workers for several years to come," the report recommends.

"A disengagement process in which labor flows are cut abruptly, the external envelope of Gaza is further restricted to trade, or electricity/water supplies are terminated would seriously worsen Palestinian economic, humanitarian and social prospects," the World Bank report warns.

Adoption of the above recommendations means that there would be no significant "detachment" of Israel from Gaza - despite Prime Minister Sharon's promises to the contrary.

The World Bank sees other dangers in Israel's plans, as well, warning, "If the Erez Industrial Estate closes, this will represent a further serious setback for the Gaza economy." In fact, however, immediately after the Israeli Cabinet approved the disengagement plan in principle, Minister of Industry and Trade Ehud Olmert announced that Israeli factories would in fact be evacuated from Erez. Given the World Bank report's warnings that lack of economic improvements in Gaza could be "threatening [to] Israel's security," it appears that the disengagement process does not bode well for Israel.

Yesterday, despite warnings such as the above, Prime Minister Sharon met with Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and told him that the disengagement is the "best plan for Israel's interests." He also reminded Netanyahu, who has expressed misgivings about the plan, that he [Netanyahu] voted for it in both the Cabinet and the Knesset.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@acm.org

To Go To Top
Posted by One Jerusalem, November 14, 2004.

The death of Yasser Arafat is the beginning of a very dangerous time for Israel and Jerusalem.

The British Prime Minister and other European leaders see this as a golden opportunity to force Israel into concluding a bad deal with the violent successors to Yasser Arafat.

President Bush, in his response to Arafat's death, correctly noted that for peace to materialize after Arafat, Palestinian leadership must demonstrate their acceptance of the rule of law and democracy. It will take time to see if the new Palestinian leadership abandons the use of violence and accepts the civilized way of conducting affairs with Israel.

Now, more than ever, we must redouble our efforts to recruit more supporters to the cause of a United Jerusalem. Once again, we call upon you to support the efforts of One Jerusalem. Please circulate this message to everyone in your address book and encourage them to sign our petition.

On a trip to Washington, D.C., our Chairman Natan Sharansky met with President Bush. The President indicated that he is reading Sharansky's The Case for Democracy and he agrees with its thesis. You can purchase an autographed copy of the book and help One Jerusalem by contributing $75.

You can also obtain an autographed copy of Ambassador Dore Gold's devastating expose of the United Nations - Tower of Babble - through One Jerusalem for $50.

Both books are available for $115.

These books are destined for the bestseller list and will impact the policy debate over Israel, Jerusalem, and the course of U.S. foreign affairs in the Middle East.

Along with having quality time with President Bush, Natan Sharansky and Dore Gold are both appearing on radio and television as they crisscross the United States defending a united Jerusalem and a secure Israel. Your contributions help us help these champions of Israel and human rights.

Whether you purchase a book or two or not, every donation will be put to the best use.

Thank you,

Allen Roth, President
David Goder, Executive Director
One Jerusalem

The website address of One Jerusalem is http://www.onejerusalem.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Ted Belman, November 14, 2004.

For those of us who have followed the career of Uri Avnery, we know him as an extreme leftist, a turncoat if you will. He preferred to embrace the Palestinian cause rather than the Jewish one.

Ari Shavet reported on his brilliant interview of Arafat in a Ha'aretz article called Missing Arafat (www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=500556&contrassID= 2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

. This article is essential reading for any student of the Middle East. Some of what Avnery says is true. Arafat will go down in history as a man who changed the course of history. His accomplishments are monumental. Avnery will go down in history as a traitor.

Arafat was Machiavellian to the last. The first duty of leadership is to maintain itself. Nothing stood in his way. The cause and winning was everything. It was the only morality that mattered. In this regard, Avnery said, "Underlying our relationship was the fact that we both knew what it is to kill as part of a national struggle." Thus Avnery condoned terror killings totally.

It is true that Arafat was guilty of all the acts the current articles on his passing accuse him of. It is also true that he "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" as Abba Eban has said and that he failed his people from the beginning to the end.

Barry Rubin who wrote a biography of Arafat considered him a failure. I once said to him, whether it depends on what standard you judge him by. Certainly if you judge him by his progress toward peace or lack thereof he was a failure. Or if you judge him by what he did for the welfare of his people he was a failure. Or if you judge him as a human being in a moral sense he was also a failure. His failures are legion.

But if you judge him by the impossible goals he set for himself and his progress in achieving them against all odds, he must be considered a great success. And yet, history will be the judge of that. History will determine whether that success is short lived and ephemeral or will stand the test of time, and whether his intransigence and brutality advanced his cause or hindered it.

In this regard, his cause was the destruction of the Jewish state. I pray that history proves him a failure.

As for Avnery, I never could stand him. How any Israeli could have made common cause with Arafat, I'll never know. Yet I do know. Such allegiance stems from a sense of guilt and in a belief that we did them wrong. In fact when Avnery was asked "Is there any connection between the fact that in 1948 you took an active part in the expulsion of Arabs and the destruction of Arab villages, and your later need to link up with Yasser Arafat?" He answered,"Definitely, definitely. I am very much aware of the fact that the State of Israel, which I helped establish, is built on a terrible historic injustice." This is the sickness of the Left.

This allegiance also has roots in a predisposition on the part of many in the Left to destroy what is for what might be, to destroy, hate or resent the powerful in favour of the powerless and to destroy the self in favour of the other. Thus it was and is rooted in self-hatred.

When Shavet asked "What sort of person was he?" Avnery waxed eloquent. So much so that Shavet went on to ask him if he loved Arafat or admired him. Judging from Avnery's answer, it is obvious why Shavet would think so.

"Arafat is always a surprise for everyone who meets him for the first time. How so? In that the gap between his television image and reality is astonishing. First of all, the beard. On television it always looks like it's a two-day growth. But in reality the beard is groomed, black and white, part pepper and part salt. Then the eyes. On television they look a bit mad, a bit fanatic. In reality, though, they are exactly the opposite: very gentle, even feminine.

"All in all, Arafat is a very gentle person. His hands are gentle, his body language is gentle. And he is a very warm person. Very much so. Filled with empathy. Because of that he has an incredible capacity to forge personal contact. He is direct, informal, emotional. He is not a person of abstract ideas but of feelings; not analytical but intuitive. Much of his dialogue takes place not in words but in gestures. He is very fond of gestures.

"I held him in very high regard. As a human being, too. I like patriots. I hate traitors. And the fact that Arafat is a great Palestinian patriot went a long way toward determining my attitude toward him."

Pardon me while I barf.

The ultimate irony is that Avnery thinks he is the patriot and we, who fight to retain our God-given land, are the traitors.

Ted Belman is cofounder and cohost of IsraPundit, a pro-Israel strong activist website (http://israpundit.com).

To Go To Top
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 14, 2004.

The Zionist solution did not appear out of the blue. Herzl's plan appeared on the stage of history at a time when the principle of self-determination through a national state had become accepted throughout the world. Neither was the establishment of the State of Israel an unusual event. Numerous new countries appeared on the globe after both world wars. The revival of the Jewish nation has always formed part of the flow of world history.

Although, as Bilam said, "Israel shall dwell alone and not take the Gentiles into account", history teaches us that the splendid isolation of our nation has not ignored overall world consciousness but has, on the contrary, acted within it.

It may well be that the results of the recent elections in the US and, even more, the issue that decided these elections, indicate a new, belief-based, direction of flow in world history.

At the head of the sole super-power, the leading power in the Free World, stands a man with belief, who refers to the Creator on every opportunity. It is very important to realize that he was re-elected for this reason. During his first term of office the economic state of his country deteriorated, and he involved his nation in a military adventure that no-one knows how to get out of. This would normally have been enough to guarantee the defeat of any candidate in the US presidential elections. However, these elections turned on an issue that the Americans, so it transpires, regard as more important than the economy and security. These elections were decided by an issue centering on a fundamental value of the American nation. A foreigner won't understand this, but the elections were decided by the question of recognition of homosexual marriage and killing unborn babies.

The liberal US media unambiguously supported the Democratic candidate. Only the Israeli media are capable of conducting a more blatantly partisan campaign than that directed against the belief-based candidate in the US. But despite this he won. It seems that, in the final analysis, even hostile media cannot halt deep processes in a healthy nation.

Is it likely that such a situation could happen in Israel, in which such a leader, a believing Jew who directs the country based on the fundamental values of the nation, could appear? First of all it is important to understand that from a belief-based standpoint the question is not if this is likely to happen, but when it will occur. Classic Zionist consciousness, that turned its back on Judaism and preferred to adopt liberal Western values, is no longer capable of advancing the Zionist enterprise, and is in fact destroying it. Since we believe that the second Return to Zion will not fail, and that another Exile is not expected, the sole conclusion is that in the end the State of Israel will achieve belief-based leadership.

Is a process similar to that which took place in the US also likely in Israel? Not in the way in which events occurred in the US. In Israel there is no free regime and no separation of religion and politics permitting this, and there is still no Third Temple culture ready to absorb such leadership.

A Free Regime

Although we saw that the US media clearly supported one of the sides, President Bush had alternative media channels (such as the Fox network) at his disposal. The media in Israel adopt an unwavering stand in favor of the Left and against Jewish values. Arutz 7 was made illegal and the majority of the Israeli public have no media that express their values. When it transpired that documents incriminating Bush that were published during the election campaign were forged, the accusers hurriedly issued an apology. In Israel the media continue to publicize every year the picture of Rabin in SS uniform, while forgetting to mention its originator (GSS agent Avishai Raviv).

But the technical issue of the media is of secondary importance compared to a far more fundamental difference. The media are only one of the two branches that are supposed to guarantee democracy. The more important one is the judicial system. In the US the Supreme Court judges are appointed by the people through its elected representatives. In Israel there is an oligarchy that appoints and perpetuates itself. This system imposes a foreign set of value on Israeli society. A belief-based candidate in Israel will be forced to confront not only hostile media but also a judicial system that has a clear-cut political orientation. A hint as to what is likely to occur was given in the last elections when the Supreme Court permitted the candidacy of Arabs who identified with terror, while disqualifying the candidacy of the undersigned because of the supposed "moral turpitude" involved in organizing demonstrations against the Oslo Agreements.

Separation of Religion from Politics

From the political aspect the original sin lies with the idea of religious parties. This is a clear-cut Mapai-instigated interest based on the principle of divide and rule. "How can I visit your new synagogue?" Ben-Gurion replied to an invitation by Mafdal leader Haim Shapira. "This is an institution belonging to a competing party". Imprisoning Judaism behind the walls of the religious parties provided a means of advancement for the religious apparatchiks, but caused Judaism to be identified with "a competing party". Bush, a very religious man, acts within the cultural American framework, not outside it. He is the leader of the Republican, not the Christian, party.

Third Temple Culture

Since the destruction of the Second Temple and the consequent Exile, the Christian idea of separation of religion from life has gained ground amongst Western Jewry. The integration of religious belief in overall culture has become impossible. You are either religious or secular. Even if you are religious, you have to acquire a kind of split personality - to be religious at home but Israeli when you go out. The question of refusal to obey orders has accentuated this issue. The State will accept the refusal of a soldier on a religious issue. A commander who ordered a soldier to eat bacon will be sent to jail, not the soldier who refuses to eat for religious reasons. But belief-based refusal to evict a Jew from his home is not regarded as legitimate (despite being a far greater offence, even from the religious aspect), since it is regarded as a civil, not a religious issues.

It's worth looking at how Oriental Jews integrate belief and culture. They were not influenced to such a degree by Christian culture, and regard Jewish identity as a kind of graph in which each individual finds a place to locate himself. The division between religious and secular Jews is not so evident amongst Oriental Jews, or at least amongst those who have not yet adopted an Ashkenazi way of life.

Belief-based leadership in Israel is therefore a far more complex issue than in the US. However, with G-d's help, it will come, it must come, and the earlier this happens the lower the price we will have to pay. Events in the US indicate that the belief-based revolution is not just an isolated incident introduced by the Manhigut Yehudit movement into the Israeli political scene. It is a global trend that aspires to perfection of the world in the kingdom of the Almighty. In simple language this means a return to recognition of the Creator and to fundamental Biblical value. Although the belief-based revolution has "overtaken" us on the other side of the ocean, in the end the people whom all the nations regard as representing all these values is the Jewish people.

Humanity is waiting for belief-based tidings from Jerusalem, not from Washington.

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 Go To Top
Posted by David Singer, November 13, 2004.

Yasser Arafat has finally joined Yitzchak Rabin in the next world.

Freed now from all pressures, internal and external, perhaps they might be able to frankly reflect on the mistakes they both made in trying to reach the "Peace of the Brave" for which they and last surviving member of the trio, Shimon Peres received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Perhaps their conversation would go something like this:

Yitzchak: Welcome to our eternal home Yasser. I always thought that the way to peace between the Jews and the Arabs was the resubdivision of Palestine into two States with Jewish Israel being sovereign in about 20% of Palestine and Arab Jordan sovereign in about 80% of Palestine. Shimon persuaded me to pursue a different path by accepting Oslo. In hindsight this was a terrible error of judgement by me and cost me my life, the lives of thousands of Jews and Arabs and the maiming, wounding and emotional scarring of our respective populations.

Yasser: Look Yitzchak, I know you weren't happy with Oslo. I felt it in that famous handshake at the White House. I was aware of your comment in The Australian newspaper on May 27, 1985 that "One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb." Oslo would have created just such a State.

Yitzchak: And after the collapse of Oslo, 9/11, your refusal of Barak's offer, the second Intifada and what's happening now in Iraq, I think my prediction is still relevant today. The Quartet are making a big mistake pursuing this failed policy after your death. They supposedly respect my memory but not my opinions. They know I also said at that time that "the Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the Jordan River there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees."

Yasser: On June 25, 1987 I myself told the New York Review of Books that before the Second World War "Jordan was an emirate, completely part of Palestine." I know my history as well as you, my dear partner in peace. We both agreed that Jordan was part of Palestine, part of the problem and part of the solution.

Yitzchak: We really should have built on this common agreement when we finally decided to talk about peace.

Yasser: You obviously were aware that I had also told Der Spiegel in 1986 that "Jordanians and Palestinians are indeed one people. No one can divide us. We have the same fate."

Yitzchak: Sure. Even Jordan recognised the historic and demographic reality of what you were saying. As early as Spring 1982 Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan was quoted in the Foreign Affairs Review as endorsing the words of a leading Jordanian social scientist that "the Jordanians and Palestinians are now one people, and no political loyalty, however strong, will separate them permanently.

Yasser: And Farouk Kadoumi, the Head of the Political Department of the PLO, told Newsweek on 14 March 1977 that "Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people." Farouk stood by my wife Suha during my dying days in hospital in France.

Yitzchak: So why did you insist on separate Palestinian and Jordanian delegations at the Madrid Conference in 1991 instead of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation?

Yasser: Come on Yitzchak. You know there had been a power struggle between King Hussein and myself for control of Jordan. Could I ever forget or forgive how my followers and I were driven out of Jordan in September 1970 and the slaughter that was inflicted on us at that time? Do you think it was fun being shunted to Lebanon and thence to Tunisia?

Yitzchak: But surely you could have resolved your dispute with King Hussein. Jordan would have had King Hussein as its monarch and you as its Prime Minister. By burying your differences you could have ended up as Prime Minister of 80% of Palestine instead of President of nothing. Your funeral would have been a vastly different ceremony to what I saw today.

Yasser: That's all water under the bridge. Now that I have been removed from the scene is there perhaps something we can do to influence those left behind down there to resubdivide Palestine along the lines you suggested 19 years ago?

Yitzchak: Well I know Shimon is just as aware as you and I are of Jordan's role in bringing peace to the region. Shimon told the Jewish Telegraph on April 19, 1991 that "It is not obstinacy to regard the populations of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as having greater similarities than differences. The Jordan River is not deep enough to turn into a knife blade serving to cut one piece of territory into three slices. Most of Jordan's population are Palestinians: the residents of the West Bank are Jordanian citizens and Jordan has distributed tens of thousands of passports to residents in the Gaza Strip. Jordan is therefore an existing State. It has an army. There is therefore no need to set up another State, another army."

Yasser: True, but Shimon is not at this moment in the Israeli Government. It will need the concurrence of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to make these views Israeli policy.

