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 Sc