HOME Featured Stories November 2007 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 30, 2007.

The text is from Yoram Ettinger's "Chanukah 2007" at http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il.

Happy Chanukkah to ALL

Chag Sameach

Am Yisrael Chai

(The people of Israel live!)

Be'ahavat Yisrael

(With a love for Israel and its people)


Chanukkah commemorates our historical victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks

The Jewish rebellion started in the year 167 B.C.E., after a century of Greek cultural hegemony and increasing assimilation.


Hold onto your religious convictions,

Never submit to the assimilated majority,

No matter how numerous or sophisticated they are,

And fight for your ideals.


Chanukah is the only Jewish holiday which commemorates a Land-of-Israel national liberation struggle, unlike Passover (Exodus from Egypt), Sukkot/Tabernacles & Shavouot/Pentacost (on the way to the Land of Israel), Purim (Persia), etc. Chanukah is the longest Jewish holiday (8 days) with the most intense level of Light (8 consecutive nights of candle lighting).


*Mattityahu son of Yochanan, the priest led rebellion -- 166/7BC
*Yehuda son of Mattityahu -- 166-161BC
*Yonatan son of Mattityahu -- 161-143BC
*Shimon son of Mattityahu -- 143-135BC
*Yochanan Hyrcanus son of Shimon -- 135-104BC
*Mattityahu Antigonus -- 40-37BC


Alexander The Great - who held Judaism in high esteem and whose Egyptian heir Ptolemy II translated the Torah to Greek - died in 323BC following 12 glorious years at the throne. 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 a main invasion route!).

In 198BC, Israel was conquered by the Syrian kingdom. 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, upon his return to Syria from a military victory over Egypt, he devastated Jerusalem, massacred the Jews, forbade the practice of Judaism (including the Sabbath, circumcision, etc.) and desecrated Jerusalem and the Temple.

The 167BC-launched rebellion against the Syrian (Seleucid) kingdom featured the Hasmonean (MACCABEE) family: Mattityahu, a priest from the town of Modi'in, and his five sons, Yochanan, Yehuda, Shimon, Yonatan 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 frequently as mercenaries by Egypt, Syria, Rome and other global and regional powers.


The first day of Chanukah - the holiday of light - is on the 25th day of Kislev, the month of miracles (e.g. Noah's Rainbow appeared in Kislev).

The first and last Hebrew letters of Kislev equal (in Jewish numerology) 26, which the total sum of the Hebrew spelling of Jehovah. 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.

The 25th (Hebrew) word in Genesis is LIGHT ("OR" in Hebrew). A Jewish metaphor for the Torah is light. The 25th stop of the People of Israel - on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land - was Hashmona (same root as Hasmoneans in Hebrew).

Chanukah commemorates the victory of Light (Maccabees) over Darkness. While light stands for remembrance, darkness (Chashecha in Hebrew) stands for FORGETFULNESS (Schichecha in Hebrew, spelled with the same Hebrew letters as Chashecah/darkness).


Shimon the Maccabee - who succeeded Judah and Yonatan the Maccabees - responded to an ultimatum by the Syrian/Greek Emperor Antiochus (Book of 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.

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, November 30, 2007.

This article was written by Youssef Ibrahim and it appeared yesterday in the New York Sun.

Do American institutions want to snuggle up with Saudi Arabia and its Dark Age values?

They had better think this one through as a tidal wave of money from Saudi Arabia -- as well as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait -- is crashing into these shores and buying up American assets.

They should expect no free lunches. These failed governments are buying America's silence and its implied acquiescence to barbaric.

First, the numbers:

  • The United Arab Emirates, a tiny enclave of a half million natives and no rule of law has purchased significant chunks of American banks (including Citibank), ports, and airport facilities.

  • Kuwait, the country we saved from Saddam's clutch, is deploying a war chest of $300 billion as its Neanderthal Parliament strives to reinstate flogging and decapitation and to annul the recently granted right of women to vote.

  • Qatar, the proprietor of the anti-Semitic, anti-American Al-Jazeera network, is piling up $300 billion, buying stakes in Europe's third-largest stock market, the London Stock Exchange, and pumping money into Carnegie Mellon, Cornell Medical College, Texas A&M, and Virginia Commonwealth University. ¢ And the mother of Islamofascism, Saudi Arabia, where 200 senior royals of the ruling family are playing with several billion each and buying up stakes in strategic companies such as Disney and Apple, and Citibank, too, and using the rest of the oil bonanza to fund madrassas, militant mosques, and theological institutes across America and Europe.