Yitzchak: That shouldn't be difficult. Ariel told Time on April 17, 1989, that "Jordan is Palestine! The capital of Palestine is Amman. If Palestinian Arabs want to find their political expression, they will have to do it in Amman." Couple those thoughts with his Disengagement Plan for Gaza and the building of a security fence in the West Bank, which has effectively divided the region into Jewish and Arab sections, and you have the basis for calling an international conference whose object is to resubdivide Palestine along the lines I first suggested in 1985.

Yasser: That's all fine, but what about my beloved Jerusalem? Can I ever hope that my mortal remains will be reburied there?

Yitzchak: Yes. It is possible. East Jerusalem was part of Jordan between 1948-1967 and would have been so today had King Hussein kept out of the six day War. The Holy Places are specifically to be dealt with in the Peace Treaty I signed with King Hussein in 1994. We can't solve all the problems from here. Those on earth are charged with negotiating the final outcomes. Now is a propitious time for them to attempt to do so.

Yasser: How can we get the Quartet to abandon their plans to continue pursuing the impossible? Visions have a habit of turning into the worst nightmares.

Yitzchak: The Quartet should heed the above things we said whilst on earth, but which we unfortunately failed to try to put into practice. This will be the finest tribute they can pay to our memories and will merit the Nobel Prize that we were in truth prematurely awarded. This will be the real peace of the brave. Pressure must be put on Jordan to resubdivide Palestine, the same kind of pressure that is being put on Israel to accept the badly flawed and thoroughly discredited Road Map. Then perhaps the peace we all desire will be attainable.

Yasser: Shalom Yitzchak

Yitzchak: Salaam Yasser.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International -an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.

To Go To Top
Posted by Women in Gree, November 13, 2004.
This essay was written by Aryeh Eldad in Hebrew. The following is the translation that appeared on Tuesday, November 9, 2004, in Yediot Ahronot, one of Israel's leading newspapers.

Sharon has already decided to relinquish East Jerusalem, and Olmert is aiding him. The Zionist Organization established the Jewish National Fund as an instrument for the redemption of the land and its transformation into national land. Jews were called upon to donate to this Fund, also by means of the blue-and-white boxes with the map of Eretz Israel emblazoned on them, that were distributed throughout the world. Generations of tots sang "This is our box, the redemption of our soil."

But in the last generation the box has become a collector's item, the map of Eretz Israel has been expunged from our hearts and from political programs; the concept of redemption has become a disgraceful term that the Prime Minister includes in the definition of "messianism" when he seeks to disengage from the bearers of the flag that only yesterday he marched under.

The Zionist movement, from the time of Ussishkin and Hankin, the redeemers of the lands of the Jezreel Valley, to that of Moshe Zar, the redeemer of the lands of Samaria, and Irving Moskowitz, the redeemer of the lands of Jerusalem, knew that it was right to purchase lands from Arabs. They paid the full price, and at times even for double and triple what the land was worth. They made this land available to Jewish settlers. Now, right before our very eyes, this trend is being reversed.

A number of months ago the Hebrew University sold 91 dunams [about 23 acres] in the Beit Hanina neighborhood of Jerusalem to a Palestinian bank. This is a plot of land that a Jewish family of German immigrants donated to the University 70 years ago, and now the need arose to make use of it as the solution to financial distress. The University first offered to sell the plot to the Israel Lands Administration. The ILA declined, and Irving Moskowitz's representative entered the picture. But even though the price that he offered was higher than that of the Palestinian bank, the land passed into Arab hands.

I directed a Knesset query on this matter to Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is also responsible for the Israel Lands Administration, and who responded after three months: "The Israel Lands Administration decided to reject the offer to purchase lands, because the land is situated in a settled area within the bounds of the city of Jerusalem, its realization would have required construction for the citizens of the State of Israel. The purchase of the lands in these circumstances would have been done for the purpose of marketing by tender to that [i.e., Arab] population."

Of what concern to him is redemption? Of what concern to him is national land? A donation of land in Jerusalem became commercial property for the Hebrew University, and the person charged with responsibility for the national lands declares that he would sell the land to Arabs if he had purchased it - and therefore it did not matter whether the University sold it, or the ILA. The Jewish National Fund had an inviolable principle, not to sell national lands in perpetuity, not even to Jews! Those entrusted with responsibility for the national land give lip service to the strengthening of [Jewish] settlement in Galilee, in the Negev, and in Jerusalem, and abandon land that is already Jewish owned. With the money of the oil states, the Arabs are establishing an Ishmaelite National Fund, to buy lands from Jews. And the guard? Has he fallen asleep? No, he simply collaborates and sells, brazenly.

Sharon has already decided to relinquish East Jerusalem, and Olmert is merely his faithful agent. They are so occupied in denouncing "messianism" that these two have turned themselves into the obedient beasts of burden of the Israeli left and of Arab national aspirations. Also in Jerusalem. Whoever deceives himself that the disengagement will stop at the fences of the Gaza District and northern Samaria should look closely at the actions of the Prime Minister and his Vice Prime Minister, also in Jerusalem, and he will understand: they are selling Israel. In perpetuity.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Yee, November 13, 2004.

This letter was written by Angela Bertz, who lives in Israel.

I'll just add that the words of "condolences" wished by George W. Bush as well as his "blessing Arafat's soul" last week, were just as obscene as the following "tributes" sent to me in this excellent letter.

Adam Weinstein was 14.

He was a computer genius and a bright 9th grade student. He liked to play basketball and the piano. His brother described him as a good soul who never cursed and had many friends. In fact on the 1st December 2001 this vibrant young teenager had been enjoying a night out with his friends. Just before 11.30 he spoke to his parents to tell them he was on his way home. Adam never spoke to his parents again. Shortly after that call two Palestinian homicide bombers detonated an explosive belt and Adam along with 10 more youngsters were blown to pieces. The number of wounded was 180.

This is what Nelson Mandela former President of South Africa had to say about the man that was responsible for the heinous death of Adam. "Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation, one who gave his entire life to the cause of the Palestinian people. We honor his memory today."

Current South African President Thabo Mbeki expressed his "deepest regret" at the death of a "giant of the struggle of the poor and struggle of the oppressed,"

This is what Yasser Arafat once said "I now see the walls of Jerusalem, the mosques of Jerusalem, the churches of Jerusalem. My brothers! With blood and with spirit we will redeem you, Palestine! Yes, with blood and with spirit we will redeem you Palestine!"

Anya Kazachkov was 16.

Anna was a talented 11th grade student whose drawings now decorate the walls of her former school. Her mother described her daughter as full of life. She wanted to study, serve in the army and get married. Anya, born in Russia had only been in Israel for 2 years. On a balmy 1st June in 2001 Anya was excitedly waiting to go into a disco with her friends. Shortly before midnight a Palestinian ghoul shattered not only Anya but 19 other teenager's lives. One hundred more were wounded. Her mother overwhelmed with grief at her daughter's funeral two days later, screamed that all she wanted was to see her daughter's face one more time.

This is what French President Chirac had to say about the man that was responsible for the heinous death of Anya. "With him disappears a man of courage and conviction who for 40 years incarnated the Palestinians' fight for recognition of their national rights." "With him disappears the man of courage and conviction who, for 40 years, has embodied the Palestinians' combat for recognition of their national rights."

This is Yasser Arafat's message to Palestinian children.

"Be a Shahid" (Martyr) Arafat explains that dead Palestinian children- Shahids - are "the greatest. Once upon hearing the news of yet another dreadful attack on Israel he declared: The heroic martyrdom operation [of the man] that turned his body into a bomb [is] the model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland."

Malka Roth was 15.

She was a beautiful girl devoted to her family and often helped her mother with her severely handicapped sister. Through her experience in the home she became devoted to the needs of special needs children. She was a gifted musician who played the classical flute. On the 9th August 2002 together with her best friend she stopped for lunch at the Sbarro Pizza parlour in Jerusalem. Just before 2 pm the packed restaurant paid host to an evil Palestinian ghoul who detonated a 5-10 kg bomb packed with nails and shrapnel. Malka's parents received her phone back with a one inch nail embedded in it. Fourteen more innocent people including her best friend and five members of the same family were also killed and 132 more were wounded.

This is what Kofi Annan Arab lackey and Chief Representative of the U.N. had to say about the man that was responsible for the heinous death of Malka.

Yasser Arafat had "symbolized... the national aspirations of the Palestinian people." By signing the Oslo accords, "he took a giant step towards the realization of this vision. It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled. "Now that he has gone, both Israelis and Palestinians, and the friends of both peoples throughout the world, must make even greater efforts to bring about the peaceful realization of the Palestinian. right of self-determination.

These are words spoken by Yasser Arafat: "We the PLO will concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. The PLO plans to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won't want to live among Arabs."

Shmuel Taubenfeld was three months old.

There is not much to be said for his short life other than he never had a chance to take his first step. He never spoke his first word. He would never have a first day at school. He would never know how the bees make honey. He probably never understood what it meant to smell a flower. On August 19th a Palestinian homicide bomber dressed as an orthodox Jew got on the same bus as him. Twenty two people were blown to pieces and 136 were wounded, many of them children and babies. Some of the victims had to have DNA to establish their identity. The Rabbi at the funeral of baby Shmuel said these poignant words "You will now be an angel who will protect us and strengthen us". He was buried alongside his mother, Goldie, in Jerusalem and survived by his father and 12 siblings.

This is what Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski had to say about the man that was responsible for the heinous death of baby Shmuel: "The death of Yasser Arafat is a departure from political life of one of the most charismatic, one of the most colorful and controversial figures, both in the Middle East and the wider political world."

The Spanish government had the following to say:

"The Spanish government expresses its great sadness at the death of Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian National Authority, and winner of the Nobel peace prize". "Arafat's charismatic personality, the international status that he gave to the Palestinian nation and his unrelenting fight for recognition for his people makes him one of the most relevant leaders of our time," the statement read.

These are words spoken by Yasser Arafat: "They are waging open war against the Palestinian people...We must confront them, we must confront them, we must confront them. We must confront them in every sense of the word."

Elad Cohen was 20.

He was one month away from his 21st birthday. A neighbour described him as quiet and serious boy, who had very much wanted to serve in a combat unit, where he thrived, making many friends. On May 12, 2004 Elad along with 5 other soldiers was on a mission to destroy tunnels used by the Palestinians to smuggle weapons and ammunition to be used in deadly attacks against Israel. His armoured personnel carrier was hit by an anti tank rocket and he was blown to pieces. Later the people of Gaza raced through the streets like cannibals with the torn body parts of these young soldiers. These sub-human creatures later tried to use the return of these body parts to Israel, as bargaining chips to force Israel into painful concessions.

This is what Chinese President Hu Jintao had to say about the man that was responsible for the heinous death of Elad. He called Yasser Arafat "a brilliant leader" and "a great friend" of China and urged Palestinians to continue efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.

Communist neighbours North Korea decreed a three day condolence period and issued the following statements: "Yasser Arafat was a close friend of the Korean people as he made ceaseless efforts to develop friendly and cooperative relations between the peoples of North Korea and Palestine," "His noble accomplishments will always be remembered by not only Palestinians but also the international community".

These are words once spoken by Yasser Arafat: "To Jerusalem we will march-millions of martyrs. And, O God, Master of the Universe, please let me be one of the martyrs. - Al-jihad, al-jihad, al-jihad, al-jihad, al-jihad, al-jihad" (Holy war, holy war, holy war, holy war, holy war, holy war.).

The last saccharine filled words of the day have to belong to the senior apologist for Palestinian terrorism Hannan Ashrawi. This lady has for years used her exceptional oratorical skills to no other purpose than to spew out vile lies and propaganda, faster than Palestinians bullets can be plowed into the head of a pregnant mother and her 4 little daughters.

Commenting on the outpouring of grief at the funeral in Ramallah she described Arafat as a man of the people - a great leader, a great statesman and a great father.

The funeral she added is "Quintessential Arafat" - "he would have loved it"

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net ).

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, November 12, 2004.

While Fatah accuses Israel of poisoning Arafat, it has avoided looking at the more obvious possible culprit in Arafat's long overdue demise. As usual, logic and reality are vacant from the Islamist mindset. But if they thought about who would gain and who would lose from Arafat's death, the evident choice is France as the winner.

Almost a year ago I came out with a piece called "Tomorrow Was a Holiday." In it, I described several possible scenarios about the aftermath of Arafat's death. The man must have read my work because within a week of what I wrote, he declared he was dying and that the Israelis had poisoned him. This in spite of the fact that in all the scenarios I laid out, not one included assassination by Israel or anyone else. So it is only natural that his Islamist robots of hate -- Fatah -- would immediately accuse Israel of poisoning their infernal leader.

So let's talk France and the mystery surrounding Arafat's one-way ticket to Hell. France had been an imperialist power for a very long time. Even today, it is being booted out of the Ivory Coast where France had controlled the lives and economy of Africans for many years. French imperialism has a history going back at least 300 years.

From Asia to Africa to Europe to the Middle East and parts of the Americas, many nations felt the heel of French hegemony. But no more. France has become a pissant second-rate country in the sport of international politics. And she hates it. She is also addicted to Arab oil. And she is overwhelmed with Islamist invaders. There is nothing France would like better than to get back in the game and control other county's destinies to her advantage. Enter an ailing Arafat.

Never let it be said that France let's the grass grow under her pieds. With Arafat's estranged (and probably inconsummate) wife having recently become a French citizen, France saw an ideal opportunity for a coup in the Middle East on her own soil.

First France welcomes the ailing despot and rushes a conscious and smiling tyrant into a locked-down hospital. Now it controlled not merely him, but all information surrounding him. Suddenly there are reports that the smiling, joking and very much conscious terrorist is in a coma. Then there are reports that he is not. Then he is suddenly whisked to a military hospital which most likely has better security and therefore more able to isolate him.

Next come the vague French reports. 'He's sleeping, he's in a coma, his condition is unchanged, we do not know what's wrong with him but we can rule out poisoning.' And then a clampdown on French medical reports altogether except to say "his condition is very complicated." Then suddenly Arafat is in an irreversible coma and then dead, with no diagnosis and no autopsy. All under complete secrecy.

Meanwhile, France has interjected herself in internal Arab affairs. Although Arafat had not seen his wife Suha in about four years, France -- through the bootlicking Chirac -- used French law to prevent legitimate representatives of the Arabs have any say in what was transpiring. Instead, they imposed the law and let Arafat's estranged wife call the shots to their favor.

This meant that Suha was in complete control of who got to see him. And the last thing she wanted was for the legitimate representatives and successors to see her shenanigans. For one, Suha had her eye on the Arab pocketbooks. Although she has spent nary a shekel on making herself look like anything other than an overweight man in drag, she still needed $22 million per year to maintain her lifestyle of obscenely decadent luxury.

By blocking the legitimate representatives and successors of the Arab people now occupying Jewish Palestine, France right away put herself squarely on the side of the terrorist and radical Islamist groups. And France figured that with those animals in their corner, France would be the one legitimate country to have a voice in what went on in Jewish Palestine, assuming the radicals could take over -- which is what France has been counting on.

But the radicals couldn't take over until Arafat died. So he went from smiling and waving in the Middle East, to dead on French soil in a matter of days.

As to why no autopsy, well there's at least one reason beyond the obvious one that they might have killed him for their own political purposes. (And if you believe the French line that they do not know what killed Arafat, I got an Eiffel Tower in Kansas I want to sell you.) The first and foremost reason the French made sure no one knew what did in Arafat was because in all likelihood, Arafat, who was a confirmed homosexual, probably had AIDS.

The deputy chief of Romanian foreign intelligence under the Ceaucescu regime, Ion Pacepa, states in his memoirs that the Romanian government bugged Arafat's quarters and had recordings of the Arab leader in orgies with his security detail. At the time, Arafat was working for and with the Soviet satellite.

Meanwhile, various Israeli security sources suggested publicly that Arafat might be homosexual. They claim to have placed a Mossad double agent as Arafat's former personal driver. And he is reported to have been ordered find teenage boys to bring back to the PLO leader.

In the Arab world, knowing this would have brought great shame and Arabs, in their primitive and irrational reactions, they would have blamed the messenger of such news -- France.

So did France murder Arafat? They had many motives, to include a desire to inject themselves onto the international stage where oil is a commodity. They also have willing hosted an explosively procreating Islamist population which they may be seeking to appease. Did France have opportunity? They had a whole week in which they used the Suha excuse to prevent anyone they did not want nosing around to keep them out. Is France now covering it up? One must ask why some of the best doctors and equipment, with no expenses spared, couldn't determine what was wrong beyond saying it was not bacterial, viral, poisoning or cancer. That covers just about everything except AIDS and or murder.

