ENDING THE ARAFAT ERA 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

CULTURE OF DEATH? PALESTINIAN GIRL'S MURDER HIGHLIGHTS GROWING NUMBER OF 'HONOR KILLINGS' Posted by Naomi Ragen, November 30, 2004.

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

POLL RESULTS: 70% OF PALESTINIANS COULD BE INDUCED TO PERMANENTLY LEAVE 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.. Findings: 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

ISRAELI TV TACKLES WAR FOR HEARTS AND MINDS 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

EXPERTS CALL FOR NEW WORLD BODY TO FIGHT GLOBAL TERRORISM 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

CHANUKAH REFLECTIONS 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, Yoram

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

NOT SO INNOCENT EGYPTIANS; EXCESSIVE IDF VIOLENCE?; POWELL NAIVE OR CUNNING? Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2004.

HOW THE ARABS DIMINISH OUR OWN DEMOCRACY 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. TARGETS OF ISRAELI SECURITY FORCES 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. ABOUT THE THREE EGYPTIANS KILLED BY MISTAKE 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? WHAT SHARON SAID TO POWELL 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? P.A. PRESENTS THE U.S. TO ITS PEOPLE (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? JORDANIAN SHEIKH KILLED IN IRAQ 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). ISRAEL DISCIPLINES OFFICERS FOR EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE 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. EVALUATING EGYPT'S ROLE 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. ISRAELI LEFTISTS SEND CONDOLENCES TO P.A. OVER ARAFAT 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. "JORDAN TIMES" ADVICE ON P.A. & IRAQI ELECTIONS 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

NOVEMBER 29, 2004: ANNIVERSARY OF THE UN VOTE ON RESOLUTION 181 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 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 Biurchametz Blimpish Blithered 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 Cuanas Danegerus Daniel Davis Flig God Pigeon Harald Tribune Hatshepsut Heretics Almanac Hidden Nook History Nerd IceVikings I Love America Instant Knowledge News IsraPundit Israel Commentary JPundit Jersusalem Posts Leaning Right News Letter from Israel Lindasog MCNS Martinipundit Mererhetoric Motnews Mugged By Reality Mystery Achievement Mystical Paths Naebunny NetWMD Nice Jewish Boy Peaktalk Protect Our Heritage Reaganesque Red Tigress Riteturnonly Shimshon9 Solomonia Spitball Defense Supernatural Tampa Bay Primer Techie Vampire Texasbug Tex The Pontificator The Autism homepage The Conservative The Homeland The Seal Club Think-Israel Wackingday Who's Your Rabbi Voxfelisi Yoan Hermida Weblog of a Wondering Jew To Go To Top

NOT FOR THE SPINELESS 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

TERROR EXPERT: QAIDA WMD ATTACK ON U.S. LIKELY SOON 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

IS GAZA ISRAEL'S CZECHOSLAVAKIA, PM SHARON? 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

IS THIS THE FUTURE OF THE JEWISH STATE? 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

"INCLUSIVENESS" WITH EVIL; TIME FOR DECISION ON IRAN; SHARON BOOSTS TERROR Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 29, 2004.

EVIDENCE OF PAKISTANI SERIOUSNESS AGAINST TERRORISM 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. NEW DEFENSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM 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. SHARON'S BOOST TO TERRORISM 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. CONTROVERSY & REPORTING ON IT 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. "INCLUSIVE" POLITICAL PROCESS AN EXCUSE FOR EVIL 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. POLLARD REJECTS AN OPPORTUNITY 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

ISRAEL'S ADGRAVOPHILIA 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

RABBIS AND POLITICS 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

EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED 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

THERMONUCLEAR "ACCIDENT" 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

PATH LEADS TO JERUSALEM 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

OLE BLUE EYES SINGS A DIASPORA TUNE 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

DISENGAGEMENT'S ARCHITECT BRIG.-GEN.GILADY REVEALS PLAN IS FAITH BASED 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

PALESTINIANS TALKING PEACE? 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

SOMERVILLE SHOULD DIVEST FROM U.S. 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

WATER DISPUTE MAY BOIL OVER DURING PULLOUT 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

INTERPRETING CASUALTY FIGURES; U.S. PRESSURING ISRAEL; JIHAD ON CAMPUS Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2004.

INTERPRETING CASUALTY FIGURES 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. PRES. BUSH'S PLANS 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. MARTIN INDYK MISREPRESENTS NEW P.A. HEAD 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. UNO, CHAMPION OF THE "DOWN-TRODDING" 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 ADVISING P.A. SECURITY FORCES IN GAZA 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. U.S. PRESSURES ISRAEL 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? THE RELIABILITY OF POLLS AND THE ETHICS OF POLS 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). JIHAD ON CAMPUS 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. ARAFAT'S MOTIVE IN SIGNING OSLO ACCORDS 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

SIGNING OUR NEW PETITION AGAINST DEPORTING JEWS FROM GAZA 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

SELF-EXPULSION OFFER SEES NO TAKERS 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

SPREADING ISLAM IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 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. COMMENTS (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

REQUEST FOR HELP FROM SUHA 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

A NEW BUSH DOCTRINE 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/index.html) is a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site; it provides news articles and essays. To Go To Top

KEEP THE TERRORISTS OFF THE U OF MICHIGAN CAMPUS 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

WOMEN CONVICTED OF "NEGLECT" IN YESHA PROTEST 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

GAZA - AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL 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

A RESPONSIBLE MAN 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

NATIONAL MADNESS 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

RESPONSE TO SENATOR PRUD'HOMME 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 Max