And by the way, if I were the Arabs now living with hunger and in running raw sewage, I would demand that a genetics test be given to the supposed daughter of Yasser Arafat before I paid out one sou of the $22million/per year annuity your leaders just signed away to Suha, as well as any inheritance her daughter might receive. Arafat may have been a homosexual who liked teenaged boys, but you do not have to live in squalor to propagate a lie for a dead queer who turned your lives into generations of poverty and misery.

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles. Her website address is http://hometown.aol.com/goodtree

To Go To Top
Posted by Yocheved Golani, November 12, 2004.

[gasp] I'm watching happy faces twirling around me, as dancers bounce along to the thrilling tunes I heard when I became frum over 30 years ago. [sway, clap, turn] Only then I didn't quite understand the lyrics or what they meant, let alone the allegiances I was in the midst of developing. Heh harim... yism'chu...

[deep breath, kick, twirl, turn] I had to learn the lingo of being a religious Jew [kavod habriyot, we honor the creations of the Alm-ghty]. The yes's and no's of what Jews do and don't do (NEGatory on actions that demean yourself and/or others, and Groovy to do things that enhance your dignity and other peoples'). Kol haolam kulo gesher tzaar m'od... Who hates us (Everybody) ... [stomp, step, hop] Yerushalayim, ah ha hahaaaaa... Becoming religious as a pre-teen was fun! Except for that worrisome business about the Russian Jews stuck behind the Iron Curtain, so in need of sugar and candles ("Sweet lives and the light of freedom," the rabbis explained their mysterious allusions). And the fact that so many holidays marked renewed efforts, century after century, to exterminate the Jews (they tried to kill us, they lost, let's eat!).

Bashana haba'ah, nesheiv al hamirpeset... The world of baalei teshuva, the newly observant Jews of all ages, swept the Jewish world. Tziporim node'dot... We reassured each other that all would "be for the best." Poogy made us laugh about the soldiers who offered in comic song, "Goliath's too big. Gotta run!"

I came twice to learn Ivrit in Israel as my circle of friends grew with my courage to try the new and exotic. I earned high school foreign language credits, learned to love s'chug, washing my laundry in tubs, telefon asimonim on my handmade necklace, and bougainvillea.

My horizons on two continents widened with the lofty philosophies of Rashi, Rambam, and Hirsch just as the world's physical horizons began dripping blood falling from the skies as Yasser Arafat created a new form of piracy: kidnapping and murdering airline passengers. I didn't feel like dancing anymore. Poom-poom pa-pa-poom, Disco came and went and I never owned a pair of go-go boots. Boom-chicka-boom, my people were dying on the news and in my neighborhood. Pitchu li, shaarei tzedek... Soulful lyrics began captivating harmonies that poured from the creative minds of Jewish musicians and singers. My heart journeyed into lofty ideals as the eyes and hearts of my friends and I filled with tears for the Jews we were losing to bloodshed, assimilation and chilling indifference. Ani od chai,chai, chai...

Fast forward to adulthood. [Kawl ha'olam gesher tza'ar m'od] Arab skyjackings transmogrified into the wholesale, indiscriminate slaughtering of unarmed innocents in airports, schools, homes, and buses. Japanese terrorists came to care about Muslim hatred for Abraham's descendants for a buck. The music world wondered out loud what would be the next big thing in commercial sales. Some malcontents in Chelsea, England experimented with tunes that curled listeners' ears. Sick music for demented people. There were no dances for this macabre phenomenon. I studied flute, learning to soothe myself and the neighbors with Journeys tunes.

Avo vam... After bringing the horrors of the Vietnam war to America's dinner table, formerly heroic newscasters with notably impartial historical perspectives or flag-bearing fifth estate stances (as they preferred) segued with professional immunity into slanted reporting and snide remarks about Jews. Ignoring the flagrant human rights violations perpetrated by Arab terrorists that frosted their self-righteous hearts only Communist-ruined years before; their years of moral repugnance for the tactics of the Vietcong vanished faster than I can eat a falafel. Punk Rock took itself into a joyless oblivion none too soon.

My appreciation for the incurable condition of Jew-hatred deepens. Then comes the day that my friend Suzy, who became datiah with me when we were just girls, is listening to me screaming between choking sobs, about the tragedy in Tekoa. We are mothers and this horror is incomprehensible. Suzy weeps as she recites tehillim for and with me, as I try to focus on the text. Keil maleh rachamim plays in my head, competing with the dirges of Tisha B'Av that, at times, mysteriously echo in the Purim megilla.

Fast forwarder. In the USA, I attend a memorial for the victims of the Oslo War in a mock graveyard, on Tisha B'Av. After weeks without music per Jewish law, this is the last emotional jerk to my weary system that I can tolerate. My fifth trip to the Holy Land soon follows, my self-created Pilot Trip.

Israel is running with precious Jewish blood that should never have flowed again. Faces all around me droop with emotional weariness as the Oslo War endures. Cell phones chirrup and I hear, "Ima, I'm on the corner of..." "Aba I just left the store. I'll be at the bus on time and you'll see me come home. I promise." "I'm okay. I'm okay. Oyvavoy. Where did it happen?" Five months later, I live in Israel, part of Nefesh B'Nefesh's first wave. [High-stepping pride] Heveinu shalom aleichem, the crying soldiers and airport staff sing to us on Ben-Gurion's tarmac. After settling into my new neighborhood, I joke to everyone that I came on the Jewish Mayflower of the air. We will beat back the killers with our will to live in our G'D-given home. Shalom, shalom, shalom aleichem!

Vacillating between my dread of buses and my determination to live a full if carless life in Israel, I pursue my journalism career by commuting all over the map. Halaila, halaila... Then my friend and almost-neighbor Lenny Solomon composes Rak Mashiach, a.k.a. B'itah Achishena, giving fresh voice to global Jewish longing for the Messiah. He gets audiences dancing in the aisles, outdoors and at home in Israel and abroad. Boom! We lose so many soldiers, and other precious souls. We need this to end. Who can bear the crying and crying? Our legs are sore from sitting on the ground, our voices strained from weeping. Even the birds overhead don't sing, I note in my coverage of the Chatuel family shiva.

Then a strange tune came over the air as a Monty Python-esque debate breaks out. Downbeat: he's unconscious and dying. Upbeat: his condition is improving. Ba-da-ba! He's dead and his condition is stable. [kick, kick, tappy tap] The terrorist parrot in the khaki plumage is no more. Despite the parrot-sellers' denials, the truth is what it is and song breaks out in the Jewish world. [one leg over and the other behind, side step, repeat, arms aloft to praise HaShem]. We are on the verge of Shabbat Parshat Toldot, when we learn to distinguish good from evil.

Nachum Segal's radio show Jewish Moments in the Morning shakes the reality into joyous Jewish minds as he dutifully notes the rabbinic debate regarding the permissibility of celebrating the monster's demise. I hear the music and rejoice. I hear Lenny Solomon's Ki V Simcha, a Hava Nagila, Haamini yom yavo, Ofra Haza's Chai, Poogy's hilarious take on a buried, despicable dog Po Kavoor Hakelev Kaveret, and the wrenching Shir Lismoach from Voices for Israel, written by Victim of Terror Malki Roth, before her murder in Jerusalem.

A quick E-mail to my friends outside the Holy Land begs them to "listen to the archives of www.jmintheam.org and celebrate y'makh sh'mo's demise! Poogy & more, from our early 'dancin' cuz we became frum' days! We've come full circle. We are here and y'makh sh'mo is not!" And I realize that I understand the allegiances I developed since long ago, the lyrics and what they meant. Anachnu kan... Heh harim... yism'chu... Come and dance with me! The whole country (the frummies therein) is celebrating. I am now off to dance at a local l'chayim, then I'll be joining Moshe Feiglin's on Sunday, at Binyanei Ha'Uma B"EH, from where I'll be reporting on the event.

This news has a good beat, I can dance to it.
Shabbat shalom,

Yochev Golani can be contacted at www.yochevedgolani.com or www.ygolani.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, November 12, 2004.
This was written by Eli Levy and appeared in Ma'ariv (http://www.maarivintl.con/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=11563

Survivors of Beslan terror attack arrive in Israel for three-week visit 18 children who witnessed horror in Russian town will be guests of the City of Ashkelon.

Thirty-eight residents of Beslan, including 18 children who survived the school carnage in the town, arrived this (Sunday) morning at the Haifa Port and will be guests of the city of Ashkelon in the next three weeks.

The initiators of the visit, city mayor Roni Mahatzari and Moshe Mano of "Mano Shipping", have expressed hope they would be able to provide their guests with three weeks of great experiences that would hopefully help them deal with their tragedy.

On Monday, the children will be examined at the Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon and will then commence their journeys across Israel. They will be staying at the French Vacation Village in Ashkelon.

According to Mahatzari, "As a nation that has so much experience in dealing with terrorism, I believe we have something to offer countries such as Russia regarding the treatment of children who are victims of terror."

Head of the Beslan delegation, Allan Dubayev, said that the town of Beslan would like to thank the City of Ashkelon and all those who were involved in bringing the children to Israel.

The connection between Beslan and Ashkelon began in the beginning of September. After the atrocious attack perpetrated by Chechnya rebels left 330 adults and children dead, Mahatzari wrote a letter to his counterpart in which he had offered to host children who were victims of the attack.

The City of Ashkelon, the Even Ezer Foundation and the Organization of Olim from the Caucuses financed the trip.

To Go To Top
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 12, 2004.
This was written by Alan Dershowitz and appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

Yasser Arafat was the godfather of international terrorism who dashed his people's hope for statehood, stole billions of dollars intended for the relief of their suffering, and indoctrinated their children with so much hatred that they willingly turned themselves into human bombs.

He did manage to leapfrog the Palestinian cause over equally or more deserving causes - such as Tibetan freedom, Kurdish independence, and Basque statehood - by wielding three immoral weapons: first, international terrorism on a scale previously unknown to the world; second, an alliance with oil-rich states willing to extort support for his cause by energy blackmail; and third, exploitation of international anti-Semitism against the Jewish state.

Arafat was personally responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent Israelis, hundreds of innocent Americans, and countless others. Like other ethnically motivated butchers before him, he delighted in killing Jewish children, as he did in several well-planned attacks on Israeli schools and nurseries. He also personally ordered the murder of hundreds of his own people who disagreed with him or collaborated with Israel. Never a man to tolerate dissent, he employed bullets rather than arguments to respond to his critics.

Arafat was the inspiration for Osama bin Laden, because he proved to his eager student that terrorism works and that terrorists can be praised and rewarded by a craven world, as Arafat was by so many for so long.

Arafat was not one of those leaders who could, a la Nelson Mandela, make the transition from terrorist to peacemaker. He never learned how to take "yes" for an answer and he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

According to former president Bill Clinton and his chief adviser, Dennis Ross, Arafat was personally responsible for the failure of Camp David and Taba to produce statehood for the Palestinians in 2000-2001. Instead of now celebrating their third anniversary of statehood, the Palestinians have suffered thousands of casualties and years of self-inflicted pain, while inflicting death and suffering on the Israelis as well.

Arafat's legacy is one of bloodshed and war, yet tears are being shed over his peaceful passing, not only by Palestinians but by many Europeans as well. Had Arafat accepted the offer of statehood, his body could have been buried in the part of Jerusalem that would have been the capital of the Palestinian state instead of in the rubble of Ramallah.

The world made a terrible mistake by not treating Arafat as a criminal.

He should have been indicted for ordering the murder of American diplomats, Israeli athletes, and international travelers instead of being praised for his "courage." It takes no courage to kill the helpless and much courage to risk one's own life in pursuit of peace. It was such courage that Arafat lacked.

The Nobel Peace Prize was cheapened by being awarded to this hater of peace. The Vatican was tarnished by its frequent welcoming of a man who violated every teaching of the Church. The United Nations was trivialized by its lionization of this coward. And terrorism was encouraged by the rewards Arafat received for his murders.

In the end, Arafat was a lucky man, lucky because his perceived enemy was the Jewish state. Had his enemy been a Christian or Muslim or communist state, he would never have received a pass for his mass murder. He understood the world's lingering anti-Semitism better than most, and he exploited it for all it was worth. Those grandchildren of Europeans who supported or welcomed Hitler and who willingly allowed their lingering bigotry to be exploited were complicit in his evil.

Eventually, the Palestinians will have their state, when they finally reject the legacy of their failed leader Yasser Arafat. When Palestinian statehood is declared, Arafat will posthumously receive much of the credit. He will not deserve it. A more farsighted leader would have done more for his people, less for his own pocketbook, and better for the world than did Hitler's failed successor and bin Laden's successful predecessor - Yasser Arafat.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes."

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 12, 2004.

Where life and death matters, the majority should have no dominant weight over the minority.

Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has gathered around himself a small number of political sycophants who will follow Sharon's dictates blindly if nothing more than to keep their paying jobs. Add to that, a gathering of the Leftist Parties who always pressed for a division of the nation along with its de-Judification.

These are the self-serving majority - many of whom have engaged in secret negotiations with Yassir Arafat when it was illegal to do so. This evolved into Olso with the same M.O. (Modus Operandi).

These are the self-serving majority who have been enlisted by Sharon to decide the fate of a minority of Jews who just happen to believe that the Land was truly gifted to the Jewish people by G-d's Eternal Covenant 3000 years ago.

But, even for those who believe in nothing more than themselves, the Land they developed and make bloom was lost by Arab Muslim aggressors in six wars intended to annihilate the Jewish people.

The Jews have accepted the most minimal amount of Land on which to create the only Jewish State in the world but, the Arab Muslim nations rejected any Jewish presence on what they declared was theirs by virtue of their 7th century conquest. The Muslim Arabs promised that they would re-occupy all the Land they had ever set foot on and that the Jews would be pushed into the Sea (the Mediterranean Sea). Take that to mean: dead!

Since 1948's Declaration of Independence for the modern State of Israel, the Arab Muslims have initiated six wars with continual Terrorism in between and on-going. Each time the Muslim Arabs lost but, they were so willing to fight and die in their gamble to win just one time. That's all it would take to replace the Jewish State with Muslim Arabs. If the Arab Muslims could win just once, there would not be one Jew left on the Land - including Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres and the entire Left Liberal mob.

I cannot help but wonder what pathological aberrant behavior draws Left Liberals invariably to ally with their enemies and betray those who should be closest to them.

Clearly, it is time to convene a Peoples' Court and try those who endanger the people, including those already murdered because of Oslo. I say a "Peoples' Court" because it is evident that Israeli courts are extremely biased - coupled with a runaway government whose leader has reverted to dictatorial actions!

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by Morris J. Amitay, November 12, 2004.

Now that the results of the elections are being digested there are a number of lessons to be learned. For one, it will be a long time before exit polls will be considered reliable in predicting the winners in key states. A flawed sample of voters will always produce flawed results, which is exactly what happened on Election Day. Republican doom and gloom in the early afternoon was dissipated only when the actual votes were tallied. Apparently the more enraged and energized Democrats voted early - before noon - when the sampling was done.

In general, there are polls which are designed to get honest results, and then there are the "cooked" ones. The latter are manufactured by pollsters to give their gullible paying clients the results they would like to see. There are also partisan pollsters who substitute their own political agenda for dispassionate analysis. Pollster John Zogby, for instance, (who made his reputation by his one-time success four years ago) was way off this year as he rooted for a Kerry win. (At 5:00 p.m. on Election Day he had Kerry with 311 electoral votes and Bush 213). Similarly, he has for years been "cooking" polls for brother, Jim, head of the Arab-American Institute, which invariably demonstrate a lack of support for Israel by Americans, while wildly inflating the importance of the "Arab" vote. A recent Zogby concoction, for example, had 6 of 10 Americans insisting that AIPAC register as a foreign agent.

With the right sample and the right phrasing of the questions posed you can push your own agenda under a cloak of scientific findings. If you are looking for enlightenment from public opinion surveys, avoid known Democratic or Republican pollsters, or polls commissioned by media with a known bias, and rely instead on independent polls such as the Gallup and the Quinnipiac.

Another lesson to take away from November 2nd is that old-fashioned patriotism and pride in our country are still important factors in American life. With Iraq and the terrorist threat on the minds of many voters, the underlying Kerry theme seemed to be "they hate us - what's wrong with us?" The Bush attitude, on the other hand, was more like "they hate us - what's wrong with them?" The Kerry foreign policy camp spoke about promoting realism and stability in foreign policy - engaging diplomatically with the Iranian regime, for example. Bush, on the other hand, conveyed a more direct message, one of bringing about change and spreading democracy. The self-flagellation of liberal columnists over Abu Ghraib and the excesses of a Michael Moore obviously did not play well with that many Americans.

Something else we learned is that while three quarters of Jewish Americans still vote Democratic, this could slowly be changing - not only because Congressional Republicans and the incumbent President have been more sympathetic to Israel's concerns but because there are limits to altruistically voting against one's self interest. Whether it be about taxes, affirmative action, or the anti-Semitism rampant in the extreme left-wing of the Democratic Party, sooner or later reality must set in. To some extent this has already happened as the Jewish vote for Bush increased dramatically in key Jewish precincts in Florida and Ohio over his 2000 vote. Nationwide, the increase from 19% to 25% was not insignificant. But why Jewish Americans and Arab Americans both voted overwhelmingly for Kerry is a fit question to ponder particularly since it is Jews who are supposed to be smart.

A final lesson is that the old maxim, you can't beat someone with nobody, applied when it came to Bush versus Kerry. It wasn't simply enough to be hysterically anti-Bush when his opponent had little to show in the way of accomplishment for his almost twenty years in the U.S. Senate. By many measures Bush was vulnerable - as the NY Times and Washington Post delighted in pointing out ad nauseum on a daily basis. But John Kerry, for all of his erudition and articulation could not define himself and generate enthusiasm for his candidacy. Bush, on the other hand, with more limited skills, evoked trust and likeability. After the election, Democrats were left asking themselves - to paraphrase Pogo - "how could we lose when we are so smart?"

In moving to confront the challenges of dealing with Iraq, Iran, world-wide terrorism, N. Korea, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the President will have been strengthened by gaining slightly stronger majorities in both Houses of Congress. The pro-Israel community should expect that there will be no diminution of the high level of support Israel enjoys on Capitol Hill. With the retirement of Senator "Fritz" Hollings of S. Carolina, only one other Senator, octogenarian Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, can be considered anti-Israel, with just a handful of other solons being critical now and then. In the House, out of 435 members, only some 15-20 Members (mostly Democrats) can be considered unfriendly. But, this support should never be taken for granted despite the righteousness of our cause.

The lesson here is that a relatively small number of pro-Israel activists dedicated to the proposition that a secure Israel is in the best interests of the United States have continued to make a huge difference. With the support of the United States so crucial for Israel's future security and well-being, it is this political activism which will be needed more than ever. And, hopefully, this cause will be taken up by even more Jewish Americans in the months and years ahead.

Morrie Amitay is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (www.washingtonpac.com).

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Lee, November 12, 2004.

I received an important warning against directly publishing links for anti-Israel sites on a pro-Israel site. Apparently, search engines like Google check the number of times a site is linked as well as how many times a link is used when determining "rating". Indeed, this person found my site by going through links connected to JewWatch!

I am in the process of correcting the problem for the JWD site. My husband (a software engineer) told me that correcting the problem is as simple as putting spaces between the letters of the URL. For example, if the URL I wished to disable were my own, I would type in the link as: http://j w d - j e w i s h w a t c h d o g. comcast. net. Then, a search engine scanning my site would not be able to pick it up. Yet the information to verify what was said in the alert is still readily available.

Please take steps to stop giving unintended assistance to the very sites that we are trying to discredit and pass this information along.

Am Yisroel Chai! Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net ).

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 12, 2004.


The more mystery surrounds Arafat's ailment, the more speculation surfaces. The secret of Arafat's homosexuality was let out when the former dictator of Romania, no gentle soul he, could not contain his own disgust over the filthy life of Arafat. Arafat's symptoms parallel those of AIDS - especially the loss of weight and immune capability. Other readers of Barry Chamish surmised likewise. Our guess, however, is kept submerged by the major media. I don't know their reason, can imagine it, and see no justification for this kind of censorship, especially in behalf of a crooked mass-murderer. This same media betrays national military secrets in the name of the people's right to know.

Ironically, Arafat's P.A. persecutes homosexuals. Hypocrisy looms large in human behavior.


You see people holding leashed small dogs practically strangling themselves in lunging at other dogs. The UNO is like the dog's master holding that leash. The UNO sends peacekeepers in between formerly warring and currently still antagonistic parties, lest they lunge at each other.

As they say, war is hell. It is less hellish, however, as fought by the US and Israel. Those two parties strive to reduce casualties, those of their own forces and of enemy civilians. Their medical services save lives that formerly perished of wounds and disease. The US and Israel send relief to enemy populations. On the other hand, super weapons are proliferating, and Islamists want them to inflict maximum casualties on whole populations of innocents.

The defenders against aggression usually are fighting a just war, or at least for a just cause in a war. Against the Evil Axis, this may require what seem to be, but really are not, pre-emptive strikes. Many Americans are not reconciled to pre-emptive strikes as defensive. They think in direct terms. An aggressor makes an open attack, so one retaliates. They need to understand that an axis of aggression does not involve all its members openly or continuously.

American and Israeli societies have evolved to the point of reluctance to war. Arab society has not evolved; it still exults in war. Arab aggression makes a dangerous combination with today's super-weapons. For the present, however, Western societies have become used to low casualty rates. They often anticipate impossibly low casualties both for their own troops and for the Islamists' civilian population. When these figures are exceeded, they turn against even a just war. If the political party in power is not theirs, some of them lack sufficient patriotism to resist temptation to deny the war's necessity and to seek excuses for armistice. Do they suppose that we can fight a war without any casualties? Not with current technology.

Disappointment when unrealistic anticipations are not met engenders defeatism. People have not learned the consequences of failure to persist, though our enemies count on it to enable them to avoid defeat. The consequences are like those of not taking "a stitch in time." By the time they react, peacekeepers are insufficient, heavy armor and full combat is required.

We need a policy that defines fairly clearly under what conditions we should intervene and how early we should intervene. It would be a lot cheaper to send in a few troops before full-scale war breaks out, to minimize the conflict, than to have to send in many troops to wage full-scale war.

Prevention would be even better than early intervention. What might prevent some of the wars? Separation of rival ethnic groups. It was the solution for Greece and Turkey and, to the extent it was implemented, for India and Pakistan. If the UNO were worth its salt, it would be working on that, instead of encouraging Arab aggression against Israel. The US supposes that fostering democracy would prevent war. In some cultures, it might. In other cultures, it might not or democracy might not take hold. Arab culture largely is antagonistic to Western democracy.


Israeli religious parties long have stomached and propped up governing coalitions whose appeasement of the Arabs undermine national survival. The payback was financial support for religious institutions and some influence in defending the country's religious principles.

Now Israel has a government whose appeasement invites tremendous casualties and national destruction, reduces expenditures for religious education, and is out to eradicate Jewish religious influence in the country. Nevertheless, some of the religious parties find it agonizing to decide to leave the coalition. They try to hang on as long as possible to what remaining influence they flatter themselves they would retain. Unthinkingly, they help prepare the way for their country' conquest, in which their religion would be extinguished along with their lives.

The supposedly nationalist leaders of the Likud haven't the excuse that they are protecting what they can of religious education. They simply are preserving their Knesset and Cabinet seats. Several are keeping themselves positioned to succeed Sharon as Prime Minister, though the Arabs are more likely to take over, the way Israel is going. They have placed their immediate self-interest over the intermediate national interest. They are playing with the lives that Sharon's retreat from Gaza would jeopardize. Finance Min. Netanyahu makes economic reforms, but lets billions of dollars be wasted in a perpetual war. It is persists until Sharon causes Israel to lose its secure boundaries. He should stand up for principle, walk out of the Cabinet, and lead a patriotic revival. He won't take the chance. He and his Cabinet colleagues covet their cushy positions so much as to chance their country's survival.

These politicians are like the person under the blankets, somewhat cold, and knowing it is getting colder, but reluctant to get up in that chilly room to fetch another blanket and solve the problem.


Is Arafat popular in the P.A.? No crowds saw him off. Now that Arafat is out and seems on his way out, a normal Israeli response would be to suspend the abandonment plan. Wait to find out who takes over the P.A.. Perhaps a successor may wish to negotiate peace (not that I expect so.) Perhaps Israel should hold on, and have more to bargain with. Perhaps Arafat's successors would coordinate the abandonment is some way advantageous to Israel.

Acting contrariwise, PM Sharon is expediting abandonment. He insists there is no time to wait to see who would take over. He also had mistakenly said there is no time to wait for a referendum, to find out whether the nation approves his plan. Most of all, however, he did not explain his rush to let terrorists have more opportunity in Gaza to shell Israelis. Not only has he failed to explained his hurry, he has not shown any advantage to this plan that obviously means more opportunity for terrorists. What demon lashes him on?

This plan would benefit some Israelis - the ones in Sharon's circle. They have a stake in a new P.A. casino to be built on the vacated land. The abandonment plan is appeasement to the US and site-acquisition for private investors. Intimidation is being used for site-clearance - criticism is called indictable "incitement." It isn't only the P.A. that is corrupt.


"National resistance" still carries a positive connotation in this age of anti-nationalism. It conjures up memories of the worthy WWII Danish resistance and French Maquis. Hence the Arabs usurp the term to justify their religious (not national) terrorism and defense of dictatorship. The Arabs apply the term to terrorism against Israel and insurrection against the new Iraqi government.


Jonathan Pollard's wife has filed the facts in her husband's case on a web site. There is no excuse for publishing misinformation about the case. The "Jerusalem Post" periodically does, however. Mrs. Pollard complains that when she points out its errors to the "Post," the editors apologize to her privately, but leave intact the damaging impression they made on their readers.

This time the "Post" resurrected an old canard that Pollard "sold" secrets to Israel, as if he were a mercenary and a rogue agent. He was a regular agent, assigned to transferring intelligence about the Arabs to Israel. "Post" misrepresentation damages his case. The newspaper ought to be more responsible about the facts, especially since his life depends on success in this case (IMRA, 10/31), because he has a life sentence and is in poor health.

Character flaws and institutional weakness prompts prosecutors and defense attorneys to misrepresent their cases, in an attempt to sway public opinion. The US abused Pollard this way. He was a pawn in a bigger game. There is less excuse for newspapers to do this.

People remark, "We don't know everything that is going on." That sweeping statement often is an excuse for avoiding acknowledgment of what someone else knows well. The statement would sit better if followed by some awareness that the Establishment deliberately seeks to keep us from knowing what we must and what we are entitled to, so that it can manipulate us. Instead, the public is skeptical only of dissenters, on certain issues, such as the Pollard case.


The Director of the Jenin Center for Strategic Studies complains that the Arab and Western intellectuals are at loggerheads on the Arab-Israel conflict. IMRA complains that too often they are not. Many Western intellectuals, by their anti-Zionist positions, exacerbate the conflict by Islamic extremists. The Director wants Arab intellectuals to condemn the extremists, instead of defending them by arguments based on moral relativity.

The Director tries to balance off Muslim extremists by asserting the existence of Western ones, such as believers that the earth is flat. IMRA points out the irrelevant nonsense of that claim, and notes that there are "oddballs" among Western intellectuals, but they don't murder people (IMRA, 11/1 from Jordan Times). Is there any Westerner alive who thinks the Earth is flat? Would you call him an intellectual?

The Director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group writes, "In America today, an Arab community of some 3 to 4 million (or 2 million) has no voice because it is afraid." IMRA disagrees, noting that they are outspoken about their situation in the US and take strong positions against the US and Israel (IMRA, 11/1).

The Arabs like to pretend that they are persecuted. It gains sympathy or redirects the spotlight from their persecution of others or their outrageous bids to take over other people's countries.


Arafat released millions of dollars to his PLO militia, at the same time that he failed to pay the salaries of the official P.A. security forces. The militia gradually took over some P.A. towns from the security forces. Anarchy resulted there. Arafat treated people with duplicity. Nobody knew whom to trust. That is how Arafat kept himself in power (IMRA, 10/1). Then foreign powers blame Israel for the decay of the security forces, pretend that these forces would crack down on terrorism if stronger, and are building them up. Arafat, however, used them not to crack down on terrorism but to crack down on counter-terrorism and on Arab criticism of his policy.

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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Elan Journo, November 12, 2004.

What made Yasir Arafat's final days appalling was not the farcical prevarications about whether he were dead or alive, nor the soap-opera quarrel between his wife and his political cronies; it was that so evil a man commanded so much respect.

Since his airlift to a Paris hospital, as the welcomed guest of the French government and with throngs of journalists on the scene, Arafat's death has been presented as the heartbreaking end of a noble man. Reacting to a premature report of Arafat's death, President Bush wished that "God bless his soul." Upon Arafat's death, Jacques Chirac lauded him as "a man of courage and conviction." The French gave him a military salute as Arafat's coffin was sent to his funeral in Egypt, which many heads of state are expected to attend.

Why do the West's politicians hold in such high esteem a man who unleashed a ferocious campaign of international terrorism that, across a span of forty years, has claimed the lives of thousands of Israeli, Lebanese, Jordanian, Palestinian, and American civilians?

Arafat specialized in high-profile attacks targeting civilians, in order to inflict the severest psychological devastation. The slaughter of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics; the assassination of American diplomats in Sudan; the massacre of school children in Maalot, Israel (a model for the recent mass murder at a high school in Beslan, Russia); the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, in which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was tossed overboard--Arafat was responsible for these and hundreds of other kidnappings, car-bombings, hijackings, and brutal murders. Also, during the 1970s he fomented bloody civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon.

But did he not renounce his terrorist ways later in life (as though this would be enough to earn forgiveness)?

Certainly in the 1990s European and American politicians embraced Arafat as a peacemaker, granting him recognition as a statesman. President Clinton met with him more often than with any other international leader (24 times in eight years). And in 1994 Arafat co-won the Nobel Peace Prize. But his willingness to make peace with Israel was a transparent lie. Though he publicly renounced terrorism in words addressed to Western audiences, he never did so in action (nor even in words, when speaking to the Arab world).

From the outset Arafat flouted practically every provision of a 1993 peace accord--most notably the provision to quell terrorism against Israel. The vast armed "police force" he created actually conspired with and often actively supported terrorists. And, calling for "martyrs by the millions," Arafat fostered the deployment of suicide bombers. In 2001 he told the family of one bomber: "The heroic martyrdom operation [of the man] who turned his body into a bomb [is] the model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland."

None of this dissuaded Western leaders (including President Bush, who sought to marginalize Arafat somewhat) from supporting the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in areas governed by Arafat's provisional Palestinian Authority. And this was so even though the evidence was abundant that such a state would become a sponsor of terrorism. In 2002, for example, Arafat's forces were caught trying to smuggle into the Gaza Strip 50 tons of weapons and ammunitions, including one ton of C-4 explosives, and more than 60 Katyusha rockets, capable of hitting most cities in Israel.

Politicians eager to regard Arafat as a heroic "liberator" of Palestinians were also undaunted by his dictatorial rule over the Palestinian Authority. That governing body systematically violates the rights of its citizens. Arafat's "police" force--eight or so competing gangs of thugs--arbitrarily arrests citizens, confiscates property, and murders his political opponents. (The victims were denounced under the catch-all charge of "collaborating" with Israel.) The PA's chaotic judiciary made a mockery of the rule of law; its judges served not justice, but Arafat.

But far from condemning Arafat's vicious rule, the European Union and America supported it with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid.

This extravagant tolerance of Arafat, given his blood-soaked record, is not due to ignorance on the part of our politicians. It comes from the precept that moral judgment is an obstacle to action. This is the view that moral principles are an impediment to achieving practical aims, such as peace. One should, on this view, remain morally neutral--even though one side may be clearly in the right--and try to engage both sides in gentlemanly negotiation--even though one side may be a murderous thug.

Because moral neutrality is such an obviously immoral policy, its perpetrators must blacken the good while whitewashing the evil. Hence, world leaders condemn Israel, the innocent victim who refuses to submit, and lionize Arafat, the ruthless killer.

Arafat's elevation to the dignity of a peace-seeking statesman is due to our politicians' moral corruption. Were he judged properly, Arafat would long ago have been dealt the punishment he deserved. By sustaining him and perpetuating the delusion that Arafat was really a well-meaning statesman, politicians committed treason to his innocent victims.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org), in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Send reactions to reaction@aynrand.org.