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!" EDITORIAL COMMENT: 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

WHO WILL FILL ARAFAT'S BLOODY SHOES? 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

THE HOPEFUL HALF-TRUTHS OF UK MIDDLE EAST FOREIGN POLICY 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

ISLAM IN EUROPE 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

DIVIDING THE JEWISH PEOPLE 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

PLANET OF THE LICE 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

THE AWAKENING OF YOSEF GOELL 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

SYRIA - THE NEW MIDDLE EAST DARLING 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

FORMER HOSTAGES, P.O.W.S, AND PRISONERS OF ZION APPEAL FOR POLLARD 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, Signed: 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 http://www.jonathanpollard.org/calls.htm 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

US-BACKED ROAD MAP 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

TOTALITARIANISM OF IDEAS 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

INTERVIEW WITH RAFUL EITAN 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

SECRET SERVICE OUTSMARTED SELF; SYRIA IS IN IRAQ; JEWISH WIVES OF ARABS Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2004.

A CONSERVATIVE DOESN'T SEE LIBERALS AS "PROGRESSIVE" "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. ARAFAT SAW AHEAD 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? WHAT RADICAL IRANIAN STUDENTS SEE 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. INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT (ISM) 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. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS? 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? ISRAELI REPORTS VS. THE NEWS 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. SOME EGYPTIAN JOURNALISTS UNCARING ABUT ARAFAT'S DEATH 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. SECRET SERVICE OUTSMARTED ITSELF 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. SYRIA HELPS FINANCE THE IRAQI INSURGENCY 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. UNO HELPED SADDAM MORE THAN REALIZED 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). SPANISH CITY AGAINST SHARON 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 PROPOSES TO SUCKER ISRAEL 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.) NGO BIGOTS FOR "JUSTICE" 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. "GOOD INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?" 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? P.A. & ISRAEL PREPARE A NEW, DEADLY HOAX ON ISRAELIS 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. IT TAKES MURDER TO GET INSECURITY ACKNOWLEDGED 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. A JEWISH WOMAN'S LIFE WITH AN ISRAELI ARAB 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

NADIA'S LETTER TO THE POLLARDS 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! Affectionately, Nadia 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

H HOUR HAS ARRIVED 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

TWENTY MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO TERRORISTS? 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

WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE? Posted by Israel and Batya Medad, November 22, 2004.

GERMANY IS BOYCOTTING ISRAEL. WE MUST ALL BOYCOTT ALL COUNTRIES WHO SUPPORT THE MUSLIM TERROR DEATH CULT, INCLUDING GERMANY, FRANCE, BELGIUM, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, NORWAY, DENMARK, HOLLAND & CHINA. 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

PA PRESS: US SOLDIER IS RAPIST; RICE IS "EXTERMINATOR"; US COMMITTING "ETHNIC CLEANSING" 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 WITH IMP MATERIAL ON 12 TOPICS http://www.pmw.org.il/tv.html VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES ON PA INCITEMENT TO GENICIDE http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES ON PA INCITEMENT OF CHILDREN TO SHAHADA [MARTYRDOM] http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.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

MY TAKE ON THE SITUATION 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

OUR INSTITUTES OF LOWER LEARNING 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

CONDOLEEZZA RICE AND THE MUSLIM TERRORISTS 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

FOREIGN PUBLIC OPINION; SHARON WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW FROM PHILADELPHIA ROUTE Posted by Richard Shulman, November 22, 2004.

THE WEIGHT OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OPINION 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. TOO MUCH MEDICAL CARE FOR ARAFAT? 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. A TIME TO TALK, A TIME TO WAIT, A TIME TO ACT, A TIME TO FIGHT 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. ANOTHER PERESISM 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. EVER AGAIN 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 TESTS ISRAEL 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. PM SHARON WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW FROM PHILADELPHI ROUTE 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. DUTCH TO WITHDRAW FROM THE COALITION 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. WHO DIDN'T MOURN FOR ARAFAT? 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. THE WRONG ADVICE TO THE WEST "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. ARAB EFFORTS TO REIGN IN TERRORISM 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

CHANUKA CAMPAIGN FOR COMMITTEE FOR RACHEL'S TOMB 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

COLIN CANCER Posted by David Wilder, November 22, 2004.

Shalom. 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

IS THERE A HOPE TO "REFORM" ISLAM? 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

ANNOUNCING A NEW WEBSITE: "ISRAEL ACADEMIA MONITOR" 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

ARAFAT RUMORS TURNING POISONOUS 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

TELL ISRAEL THE TRUTH MICHAEL B. OREN 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

AFTER ARAFAT WHAT? 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

ENEMIES WITHOUT LIMITS 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

COLUMBIA U. SPREADS "CLIMATE OF HATE" 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

WILL ISRAEL BECOME EUROPE'S SOUTH VIETNAM? 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

THE JIHAD AGAINST MARK WILLIAMS 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

MEDIA ADOPT ATYPICAL SETTLERS AS TYPICAL. AIN'T THAT TYPICAL? 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

TWO ABUS AND AN ALTALENA... 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

TEFLON TERRORISM 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

POLLARD: ISRAEL GROOMED JAILED TERRORIST TO HEAD PA 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

PLEASE FREE JONATHAN POLLARD 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. David. 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. Respectfully, 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. Respectfully, Marion DS Dreyfus To Go To Top

FINANCIAL HELP AS A REWARD FOR TERRORISM 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. ai