To Go To Top
Posted by David Wilder, November 12, 2004.

Regression: Hebron returned to terrorists

Hebron community leaders were notified this morning that the H1 section of Hebron has been returned to the terrorists.

Seven years ago Hebron was divided into two sections:
H1 - under full control of the palestinian authority, including armed 'police.'
H2 - under full Israeli security (the Jewish community of Hebron section.)

Following outbreak of the "Oslo War" and the Passover massacre in Netanya, the Israeli army moved back into the H1 area, taking full control of the city. However, prior to the Sharon-Barak elections, then Defense minister Fuad ben Eliezer, withdrew the army from H1, again leaving it under terrorist control. As a result of that withdrawal, terrorists planned and perpetrated a major terror attack on a Friday night between Hebron and Kiryat Arba, leaving 12 Israeli soldiers and civilians dead, including the Commander of the Hebron region, Col. Dror Weinberg.

Since then, all of Hebron has been under total Israeli security control.

Yesterday Israel again relinquished security control of the H1 area (excepting the hills overlooking Hebron's Jewish community). Uniformed armed terrorists are again free to roam the city, under the guise of 'police.' Israeli security forces are forbidden from entering that part of the city without an expressed permit from the commander of the Central Region, General Moshe Kaplinsky.

Hebron's leadership will conduct an emergency meeting early next week to examine the situation and decide upon a course of action.

A Hebron spokesman issued the following statement: Ariel Sharon and Shaul Mufaz have decided to conduct experiments using human guinea pigs. Following Arafat's death, it seems that they wish to give their new 'partners' a chance, an experiment which may lead to continued terror and bloodshed in Hebron.

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Arafat remained a terrorist until his dying day, and his legacy can only be spelled T-E-R-R-O-R. This is what he has passed on to whomever replaces him, the person who inevitable is able to kill off more competitors than his opponents.

Without doubt, one the first goals of Arab terror organizations, namely Hamas, Fatah, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad, Hizballah and others, is to kill as many Jews as possible, in the shortest period of time, thereby proving their leadership abilities. The decision to allow armed Arabs to patrol in Hebron, is not only irresponsible: it is criminal. Should Jewish blood be shed, those responsible will be held accountable.


As we post, it is reported that Arabs are hurling rocks at Jewish homes in Hebron. The army has yet to respond.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 12, 2004.
Dear Friends: This article was written November 3rd but, sadly computer troubles preventing us from sending it to you. Most of these prognostications are still true and valid - for your consideration - on 11/12 (sort of resonates with 9/11 & 3/11!) after Arafat's death was announced in France at 3:30 am. on 11/11. Shabbat Shalom

The following are scenarios that are possible, probable and in no order of sequence:

1. Yasser Arafat dies.

2. His aides rush back to jockey for power as heir apparent.

3. Naturally, people pour into the streets, with terrorists stoking the hysteria inherent in the Arab Muslim people.

4. The theme will somehow focus on Israel making Arafat's death synonymous with Israel's existence. Watch for an outpouring that 'somehow' Israel poisoned their beloved leader which will quickly be accepted by the Muslim Arab Palestinians and in other Arab nations.

5. Look for one of those infamous hysterical burial parades carrying the coffin of Arafat. They will (eventually) try to bury Arafat in the Arab cemetery just East of the Temple Mount. The Israelis will stop the burial parade and the terrorists will urge an all-out attack at the checkpoints. Their hope will be that such a riot will ignite all Arab Muslims.

What to look for: Whoever takes over 'temporarily' will appeal to President Bush to force Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to allow Arafat to be buried in Jerusalem. The question is: Will Bush cave in to this request? Will Sharon cave in to such a request from Bush?

There will be talk of a compromise burial site at Abu Dis (or Ramallah). The Palestinian Muslim terrorist/leadership needs to plant Arafat somewhere near Jerusalem in order to increase their claim on Jerusalem as the capital of another Arab Muslim Palestinian State. Arafat may be worth more dead as the "Great Martyr" than alive.

6. Arafat's death will see a push by Bush to state that, now there is someone to talk to and he can accelerate the Road Map which was taken from his June 2002 speech and distorted by the "Quartet" (the pro-Arab U.S. State Department, the U.N., the E.U. and Russia). All subsequent(and past) Terrorist operations will be ignored in trying to create a public perception that peace is on the way.

7. The warring factions of Terror will turn their attention to capturing leadership. Above all, the winner expects to claim the Arafat money pot which could be in the Billions - donated by the generous Free West to the 'poor' Arab Muslim Palestinians and hidden away by Arafat.

8. I believe that Israel will see a substantial increase in Terror as each Terrorist group tries to prove that they are the best at killing Jews.

9. Sharon will probably try to bond with the Leftist Labor Party and move into early elections while he is attacked from every direction. While the Terrorists ramp up their attacks, Sharon will send troops against the Jewish men, women and children of Gaza/Gush Katif (later the rest of YESHA - Yehuda, Shomron, and Gaza) - possibly igniting a Civil War of Jews against Jews.

10. Likud will split, making it unimportant in coming elections.

11. Bibi Netanyahu has confirmed his tendencies to waffle and is unable to stay the course.

12. Uzi Landau would reluctantly run for Prime Minister under the theme: "One Honest Man".

13. Watch for France, leading the E.U., try to bring troops into Gaza and, in essence, become a barrier against Israel's rapid retaliatory response against Kassem rockets and other Terrorist attacks.

14. The question is: Who won't show up at the Arafat Funeral Show, weeping crocodile tears? Let's see. How about Bill Clinton? Peres will want to go but values his behind too much to show up. Colin Powell, James Baker, trailed by Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk... Jacques Chirac and/or De Vellapan... Jack Straw...Bush Sr. ... and Vladimir Putin has to send some of Arafat's KGB tutors. Some of the Netherlands' underlings... Pat Buchanan... given that the Pope hugged Arafat, surely the Holy See will send someone to insure that the IF Mount of Olives falls into the hands of the Arab Muslim Palestinians Church property will not be confiscated... Feel free to speculate on others who will demean themselves to attend...

15. Suha, Arafat's wife, understands that the money Arafat embezzled from his people and gave to her for 'safekeeping', will be the prime demand to be returned to the PLO. IF she refuses, it is likely that the PLO will assassinate her.

16. As for the burial in Gaza (or Ramallah) - they may put him there but declare adamently that it is only temporary and that they will re-inter him on the Temple Mount when the Arab Muslim Palestinians conquer Jerusalem and ALL of Israel.

Don't be surprised if they sneak him into the Temple Mount on one dark night.

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).

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Yee, November 12, 2004.
"Charities found liable in Hamas Case," JTA news item (http://www.jta.org).

A federal judge found U.S. charities liable for damages in the Hamas terrorist shooting of a U.S. citizen, a decision that is the first of its kind. On Wednesday, Judge Arlander Keys held the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation and another charity, the Islamic Association for Palestine, liable for the May 13, 1996 shooting of 17-year-old David Boim as he waited for a bus in the West Bank. The charities, and a third individual named in the ruling, Mohammed Salah, were liable even if they had no direct involvement in the killing, the judge said, because they realized they were aiding an organization that used violence. A previous lawsuit in Rhode Island targeted Hamas, but not its U.S. supporters. Compensation hearings in the $300 million suit begin in December.

I just thought I'd share to what ridiculous lengths some Americans will go to in order to seem politically correct with the Arabs.

I live less than five miles from Richardson, TX where Holy Land Charities had its main office. The City of Plano has about 235,000 people with about 5,000 Muslims - there are an estimated 7,500 Muslims in Collin County. (Just for the record, Plano is very strongly Republican and Christian. However, even though evangelical Christianity flourishes around here, the anti-Israel bias is a strong here as anywhere else.)

For as long as anyone can remember, elections at all levels have been held at the public schools and the public libraries. Not this one, however.

This year, more than 30,000 people in my district were told to go to the Islamic Association of Collin County to cast their vote for president of the United States! In case you're interested, the day after the election, 11/3/04, CAIR hosted its Ramadan 2004 Campaign at this very same site! (www.cair-net.org/ramadan2004/ramadan2004.asp?page=listings)

The one thing that you couldn't do was miss the building; it is in the shape of a mosque -- dome and all.

I haven't been able to learn why or how the polling site was changed to that site. The election offices of Collin County were just given a list of polling places with their addresses. No one in the federal government has responded to my e-mail of protest or even demand for an explanation.

There was lots of talk prior to the election about protecting Americans' safety from terrorists while they voted. And this was when the polling places were being held in generic places. Yet, government officials chose a stronghold of American Muslims to hold its most important election! You can't tell me that this decision was merely a coincidence! How much money would you care to wager that every one of the people convicted in the Holy Land Charities case belonged to this association?

To say that I am outraged in an understatement but to say that I'm surprised would be incorrect. How could I be surprised when Bush offered his CONDOLENCES to the "Palestinians" after learning about Arafat's death? This after blessing Arafat's soul last week when he was a little premature about his actual demise! Or the Biography channel running "The Life of Arafat" this evening with the opening statement that: "To some he was a terrorist; to some he was the embodiment of the Palestinian dream of a homeland" and then go on to interview his tearful followers lauding him. This was followed by the same old tape of Sharon saying that while Arafat was not working for peace, he still hopes that his followers will now turn to peace. (That is so impossible as to be ludicrous; anyone who thinks peace with the "Palestinians" is even remotely possible should read: "It's The Palestinian Arabs' Culture, Stupid -The Problem Is Not Just Arafat" (http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2004/20041105a.htm). It was so nauseating that I had to change the channel after the first five minutes. Besides I am absolutely certain that the show would not give me a single piece of information about Arafat untainted by bias!

In case anyone is interested, this is the letter that I wrote to the US government: webmaster@fec.gov

I live in Plano, TX which is in Collin County. In all previous elections, whether federal, state, or local, the polling places have always been in the public libraries or in the school buildings. Plano has nine public libraries, three of which of been expanded within the past two years. PISD has a combined total of 62 schools. There is obviously no shortage of suitable places to hold elections.

So, why this year, of all years, when Americans are dying while fighting Muslim terrorism, (and just over three years since over 3000 died as a result of Muslim terrorism) was the designated polling site for my precinct set at The Islamic Association of Collin County? Just a few months ago, several members of this association, who also were connected with Holy Land Charities in Richardson (the adjoining city to Plano to the south), were arrested. The charge was that Holy Land Charities was a front and being used to channel money to Hamas! www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/18/terror/main533469.shtml

It is outrageous that the election for the president of the United States was held at this organization's headquarters! It also makes me wonder just who -- and more importantly why -- made the decision to switch the site from the libraries and schools to an organization who, among its other attributes, is directly connected to CAIR!

For anyone who still thinks that the American way of life and democracy -- as flawed as it is -- is even remotely compatible with Muslim thinking, should read their own basis for governments at: www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/firstfourcaliphs.html (This link is taken from the site for the Islamic Association of Collin County. But it is much more interesting to read what the Association has to say about "knowing your rights"! (www.planomasjid.org/iacc/frameindex.asp) If these people were truly interested in only being good citizens, they should be working extra hard to make sure that no undesirables come into the US! Instead, they do everything to protect anyone as long as he is Muslim!

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net).

To Go To Top
Posted by Batya Medad, November 11, 2004.

The True Judge, HaDayan Emet, is HaKodesh Baruch Hu, and he is the one, the only one who judges, adds up one's good actions and one's evil actions. It does not matter if one is a Jew or a non-Jew. G-d, the One G-d, has rules for all.

At this moment, Arafat is being judged by The One True G-d.!  Not being privy to the details, I'm only a simple Jew, I only know of Arafat's actions on earth. He will get his just punishment, but it's a big mistake to think that without him the world will be better, and it's even a bigger mistake to put all the blame on him. The death of one sick, evil man is not enough. The chag sameach (Happy Holiday) greetings I kept hearing today made me uneasy.

As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango." We are all connected to the present situation. For it to improve, everyone must work hard. "One man's ceiling is another man's floor," sang Paul Simon, and he's right.


The first time I started learning Kohelet, Ecclesiastes, the teacher/neighbor/rabbi who taught us had us try to guess, or figure out, the meaning of the "key" (yes, I'm an English teacher) word in the opening lines: hevel. We were told to pay attention to the letters and think of words with the same letter combination, shoresh, root. We came to the word b'li, without, nothing, emptiness, a vacuum. After a lifetime of searching and experimentation, testing his limits King Solomon came to the conclusion that all of his possessions, riches and intelligence were worthless.

This year I'm part of a women's learning group, in which we learn T'hilim (Psalms) and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes). I find it fascinating to learn the philosophies of the father and son kings, the two most important and crucial in Jewish history. Their experiences and feelings echo in today's Israel.

The energy, confidence and idealism of King David can be seen in those who are still establishing Jewish communities, whether in YESHA, the Negev or Galill. It existed in the Zionist leaders both before the establishment of the State of Israel and in the early years after. It didn't matter what the obstacle, nothing was impossible. The minute one of them accepted the concept, the limitations, of "impossible," they lost their strength. The Zionist establishment felt threatened by the Jabotinsky Revisionists, the Etzel and Lechi followers. They pursued them, like King Saul pursued King David.

One of the last surviving heroines of that time is Geula Cohen, former Kenesset Member and Deputy Minister. Meeting her is a treat; the glow and impatience, anxious to get something done, hasn't left her. When asked how she still finds the energy to be so active, she is known to reply that she has too much to do to be tired. A couple of years ago, when she was finally given the Israel Prize, she so deserved, on Yom Ha'atzmaut, even those on the other end of the political spectrum readily admitted that she deserved to be rewarded.

But what about the next generation, the generation of King Solomon? Those Likud "princes" raised by Revisionists, heroes and heroines of the Etzel and Lechi, are mostly far from their parents' idealism. They hold onto their privileged positions and try to use their intelligence and education to make excuses for voting against their ideals and for the perpetuation of what they think of as "power." But in actuality, they're turning into empty, weak shells. Unfortunately, even Geula's own son, Tzachi Hanegbi has become one of those empty-eyed politicians, having sold his soul for an illusion of power. The other evening I saw him on TV, sitting quietly, patiently waiting for a turn to speak. And I guess he didn't have anything worth saying or the words would have rushed out of every pore. He sat still, like a manniquin, well dressed and neat but no fire, no vision.

Once you compromise your ideals, they shrivel away, leaving an empty shell of miss-used, unused talents. The question is, does he have the inner strength to admit his mistakes and do tshuva like King Solomon, the decendent of Yehuda? Can any of these politicians reflect on their lives and mistakes, repent - lachzor b'tshuva and use their potential for what it was given?

It's said that at first King Solomon was a gifted genius, then he temporarily lost his mind, and he wrote Kohelet afterwards, after he sorted out his life and all he had experienced. Today, the young people with their amazing confidence, establishing new Jewish communities all over YESHA, are the post-Kohelet King Solomon. These amazing young kids, who dress like anti-materialist hippies, are the next stage towards geula, redemption.

Arafat's death isn't going to bring true peace any closer. It's not about one person. The terrorist organization he established before the Six Days War is not dependent on Arafat. The Europeans will continue to fund them, and they will continue to blame us for every problem in the world.

The Arabs are planning forty days of mourning, of hell for us (G-d forbid), to commemorate Arafat. Instead of partying, we should be praying and building. It's time to build the Beit Hamikdash.

Baruch Dayan Emet,

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 is Musings #82

To Go To Top
Posted by TheRaphi, November 11, 2004.

This was written by Rabbi Tovia Singer, the host of Israel National Radio's news-talk program, The Tovia Singer Show (http://www.toviasingershow.com/ToviaHome.aspx). He is founder and director of Outreach Judaism, an international organization dedicated to countering the efforts of cults who specifically target Jews for conversion.

From the moment John Kerry conceded defeat, Tony Blair has been calculating the debt George Bush owes him, and he is flying to Washington with the expectation that he will be paid in Israeli currency.

The way 10 Downing Street figures it, while Bush invoked the British prime minister's name on the stump in token of his international approval, Blair's popularity in his own country plummeted. Blair knows that he is far more popular in America than he is at home. He also knows that George owes him big time and he is coming to the White House to collect every shekel.

"I have long argued that the need to revitalize the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political challenge in our world today," Blair told reporters at 10 Downing Street immediately following Bush's reelection speech.

Then, without hesitation, Blair stunned reporters when he declared that the real way to fight worldwide terror is to "resolve the conditions and causes on which the terrorists prey." It was this same unimaginable message that moved former mayor Rudolph Giuliani to return Saudi Prince Al-Walid's $10 million dollar gift to the victims of 9/11: blame the victim for terror.

In short, slavery in North Africa and anti-Semitism in France is not on the European radar screen.

Now that Yasser Arafat has been dying every day for the past two weeks, the Europeans are thinking more seriously than ever about cities in the heartland of Biblical Israel where Jews don't belong. After all, the obstacle to "peace" died in a French hospital room. In their minds, Ariel Sharon's "excuse" for not moving ahead with the Road Map is being slipped into the grave. Moreover, when Sharon declared that "by the end of 2005, no Jew will be left in Gaza," he breathed new life into Blair's vision for the future of the Middle East.

The European Union considers Mahmoud Abbas a dependable Holocaust revisionist who isn't an uncontrollable hothead like Arafat. Mohammed Dahlan, the Gaza security chief who blew up an Israeli school bus, killing two teachers and maiming three siblings, also holds the European's keen interest and respect. Both Abbas and Dahlan dress like clever accountants rather than despotic hijackers, and they possess the kind of even sobriety that can bring Israel to its knees. The Europeans are confident that the heirs to Arafat's throne will be able to push Israel back to the Auschwitz lines of June 4, 1967.

Yet, Sharon has repeatedly declared that should attacks from Gaza on Israeli Negev towns and coastal plain regions continue following the disengagement, the IDF would immediately move back into the Strip. How will the Europeans ensure that the Israeli Defense Forces do not reenter the land they surrender to the PLO?

The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, has been cooking up plans to place European peacekeeping forces in the Gaza Strip following Israel's withdrawal. These troops would be strategically positioned between Israeli forces and PLO terrorists, in order to make future IDF anti-terror incursions impossible.

The good news is that without America's support, the Europeans have little leverage against the Jewish state. The bad news is that Tony Blair is heading to Washington to collect on a sizable debt from the White House. Will George W. Bush remain "Israel's best friend" now that the elections are over?

TheRaphi (http://www.theraphi.com/archives/oldindex.html) is a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site; it provides news articles and essays.

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berchuck, November 11, 2004.

I am troubled by reading that Sharon has become so crazed in his panicky drive to drive the Jews out of Gaza that he plans to take away their weapons of self-defense and reduce IDF protection, leaving them defenseless to terrorist attacks. When they are softened up, he plans to send in the most heartless bullies he can find to expel the Jews.

His flunkies claim the settlers - so productive, so loyal to Israel and Zionism - are seditious. He has it wrong. It is the Government that is out of control and running roughshod over the civil rights of Israelis. Remember the sign in the Paris zoo: "This animal is dangerous. If attacked, he will fight." The settlers are devoted to Israel and wish only to continue to contribute positively to Israel. But they have been tough enough to withstand the strain of never knowing when the Arabs will strike again. They aren't the stuff passive refugees are made of.

There are other things going on that are less dramatic but almost as troubling. Leaders of the Jews of Gaza, Samaria and Judea - men like Noam Federman and Shalhevet Pas's father - have been systematically taken out of circulation. They have been administratively detained and released, again and again - without ever coming to trial. The government knows it will lose, should they be tried. Arab members of the Knesset encourage Israeli Arabs to become terrorists without being reprimanded; but Tatiana Soskin, who drew a caricature - Mohammed as a pig writing the Koran - was jailed as a racist.

And even private citizens with strong anti-Israel connections have gotten into the act. Neve Gordon of Ben Gurion University has sued Steven Plaut of Haifa University. While Plaut was factual and mild in discussing Gordon, who finds holocaust deniers praiseworthy (www.intellectualconservative.com/article3528.html), Gordon continues to spout vicious and hurtful lies about Jews without hinderance. He routinely denounces Israel as a fascist apartheid state; but no one in the education hierarchy seems bothered he's teaching his students to despise their own country. Similarly, Radhika Sainath, an American member of the International Solidarity Movement - that's the group headed by Adam Shapiro, who breakfasted with Arafat and his merry bank of terror thugs - has sued Judy Balint, author of Jerusalem Diaries.

Unfortunately, Left-wing academics and activists who preach anti-Israelism and defend whatever the Palestinian Arabs do are not a scattered few. Ben Gurion University and Haifa University are Left-wing academic strongholds and they hold positions of power.

Let's help protect free speech and human rights in Israel. These are some of the things we can do:

1. Keep writing the members of the Knesset (MKs). Tell them they should be fighting Arab terrorists, NOT Jewish patriots. Weakening Israel by expelling the Gaza Jews will lead to chaos in Israel - a situation the Arab states will exploit. You will find the fax and telephone numbers of a number of MKs at MK Fax/Phone list and their email addresses are at MK email list.

2. Promote judicial fairness. For too long, Arabs have spouted sedition and not worried about repercussions. For too long, Left-wing academics pounce on anything they consider defamatory, while they themselves demonize Israel's right wing. Keep an eye on judicial decisions. They should be fair and not be part of a political agenda or a personal vendetta.

3. Send Steven Plaut and Judy Balint money to help their defense. (Thinking big, if someone has lots of money, how about endowing a fund at the Israel Law Center, so they can take cases of people capriciously being sued by Left-wingers, who think they are the only ones entitled to free speech.)

Steven Plaut:

Steven Plaut,
Graduate School of Business,
University of Haifa,
Haifa 31905 Israel,

OR write to Plaut's lawyer:
Dr. Haim Misgav,
24 Pinkas St,
Tel Aviv 62661 Israel.

Judy Lash Balint:

From the USA, send check to:
Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center, Balint Defense Fund
c/o PEF - Israel Endowment Fund
317 Madison Avenue, Suite 607
New York, New York 10017
(Telephone: 212-591-0073)

From outside USA or in Israel, make check payable to:
Shurat Hadin - Israel Law Center
ATTN: Balint Defense Fund,
11 Havatikim St.
Petach Tikva, 49389 Israel
(Telephone: 972-8-973-3336)

4. Keep writing the administrators at Ben Gurion University, suggesting that they muzzle the extremists who are teaching Israeli youth to despise Israel.

Professor Avishay Braverman
President, Ben-Gurion University
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer--Sheva 84105, Israel
Fax: 972-8-647-2937

Professor Jimmy Weinblatt
Rector, Ben-Gurion University
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer--Sheva 84105, Israel
Tel. 972-7-6461105
Fax: 972-7-6472945

Professor Avishai Henik
Dean of Social Sciences
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, P.O.B. 653
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Be'er-Sheva 84105, Israel.

and also American Associates of Ben Gurion University:
1430 Broadway, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
phone 212-687-7721
fax 212-302-6443
email info@aabgu.org
Lis Gaines, President
Vivien K. Marion, Executive Vice President

It's also time the Israeli Government did something about what the Education Marxists are preaching. Contact the Education Minister and encourage her to stop looking into it and actually do something.

Limor Livnat
Minister, Education, Culture & Sport
Tel 02-560-2330 Fax
Email: sar@education.gov.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Aaron Lerner, November 11, 2004.

If British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants me and my family here in Israel to risk our lives in "confidence building gestures" to the Palestinian leadership he should look elsewhere. We are not dying to improve Mr. Blair's re-election prospects.

But if the British, French, UN, Israeli Left, etc. really want to make a contribution to the development of a serious Palestinian post-Arafat leadership they should stop treating them as if they were savages leading an uncontrollable mob and instead show them respect by actually expecting proper behavior.

It is not acceptable for Palestinian leaders to call for a continuation of the intifada against Israel nor can Palestinian violence be tolerated.

It is not acceptable that illegal militias continue to operate.

And the list goes on.

Each time so-called friends of the Palestinians engage in apologetics instead of expecting and demanding Palestinian compliance they make it just that much more unlikely that the Palestinians will ever get their act together. After all, why should the Palestinian leadership take the heat for complying when compliance is not actually required - just verbiage and photo ops.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan sends the same destructive message to the Palestinians: regardless of what the Palestinians do or don't do, Israel is going to retreat from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria next summer.

In the coming days the die will be cast. If the apologetics continue unabated the opportunity for a true change for the better will be lost.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis. Contact him at http://www.imra.org.il

To Go To Top
SHABBOS, RIOTS, DISEASE, EGYPTIAN NATIONALITY, We apologize for not having read this article more carefully, and would not have sent it out, had we done so. "DEATHLORD" ARE EXCUSES...
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 11, 2004.

Allowing a monument for Arafat in Ramallah is like putting Saddam Hussein on a pedestal in Fallujah.

Forgetting the lynching of IDF and dancing with their still warm organs in RamAllah, child suicide, the hard-drive connecting Arafat al Husseini (the pupil of the mufti Hussein and partner with Hitler) with Saddam Hussein sponsorship of suicide murder is ignoring that Arafat the premeditated mass murderer was imprisoned in the Mukata, but as this prison was allowed to welcome political terrorism, the Ramallah Mausoleum will be a monument to keep evil alive. The innocent murdered will be disgraced with the consent of the self-disrespecting and self-denying leadership.

When Saddam Hussein dies will his monument be raised accordingly in Fallujah to insult the Americans who gave their lives for freedom and justice?

Will the innocent victims of decapitation and terrorism, lost limbs, lost loved ones, babies, and grandparents, always have to remember the warlords rewarded because the self-denying Jews gave their murderers respect?

Shame on those whose hands are dirtied by the Oslo handshake and the dirt from burying a villain in the mist of those who could be released from the hold of evil.

After the Holocaust, evil was recognized and prosecuted.

Sadly, in the midst of pan-Jihad, evil is ignored, excused, entombed.

Why isn't Arafat the Egyptian of the Husseini clan buried in Egypt, especially since his funeral is in his native Egypt where he reports to Mubarak?

Alias Arafat is not a legitimate Israeli citizen, he was a fraud on a peace "turnspeak".

Arab Palestine is Jordan. They surely don't want him. Another suggestion. Bury him in Paris. His wife lives there.

Bury him in Tunisia, his last sanctuary. Burying him in Ramallah on Friday will not only desecrate laws for civilization but also Shabbos

P.S. As you see the rioting in Bethlehem, civil war in Jericho, the bombings in Gaza, the attacks in Jerusalem, will you risk one Jewish life to bury this evil pre-meditated mass murderer? I am the mother of a unmarried patriotic IDF trainee whose gun didn't even work and is on guard duty without being fully trained. Allowing my son and other young boys to risk their lives for the copse of their murderer is a crime against survivors of the Holocaust, the future grandchildren of your dead young soldiers' parents because their sons were sent to die to protect a mass alien killer's corpse.

Israel must say that considering the riots, the bombs and actions, they cannot protect the post-Egyptian funeral of the Egyptian who has a wife in Paris and last country was exile in Tunisia. Israel was saved by sending this dying diseased, deranged warlord to Paris. Bury him there. In Egypt, where he was born and has a funeral; In Tunisia, where he was exiled for his destruction of Lebanon and the Christians. Be a Prime Minister for the endangered Jew chased and murdered across the globe and finally back home and just needing security. Respecting this Shabbos will save Jewish lives and give real peace a chance.

All victims of this dead warlord will be blood on the hands of the Prime Minster in Israel. When you look in the mirror you will see Arafat. When your tourists and new olim come to Ben Gurion they will see the mausoleom of the warlord of Jihad glowing in the Israeli sky.

Say, no, we cannot handle the riots and risk bloodshed that had already begun. We cannot desecrate Shabbos. We cannot desecrate the basic civil laws not to kill, steal, lie by accepting a monument to such guilt.

Don't call me if your failure to put Israel first kills my son or anyone for this contaminated corpse. You will be guilty of every drop of blod shed, every injury, every death. You failed Chaya orphaned by Sbarro, Tali and her four daughters and unborn son, your neighbors in Sderot, and if you can't say no to a mausoleum to Jihad you will fail Israel, America, truth and human decency. Failure to portray evil as evil endangers good, the endangered Jewish race and America, too.

To Go To Top
Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, November 11, 2004.

This was written by Hillel Halkin and appeared in The New York Sun Nov 09, 2004.

Yasser Arafat's death has been like his life: Surrounded by lies. Since his admission to a Paris hospital last week, Mr. Arafat - whose days have apparently been spent, braindead, attached to a life-sustaining respirator - has been variously reported by his aides and wife as improving; not seriously ill; ambulatory; in a good mood and jesting with his doctors; in a reversible coma; and waking up to smile at President Chirac of France when the latter paid him a visit. If brain death didn't preclude the possibility, one might almost suspect him of having composed all these communiqués himself.

When and where hasn't Mr. Arafat habitually lied about himself and the Palestinian movement he helped found, starting with the moment of his birth? He lied about this being in Palestine, his real birthplace having been Cairo, to which his family had moved two years earlier. He lied, too, about having spent his childhood and youth in Jerusalem, a city in which he resided only between the ages of 4 and 8 - the one time he lived in Palestine at all prior to his entry into Gaza as head of the Palestinian Authority in 1994.

Mr. Arafat - a "bossy" child with a penchant for "showmanship," according to his biographers - lied about his role as a young man in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, claiming to have fought with Arab troops in Palestine when he was in fact in Egypt all the time. He lied about taking part in anti-British hostilities in the Suez Canal Zone in 1951.

He lied about having been imprisoned for months in Nasser's Egypt for anti-regime activities. He lied about the success of his business activities In Kuwait,to which he moved from Egypt. He lied about the first guerrilla raids of the Fatah into Israel in 1965, issuing statements about attacks that never took place and wildly exaggerating the few that did.

So absurd were these declarations, in fact, that a year later, in 1966, he was suspended as the organization's military commander by his (none too honest themselves) comrades for issuing "false reports." Yet after the Six Day War in 1967 he kept it up - lying about his supposedly extensive underground travels in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, lying about his role in the battle of Karama on the east bank of the Jordan in 1968, lying about not being responsible for Palestinian terrorist operations in the 1970s and 1980s, including the murder of three American diplomats in Sudan in 1973.

All of which was nothing compared to the lies that he told throughout his political career about the promises he meant to keep and the obligations he intended to honor - promises and obligations that were broken by him over and over.

He lied to King Hussein of Jordan when he vowed that his guerrilla forces there would respect Jordanian sovereignty in return for the hospitality granted them; lied to President Assad of Syria when - after his expulsion from Jordan to Lebanon - he swore to keep his troops out of the Lebanese civil war; lied to the various factions in that war about his support; lied to his Arab allies when - expelled with their agreement from Lebanon, too, in 1982 - he returned there a year later to resume fighting.

From birth to death, the man was a liar - one who presided over a Palestinian cause that learned under his tutelage to lie like himself.This was why it was such a terrible mistake for Israel to commence negotiations with him in the early 1990s and to allow these to conclude in the Oslo accords.

It was the conventional wisdom of those days, repeated over and over with a patient smile to the opponents of Oslo, that, yes, Yasser Arafat was a terrorist and Yasser Arafat had been Israel's bitter enemy,but were not peace agreements signed between enemies? And had not many an ex-"terrorist," as leaders of national liberation movements often were called, ended up a responsible head of state? Had not Israel's Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir been ex-"terrorists" themselves?

But this was entirely missing the point.The real reason for having nothing to do with Mr. Arafat was not that he was an enemy or a terrorist. One does indeed, when the time comes, negotiate with enemies; one can indeed, if they are prepared to renounce it, negotiate with those who have practiced terrorism.There is, in the world of diplomacy, only one type of leader with whom must never negotiate under any circumstance.

This is the leader who is a liar.

It isn't a question of moral principle. Lying isn't a worse crime than terrorism. It's a purely pragmatic question of utility. A terrorist who can be trusted to keep his word is a man you can do business with,even if you are shaking a hand smeared with innocent blood.It is impossible,though,to do business with a liar. There is no point in making agreements with someone who does not believe in the importance of keeping them.

This is a truth so simple and so obvious that it seems all but impossible to understand now how it could have eluded those - Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, the Israeli intelligence community, the commanders of the Israeli army - who welcomed the disaster of Oslo with open arms 11 years ago. Did they not know what a liar Arafat was?

The answer is that they did but were under a peculiar illusion.They thought that lying,like terrorism, was something that, if done up to a point for a purpose, could be after that point given up. They didn't realize that a man who has lied all his life will go on lying right up to his death.

The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

To Go To Top
Posted by Ariel Natan Pasko, November 11, 2004.

Arafat just died (or did he die last week?). His body's barely cold and the vultures are flying overhead. No, not to pick at his disease-ridden carcass, there's nothing of value there, but to see what they can take from the Jews and Israel.

The prize; the Holy Land!

For centuries and millennia, Crusaders and Muslim hordes, Romans and Babylonians, have tried to take away the "Promised Land" (Genesis 12:7), the land that "G-D's eyes are upon it from the beginning of the year to year's end" (Deut. 11:12), from the Jewish people, (the "apple of G-D's eye" Zech. 2:12).

No sooner than that evil, sick, terrorist, homosexual, pedophile, serial mass murderer is finally out of the picture; than Bush, Blair, and most of the world jump on the opportunity to continue his legacy.

For what is more specific to his legacy, than to take away the Jewish people's ancient, historic, and G-D promised homeland?

Upon official announcement of Arafat's death, the Whitehouse issued in President Bush's name a statement:

"The death of Yasser Arafat is a significant moment in Palestinian history. We express our condolences to the Palestinian people. For the Palestinian people, we hope that the future will bring peace and the fulfillment of their aspirations for an independent, democratic Palestine that is at peace with its neighbors. During the period of transition that is ahead, we urge all in the region and throughout the world to join in helping make progress toward these goals and toward the ultimate goal of peace."

Bush, high on his victory against the left-leaning John Kerry has already begun spreading the seeds of his own destruction. He and his supporters in America and Israel claim "he's the best friend Israel has ever had in the Whitehouse."

Well, here's some friendly advice for him and especially his bible-believing supporters: "Keep your hands off the Jewish people's homeland".

Just where exactly are those Babylonians and Romans today? What became of the Crusaders? They've become the "Europeans," the EU, and Eurabia? The French? And those Muslim hordes; well, just as Sadat, Arafat, Haffez Assad of Syria and King Hussein of Jordan have gotten it (and Saddam Hussein is about to get it), they will too, if they persist in trying to steal the Land of Israel away from "G-D's inheritance," (the Jewish people, Deut. 9:26, 29; 1 Kings 8:51, 53; Psalm 78:71 and elsewhere). Look at the backwardness and poverty of the Arab/Muslim world today.

Is that what you want George W.? Is that what you want America?

Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK said, "I would like to express my condolences to the family of President Arafat and to the Palestinian people. President Arafat came to symbolize the Palestinian national movement. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 jointly with Yitzhak Rabin in recognition of their efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. He led his people to a historic acceptance and the need for a two-state solution. "

What a whitewash, if Arafat wanted "peace" he could have accepted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer back in 2000. Arafat's never wanted a two-state solution, the PLO covenant (never properly changed) calls for one state, "Palestine" to replace Israel. Arafat's "Palestinian national movement" more properly called Amalek, is a "death machine" and Arafat's henchmen (those coming to power now), Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran, al-Quaeda and the greater Islamic world want the "Holy Land" not "peace".

They want The Holy City of Jerusalem...

"Ten measures of beauty descended to the world, nine were taken by Jerusalem." (Talmud: Kiddushin 49b)

Blair continued, "That goal - of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel - is one that we must continue to work tirelessly to achieve. Peace in the Middle East must be the international community's highest priority. We will do whatever we can, working with the US and the EU, to help the parties reach a fair and durable settlement."

After the announcement of Arafat's death, Shimon Peres rushed to call on the Israeli prime minister and government to renew dialogue with the new Palestinian Authority leadership. Even Ariel Sharon said that the death of Yasser Arafat could be a "historic turning point" and he intends to continue his give-away plans.

But the Prophet Jeremiah already warned us about their lies, they will say, "Peace, peace, but there is no peace." (Jer.6:14).

Blair praised Yasser Arafat for making the issue of "Palestine" the most important global issue. Blair wants the entire world to work to take Jerusalem (the so-called 1967 "occupied territories") away from G-D and the Jews. And he wants Bush and America to help him.

G-D is abundantly clear what will happen when they try, "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of poison to all the people round about, when they besiege both Judah [the Jews and the Land of Israel] and Jerusalem." (Zech. 12:2, see also Ezekiel ch. 38-39).

Anyone or any country that tries to take Jerusalem, or any part of the Promised Land away from its rightful inheritors (the Jewish people) will be severely punished. "On that day, I [G-D] will destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." (Zech.12:9 and elsewhere).

Yet to the Jewish people, the Prophet Isaiah declares, "Comfort, be comforted My people, says your G-D. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem, and proclaim that her [Israel's] exile among the nations has ended." (Isaiah 40:1-2). We have returned home forever.

One last Warning...

According to rabbinic tradition, there are three gates to Gehinam (Hell); one of them is in Jerusalem. (Talmud: Eruvin 19a).

Arafat's already in Hell, anyone else, world leaders or Israelis, who block G-D's plan, and try to take away the Jewish people's homeland, will end up there too.

We don't want your peace; we want our homeland!

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst and consultant. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko

To Go To Top
Posted by Yrachmiel Elias, November 11, 2004.

I thought you'd want to see this one-minute online film. It really captures the pain and destruction that Arafat caused: Go to http://www.honestreporting.com/arafat

To Go To Top
Posted by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman, November 11, 2004.

This was written by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman. Rabbi Melman currently lives in New York City with his family. He has had pulpits on both the West and East coasts. He writes a weekly Torah commentary as well as timely thought pieces on current events and issues.

The rabbis ask in Ethics of the Fathers: Who is wise? He who can see the future. The future, however, looms no further than Greenland, as not so very slowly the Arctic ice is melting. Scientists predict that the oceans will rise by some three feet by the year 2100. Tel Aviv will be joining Atlantis- as will Gaza and Key West.

That being the case, the battle for Gaza may be pointless in the end. Simply building a dyke to protect Tel Aviv will be for naught. With a well positioned terrorist's bomb, the full force of the Mediterranean would come crashing down on Dizengoff with a biblical fury unseen since the time of Noah.

The battle worth fighting for, therefore, is the modern/ancient Jewish patrimony of Judaea/Samaria. To where will the masses of the coastal plain relocate? The Dead Sea and its environs sits on the lowest point on earth- some 1392 feet below sea level. Not a good idea. The Galilee and Golan simply cannot support several million people who sport an extreme urban bias. The Negev is Israel's last military and flight training zone, its openness crucial for all manner of future wargames.

Simply put, only the highland region of ancient Judaea and Samaria, contested and disputed as it is, is the one suitable terrain appropriate for mass scale urban relocation. It has vast stretches of unpopulated and underpopulated land. It is, to paraphrase, a "land without a people for a people (soon to be) without a land."

But alas, tight pockets of Arab polity dwell amidst the vastness. In the wake of Arafat's demise, the world is poised to foist a second Palestinian Arab state upon Israel. The world is sick and tired of the Arab/Israeli conflict, recently misnamed the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and will stop at nothing to force a square peg into a round hole. The false premise the media is beginning to embrace is the myth of the Palestinian Arab desire to live in peace alongside a defenseless and defanged Israel. The myth that Arafat was the evil bogeyman, the flawed hero who warped the innate desire of millions of Ghandi wannabees.

The truth which everyone strains to avoid at all cost, is that the Arab world, and the Palestinian Arabs in particular, are only biding their time for the final onslaught and victory over Israel. The UN and the US Department of State will seek to make Israel pay the price for the humiliation of Western, read "Christian," boots on holy Arab soil. Any second Arab state in Jewish Palestine (Jordan being the first- on 82% of the original Palestine Mandate) would come at the price of continued Jewish Israeli survival.

Israel must oppose with every fiber of its being the imposition of a second Arab state in its midst. The timing of the news of the shrinking arctic ice mass with the attendant rise in international sea levels is a wonderful gift. Israel must rise as one to resist any imposition of a hostile political entity on its soil. There is only one Jewish state. Twenty two Arab states is more than sufficient. Or should be. A twenty third Arab state- which would be forced upon the the sole Jewish state even as the waters begin to rise, would be a travesty of elemental justice.

By history, law and culture, and most of all- the Torah, Judaea and Samaria are Israel's for all eternity. The prophets proclaimed the return of Israel to her ancient highland soil. Voluntarily. Or not. With international concensus. Or not. Until China leaves Tibet, until the US leaves North America, the Jewish people will not leave her Holy Land. Ever.

It is the holy soil of ancient Israel's kings and prophets, of her matriarchs and patriarchs. Eternal stuff. As eternal as the sand and the sea. As eternal as Jerusalem, the Heavenly City by the Beach.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Max Yas, November 11, 2004.

At the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire, which was allied with Germany, was broken up and a mandate over Lebanon was granted by the League of Nations to France At that time the population of Lebanon was evenly divided between Christians and Muslims. In 1941 Lebanon was grantedd independece and became a sovereign state.

The Constitution of 1926 provided for equal representation in government. The President to be Christian, the Prime Minister a Muslim, etc.

The Christians were mainly urban, while the Muslims were predominantly rural peasants and produced only 11% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Many in Syria agitated for Lebanon to become part of a Greater Syria and gained much support from Lebanese Muslims. When Jordan expelled the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1970, they moved to Lebanon and by 1973 they formed about 10% of the Lebanese population. In 1975 the PLO began to clash with the government. They took control of Palestinian refugee camps and the area along the Israeli border, then commenced raids into Israel. The Israelis retaliated and the well armed Christian militia took action against the PLO.

The Moslem population which grew by the influx of Palestinians and a higher birth rate were now a majority and demanded a greater share of power. The Christians resisted and Civil War broke out.

A peacekeeping force of 30,000, mostly Syrian, was, established by the Arab League in 1979. Israel was forced to enter in order to stop PLO raiders and eventually the PLO was once more expelled from a Muslim nation. In June of that year the UN took control of peace-keeping by a force dominated by Syria.

Syria still maintains a force of 30,000 and is in fact the occupying power of Lebanon. This occupation seems to be condoned by the U.N. and no resolution against it are passed by the General Assembly. The media show little interest in this occupation.

To Go To Top
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, November 11, 2004.

Rabbi Yosef Yashar, the Chief Rabbi of the mixed Jewish-Arab city of Akko (Acre), told Arutz-7 today that Israeli-Arabs are "quietly conquering our city, as well as other areas of the Galilee."

A synagogue was burnt in the city this week, and firemen said today that it was the result of arson. "It was clearly a nationalistic act," Rabbi Yashar said. "When we arrived in the synagogue, it was simply a shocking sight. Many of us simply burst out in tears. We could never imagine that here in Israel, such a thing would happen." He said that another hate-crime against the Jews of the city was discovered just yesterday, with the desecration of more than 1,000 graves in the old cemetery. It's clear that this was an anti-Semitic crime."

Asked if this occurred in a Jewish section of the city, he said, "Unfortunately, there are barely any areas that are totally Jewish any more; they are all mixed. The general situation here is that with all our desire to live in co-existence and with peace - as the fact is that both Jews and Arabs live here - but the situation is becoming more and more unbearable. Arab youths, and adults too, harass Jewish girls almost daily, and throw rocks at synagogues; Arabs pass by the Great Synagogue every day and curse, or mock, or throw rocks. It's even hard to drive, as the Arabs drive wildly around the streets. In short, the cracks in the coexistence are getting wider. Despite this, we are making every effort to calm things down. But I have a very bad feeling that something is going to erupt, as the burning of a synagogue is really way past the red line."

"I would like to add," Rabbi Yashar said, "that this is really a national issue. The Arabs are quietly conquering the city, by buying apartments one at a time, and then a street at a time. We are losing parts of the Land of Israel, not only here, but all over the western Galilee, and this must be placed on the national agenda."

In a related item, three Israeli-Arab teenagers, residents of Ramle in central Israel, threw firebombs this past Friday night into a local synagogue. Residents managed to put out the resulting flames. The following night, Arab attackers returned and again threw flaming bottles at the synagogue. The Arab vandals, who were later arrested, admitted their actions, saying they wished to "identify with the Palestinian people" and "take revenge" against the IDF.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@acm.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Yee, November 11, 2004.

It is very seldom that I can recommend something wholeheartedly. This is one of those times. This article was written by Jeff Jacoby, Globe columnist, and is archived at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net).

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, November 11, 2004.

Imagine reelecting Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the beginning of WWII only to later hear him sing the praises of Hitler, bless him, and offer him Europe. Well, the same thing has just been done to us by Bush. And this isn't even solely a Jewish issue; it's an American one too.

The modern day Hitler I'm referring to is the belatedly late Yasser Arafat. Among his tens of thousands of victims were hundreds of Americans -- many not Jewish -- who were targeted simply because they were American.

Although Arafat was dead and resurrected more times in the past week than Jesus, upon first hearing of Arafat's first death, Mr. Bush blessed his soul! Yup. He said "God bless his soul." Can you imagine? The leader of a country that had been one of the targets and victims of this genocidal monster blessing his soul? It makes me wonder whether the soul of our esteemed President is possessed. We were certainly lied to. I remember Mr. Bush saying "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Now he blesses the soul of the inventor of the weapon of our (US) destruction -- the terrorist plane hijacking.

On top of this, Mr. Bush has gone out of his way to demand that Israel continue to ethnically cleanse herself of her own people and give away a major portion of her miniscule 9-mile wide self to those bent upon her destruction. And he calls himself a good Christian.

One cannot be a good Christian if one only supports certain things in the Bible and actively works against other things. While Mr. Bush purports to 'support' Israel, demanding that a bunch of usurping genocidal monsters with no right to the Holy Land be given a chunk of the Jewish homeland is hardly supporting Israel; it is facilitating her destruction in increments.

Nor can I believe that Mr. Bush is doing this out of ignorance of the facts. It is a fact, stated by one of the Arab leaders himself, that those Arabs now occupying Jewish Palestine have no national rights whatsoever to the land they squat on. Here is what he said, admitting that the entire concept of a 'Palestinian people' other than the Jews is a hoax and they are really Jordanians:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." --Interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein on March 31, 1977 with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.

Giving away chunks of the Holy Land -- Israel -- is destroying it. You cannot disguise this as anything other than destruction, even if you call it a 'peaceful solution.' Hey, Germany would have eventually stopped her war after she had conquered Europe and maybe more, and then there would have been 'peace.' But FDR had at least the moral compass to realize that peace through conquest or takeover, or forced giveaways of another nation's sovereign and legitimate land was unacceptable. Mr. Bush does not.

But maybe that's because Mr. Bush himself is a fraud. He purports to be a good Christian. Good Christians follow all the teachings of the Bible. I know this for I have met them at the Christian Coalition Convention. I have also seen the Machiavellian schemings of some pretenders who say they are 'good Christians' yet are truly anti-Christian and apostate. They follow a little-spoken of doctrine called 'Replacement Theology' which absolutely abhors Israel's existence.

This is because Replacement Theology posits its whole existence on reinterpreting the Bible to suit its political goals. In Replacement Theology, they believe that black is white and that the word 'Israel' really means the Replacement Theology churches. They say that the Jews are cursed by God and all the blessings and prophecies meant for 'Israel' are really referring to the Replacement Theologists. Israel's very existence as a Jewish state, reestablished by Jews, proves that this doctrine is anti-Christian and utterly apostate. Therefore, Replacement Theologists will do anything to destroy Israel --and thus the evidence -- which only proves that they follow a doctrine true Christians might call Satanic in nature.

What? You say Mr. Bush is a Methodist, not a Replacement Theologist? In truth, so-called 'mainstream' Methodists are Replacement Theologists. As are 'mainstream' Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Anglicans, among others. Those who follow the whole Bible and don't pick and chose nor rewrite its meanings identify themselves as 'Evangelical.' As in Evangelical Methodist. Mr. Bush is not this, but has kept it hidden. (And by the way, Kofi Annan is a Replacement Theologist Methodist, if any of you are wondering why he is so rabidly anti-Israel.)

On an equally sad note, even the Vatican has sung the praises of that monster from the depths of Hell, Yasser Arafat. In a statement released to the press, the Vatican called Arafat an 'illustrious deceased.'

Have the leaders of the world lost their moral compass? Or even worse, have the leaders of the world all become possessed by the ultimate evil, praising demonic, genocidal monsters and smiling while they assure it's all for the sake of 'peace?'

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles. Contact her at her website: http://hometown.aol.com/goodtree

To Go To Top
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 11, 2004.

President George W. Bush's reelection signals a strong continuity in U.S. policy. A half dozen major issues in the Middle East require tough decisions. And the Arab-Israeli one, even with Yasir Arafat's semi-death, is the easiest.

On each of these six challenges--Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction (which means Iran), the Arab-Israeli conflict, democratization, war on terrorism, and Europe--the Bush administration has to set and implement a complex policy. But Bush has a clear, consistent idea of what he wants to do.

Bush's team is guided by a clear philosophy to which it is strongly committed, has withstood great pressure to sustain it, and can now argue that he has a mandate to continue. Experience has reinforced this thinking. For example, "everyone" tells it that the Israel-Palestinian issue must be settled right away. But even with Arafat going out the door, the White House knows well that the basis for diplomatic progress is not in place.

The same point applies to Europe, which has been hostile toward Bush and unhelpful generally on Iraq. While Bush wants to improve relations with Europe, his guaranteed four years in office frees him from having to take any major steps against U.S., or Israeli interests for that matter, to appease his European critics. (Knowing that they must deal with him for the next years in fact puts more pressure on them to try to get along with America.)

Finally, the most likely personnel changes that will take place are more likely to strengthen Bush's commitment to current policies and ability to do what he wants to do.

So U.S. Middle East policy is going to be governed by a strong, coherent government that knows what it wants to do. It may not understand the region so well or implement his strategies so effectively but that factor is hardly unusual for American administrations.

The reelected president faces six major issues on which difficult choices and urgent responses must be made. These include:

Iraq: This is going to preoccupy U.S. global policy for the next year. It must somehow find a way out of the deadlock allowing it to show that an Iraqi government is taking hold, violence is declining, and American troops can be withdrawn. A failure here will doom the administration's overall image, power, and support domestically. The turning point here is going to be in the second half of 2005 when it will probably be clear that the government does not control the country, the war is continuing, and there is no easy way out.

War on Terror: The Bush administration will continue its measures to block terrorist attacks and root out the enemy wherever possible. But being so over-extended in Iraq would probably prohibit any new commitments or escalations elsewhere--the idea of U.S. military action against Syria or Iran is extremely unlikely. Catching Usama bin Ladin must be high on the agenda and succeeding or failing will be a major issue. If the U.S. effort can prevent any serious attack on its soil or major terrorist strike against U.S. interests elsewhere it will be judged a success.

Iran's Nuclear Weapons: It seems likely that Tehran will get the bomb during Bush's term. U.S. policy takes a tough stand against this proliferation but exactly what can Bush do about it? He isn't going to attack Iran and the Europeans are not going to go along with any meaningful sanctions.

Democratization: The administration will continue to support the idea of promoting political change within Arab countries but this is going to be a lower priority as it is clear the United States can do little on this front.

Relations with Europe over the Middle East: Bush will try to improve these by showing how much effort he is putting into Arab-Israeli peace diplomacy. But little or none of this will come at Israel's expense because the Palestinians will be disorganized, Arab states uninterested in helping, and Europeans (at least those who complain the most) unwilling to assist the United States on other issues like the Iraq war and Iranian nuclear weapons.

Arab-Israeli conflict: The administration has no illusion of any breakthrough happening soon. Envoys will be sent to run around, meetings held, plans announced, yet this is also done with a profound doubt that anything is going to change. There will be much talk about helping Palestinian moderates win the leadership battle but the United States is going to have little influence and any hint that someone is an American candidate for Palestinian leadership will only hurt his chances. U.S. policy will still back the Roadmap plan but emphasizing that the Palestinians must act fully to stop terrorism before they receive any political rewards. American commitments to Israel will stay in place to support the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and building the security fence. U.S.-Israel relations will remain quite good.

Overall, given a combination of what is possible and what is needed, this is going to be a sensible policy. The exception--and the big challenge--is going to be on Iraq, where events are unlikely to show the Bush administration any mercy. Barry Rubin, an FPRI senior fellow, is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography and Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press, August 2004). His columns can now be read online at .

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, November 10, 2004.

This is from today's DEBKAfile.

Tuesday, November 11, Suha Arafat's French lawyers and former Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), struck a deal. It fixed the Palestinian Authority's financial obligations to Yasser Arafat's widow and let him finally die unambiguously and in peace at the end of a morbid tug of war between his wife and Palestinian Authority leaders. But this did not happen immediately. The confusion surrounding Arafat's condition for eleven days - officially alive, unofficially dead - was to be sustained a little longer - mainly to save Mrs Arafat's face. The settlement allowed a funeral to be arranged on "Orphan Friday" of Ramadan, November 12 (as DEBKAfile reported earlier) - unless a new crisis pops up. Our sources have seen some of the principle terms of the Palestinian accord with Suha Arafat.

1. This clause has already taken place. Before the Palestinian delegation which visited the hospital left Paris, foreign minister Nabil Shaath again assured the media that Arafat is still alive and "his brain, heart and lungs are still functioning." This was necessary to prove Suha Arafat had not lied when she appeared that morning live on Arabic TV Al Jazeera to accuse those same officials of conspiring to bury her husband alive. The deal provided for the announcement of Arafat's death to be held back for late Tuesday night or Wednesday, November 10.

2. The widow will attend the funeral. Abu Mazen insisted on her following the Palestinian leader's bier for the sake of appearances.

3. Last July, Arafat sent his wife $11 million to cover her living expenses and those of their daughter for six months - $1.8 million per month. The new accord guarantees her the same allowance from the Palestinian Authority as a regular annual remittance, i.e. $22 million per annum, for the rest of her life. Abu Mazen and prime minister Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) signed on the dotted line, although they have no notion how the penniless Palestinian Authority faced with a people in dire poverty can possibly stump up this kind of money.

DEBKAfile's Paris sources offer an exclusive peek at Suha Arafat's lifestyle in the French capital. She owns a smart villa on one of the most elegantly affluent streets in the world, Rue Fauborg St. Honore, while also maintaining a lavish private suite at the five-star Hotel Le Bristol, which after a multimillion dollar refurbishment claims to outclass the Paris Ritz, the Four Seasons and even George V. The upkeep of the Bristol suite she maintains for "business" was included in her widow's "pension." After the Palestinian officials settled with Arafat's wife, Shaat went before the media to admit that Arafat had been in a deep coma since last Wednesday, November 3, meaning that all the Palestinian communiqués since then, describing him laughing with doctors, reading the Koran etc., were arrant falsehoods. He ruled out poisoning and cancer as the causes of Arafat's illness and laid the blame for his "digestive disorders" on - who else? Israel, whose army had besieged Arafat's quarters and forced the 75-year old leader to subsist on too little oxygen and in poor sanitary conditions.

Some facts might shed some light on this point.

For three and a half years, since Israeli troops withdrew from Arafat's headquarters and private apartment at the end of the 2002 Defensive Shield operation, Palestinians have been building, remodeling and refurbishing the "battered" seat of Palestinian government tirelessly and undisturbed.

No one stopped Arafat from moving into any part of his spanking new compound at any time. He could have ordered bathrooms made of the finest Italian marble whenever he wanted. He was not short of funds; witness the generous allowance he made his absent wife. No one would have prevented him going out for a stroll in Ramallah, taking the air in its parks or dining in its restaurants.

Arafat chose to confine himself to two wretched rooms to show the world how badly Israel was treating him and win the world's sympathy. For the same reason, he ordered the Palestinians to leave the shell pocks in the walls of his quarters unrepaired, just as the late Syrian President Hafez Assad left the Golan town of Kuneitra in ruins as a sort of theme park for displaying Israel's alleged misdeeds to tourists.

Arafat did emerge once for a "state" visit to the West Bank town of Jenin. His welcome there was far short of expectations and he never tried any such visits again.

With a multi-billion fortune at his disposal, Arafat invariably appeared in public in grubby, crumpled khakis - mainly because the aides who served him and his finely tailored associates were not overly concerned with his welfare.

The funeral plans as they stand at this moment are as follows: On Friday, November 12, Arafat will be buried at the Ramallah headquarters he lived in. So far, the Palestinians have not applied to Egypt or Jordan to permit a stopover for the coffin in Cairo or Amman, whence it will be flow by helicopter to Ramallah. One of these requests will probably be received Wednesday or Thursday.

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak made it clear this week that no formal ceremonies would be allowed in his capital; the coffin would be placed simply at Arab League Headquarters in Cairo.

Both Abu Mazen and Abu Ala, anxious to avoid calling on Israel for assistance in dealing with the Arab VIPs expected for the funeral, hope they can be accommodated in Amman before being flown by helicopter to Ramallah and flown back immediately after the ceremonies are over, seeing Israel only from the air.

By Saturday, November 13, the funeral will be behind them and Palestinian Muslims can enjoy the three-day Eid el Fitr festival that comes at the end of Ramadan.

Their leaders, Abbas and Qureia, will use the time to cement their hold on Palestinian government. They do not intend making good on their promise in Paris to let the Palestinian legislature Speaker Fathi Rouh act as president until after an election 60 days hence. What they do plan is an emergency session of the legislature to pass a measure postponing elections until further notice in view of the crisis caused by Arafat's death. The lawmakers will be asked to choose a new president to succeed him. Together, the pair commands a majority in the house. That is the plan. But, as has become manifest in the last 11 days, the Palestinians are gifted with a limitless capacity for shooting off at a tangent without reason or notice.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Yoram Shifftan, November 10, 2004.

The Jewish communities - the so-called settlements - of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are legal (See http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.legalsystem.html).

There is an on-line petition to President Bush asking that the US Government fully recognize the legality of the Israeli communities situated in Judea, Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza.

Please go to the Petition Site and sign the petition.

Bush is coming under pressure from Tony Blair to squeeze Israel. So every way should be explored of encouraging the leaders of American Jewry to advertize that international law calls for the encouragement of settlements and forbid the transfer of the land out of Jewish control.

To Go To Top
Posted by Mordechai Kedar, November 10, 2004.

This was written by Fouad Ajami and appeared in US News and World Report.

He would be neither a Palestinian David Ben-Gurion leading his people toward practical politics and statehood nor an Anwar Sadat accepting the logic of peace and compromise. It was a pity for the Palestinians that Yasser Arafat was what he was: a juggler, a trimmer, a man who never had it in him to tell his people great historical truths about their condition in the world of nations and their practical possibilities. The void, and the failure, Arafat leaves in his wake were of his own making. He indulged his people's worst fantasies and squandered great opportunities that opened up for them.

The man born in Cairo in 1929--the Jerusalem birth was a convenient and transparent legend--led his people to a blind alley of futility and maximalism. He was, and could only be, a creature of his time. He came into his own in the aftermath of the Arab defeat in Palestine in 1948, during a time of recriminations, when moderation was branded as treason and assassins stalked the realists and the pragmatists among the Arabs. Arafat was to be the second Palestinian leader in a row to betray his people's hopes; the first was his distant relative, the mufti of Jerusalem, the notorious Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who dominated Palestinian politics from the 1920s until the 1950s.

Terror was the mufti's weapon. He turned away from reason and compromise, rejected the inescapable logic of partition, struck down his moderate rivals, and made his way to Berlin during the Second World War and bet on the Axis powers as redeemers of his people. The mufti was never repudiated by his own people. Arafat assimilated that legacy. He held a deed to the land of Palestine, wanted it all, as he repeatedly said, "from the river to the sea" --from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. He knew that a great verdict had issued from the war of 1948, but still he fed the impossible and self-defeating dream of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees to the cities and towns of Israel proper. Jaffa and Haifa were lost, but Arafat stoked the subliminal hope of his people that history's verdict could somehow be overturned.

The world indulged Yasser Arafat, gave him plenty of room to maneuver, showered him with aid and money, and graciously offered him a place of prominence in the great diplomatic game. (The oddest gift, given Arafat's wayward ways and his habitual resort to terror, was a Nobel Peace Prize, which must surely stand as the supreme irony of his legacy.) Arafat took the world's indulgence as his due. He took the money of the princes and monarchs of the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf--but sided with Saddam Hussein when the order of princes came under attack in the first Gulf War. He took the "hospitality" of Jordan and Lebanon--but scrupled not at all when it came to bringing ruin and bloodshed to those lands. He could forever hoodwink the Europeans, who were all too willing to believe the legend of his moderation.

American diplomacy in the Clinton years, too, fell under Arafat's spell, and the White House bet that he would stand up to the boys of terror and the fearsome masked men. But in the summer of 2000, at Camp David, Arafat wrecked the political career of his Israeli negotiating partner, Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and frustrated Bill Clinton, who had made the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace the cornerstone of his diplomacy. Clinton had come to that passionate pursuit armed with his celebrated charm and a sense of American optimism. In Arafat's evasion, Clinton met an obstacle he could not overcome. In his recently published memoirs, Bill Clinton tells of Yasser Arafat's thanking him for his efforts and assuring him that history will record that the American president had been a "great man." Clinton was not in the mood for flattery; he had come to know his man by now and said to him: "Mr. Chairman, I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one."

Blowing kisses. Character is destiny. And in the end, character doomed Arafat. The peace of Oslo, concluded in 1993, its burden shouldered by the legendary Israeli soldier and statesman, Yitzhak Rabin, had rescued Yasser Arafat from political oblivion, brought him back from the wilderness and from exile to give him a political base, a home on the soil of Gaza and the West Bank. Arafat understood the bargain that Labor Zionism made with him: He would have to keep the peace, and he would have to begin to lay the foundations of a moderate Palestinian polity. He would do nothing of the sort. He was good at starting fires. Temperamentally, the man abhorred the hard work of state building. The romance of the exile and the romance of "the revolutionary" tugged at him. He abhorred transparency, preferred to keep his subordinates guessing, treated the public treasure donors gave him as his own personal inheritance.

It is idle to lament the historic opportunities wasted by this man. The fault lies not in a leader whose weaknesses were known the world over but in the illusions and the hopes invested in him by outsiders willing to be deluded. When it truly counted, Palestinian history needed the healer's art and a leader's courage. In Yasser Arafat, it was to beget a juggler who never knew when history came calling, who would never accept the burden of choice and the logic of political responsibility. In retrospect, the oddest thing about the man was his giddiness in times of trouble and situations of great seriousness. In one of his defining images, from his old age, the man blowing kisses to the crowd could never grasp the depth of his people's despair and the magnitude of their needs. Would that he had given the crowd the gift of moderation, the sense of what can and cannot be had in the world of nations. "Mordechai Kedar is in Islamic and Arabic Studies at Bar-Ilan"

To Go To Top
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 10, 2004.

This was the statement read on the Senate Floor by U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), March 4, 2002.

I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto ruler, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.

I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the 1976 Six-Day War as if that were something new. He went on to talk about other land that had been acquired and had been taken by Israel.

I remember so well on December 4 when we covered all of this and the fact that there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace.

When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process.

If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.

We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East--that is us--all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door.

I have some observations to make about that. But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archeological evidence supports it.

Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture--there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years.

It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have.

Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology.

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.

One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem.

The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.

That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, ``man sent from God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.

The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.

The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917.

In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.

I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``Tom Sawyer.'' Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as ``a hopeless, dreary place.''

In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.

The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the Czars.

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?

They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.

The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally.

It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany--more than any other country in the world.

The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today.

We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.

You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.

Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks.

We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.

I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said:

Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves?

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.

But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue.

It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.

No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. ... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''

That is God talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,''--the West Bank.

This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land.

Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion.

At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, ``Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' This process continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table.

He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.

And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting?

A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion.

Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission to be there? It was no surprise.

The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details.

They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.

In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived.

They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, ``No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. ... They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all.

We have to get out of this mind set that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.

These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes."

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, November 10, 2004.

This was written by Joseph D'Hippolito. It appeared in Front Page Magazine, where it archived at (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15865)

Nearly two years after conducting a vigorous international campaign against military intervention in Iraq, the Vatican reversed itself.

The Telegraph, Britain's leading conservative newspaper, reported Oct. 10 that Vatican officials now support a multinational military presence led by NATO to restore order and protect Iraq's nascent democracy.

The article's headline is telling: "Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq." Before the Anglo-American invasion, Pope John Paul II passionately opposed President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who favored military force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the United Nations' demand for disarmament.

But as an anonymous Vatican advistor told the Telegraph, "there is a feeling that there really is no going back."

Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's secretary of state, described the reversal more colorfully.

"The child has been born," Sodano told the Italian daily La Stampa on Sept. 22. "It may be ille