The money-seduction tactic has worked in Britain well over the past three decades, transforming whole segments of the British Muslim population into Wahhabi militants, amply evidenced by recent subway bombings as well as the number of women in burkas strolling through the streets of London. The purchase of the British government's silence was dramatically evident in Prime Minister Blair's decision to shut down an investigation into allegedly huge bribes paid to the Saudi royal family.

As I said, expect no free lunches. To be sure, this country's economy benefits immensely from foreign investments. And in the past half century, the biggest have been from Europe, Canada, Britain, Japan, and Australia -- which all share the fundamental value of civility. A flood of money from fascist societies is a different ball game.

In the past few weeks alone, several examples demonstrate the values that the empires of darkness are forcing us to swallow.

The second- and third-period classes in Saudi Arabian schools were suspended this Tuesday "in solidarity with Palestinian brotherly people." In directives to 5 million students, the Saudi deputy education minister, Mohammad al-Roweishad, told them to spend their liberated 90 minutes writing about Saudi Arabia's fight against Zionism "on behalf of Palestinian Arabs." In a country where preachers routinely refer to Christians and Jews as monkeys and pigs, it takes little imagination to figure out what is in those essays. A French teenager, the son of a French hotel manager in Dubai, was abducted by three Emirati men, raped, and dumped in the desert outside of Dubai. Police and the medical authorities responded to his parents' protest by threatening to jail the boy as a homosexual, until President Sarkozy of France personally interfered to demand a real investigation. In the glare of world publicity, Western apologists explained that Bedouin traditions in these closed all-male societies do not regard pedophilia as a crime and that teenage white males are a kind of fair game. Indeed, it is a matter of record that countless members of domestic staff, male and female, are routinely raped in Arabian homes and deported or jailed when they complain.

In a now world-famous case, a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian woman and her boyfriend were pounced upon in a car and both raped by seven men. The Saudi so-called justice system condemned her to 90 lashes. When her lawyer protested this barbaric sentence, he was disbarred and her sentence augmented to 200 lashes.

Sadly, while the American press and civil establishment revolted, the White House, Congress, and, above all, our business establishment looked away, suggesting how heavy a price is exacted for a Bedouin greenback.

We often mouth off the word "failed society" without fully comprehending that in the Arabian Gulf, the term refers to a veritable kingdom of darkness for women, men, children, and minorities.

The huge migration of money that has followed Western capitalist systems has brought progress and modernity in its wake. But Arabian oil money imported by Citibank and other titans of American industry deeply compromises our values and buys our silence.

UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) -- is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, November 30, 2007.

Not sure I believe much in Sadat's virtue. After all, he was just at the beginning of the stupid Israeli policy that when you win, you sue for peace. He came in order for Egypt to hold onto as much as it could and pay as little as it had to and maybe get a smidgeon back of what it had lost when Egypt attacked Israel in 1973. After all, that's what happens everywhere else when a country loses a war, especially when that country is the aggressor. The then Prime Minister Begin was ridiculously generous. Which probably shocked the Arabs, but they are fast learners when it suits them. They became very good at ignoring they were the losers and became most enthusiastic about asking for everything back and then some when they lost. Now that they have the American administration on their side, what's to stop them from expecting rewards for vile behavior everywhere?

This article was written by David Warren, a columnist for The Ottawa Citizen. This article is archived at
www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id= c317964e-29f5-40d5-bb5e-22d3ed99b504

U.S. President George W. Bush stands with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (right) at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland this week. All the talking in the world won't ensure the Palestinians' sincere interest in pursuing peace, David Warren writes. (Avi Ohaon, Reuters handout)

It is enough to look at the photograph, of George W. Bush expansively embracing Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert at Annapolis -- in just the way Bill Clinton embraced Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak at Camp David. It's déjà vu all over again, in the words of that great Yogi, Berra. Must every American president do this in the twilight of his administration?

Just to review: nothing essential has changed. The Palestinians, and the Arab powers who are not really behind them, still do not unambiguously recognize Israel's right to exist. They have got no closer to the position Anwar Sadat of Egypt took, very publicly, when he flew to Jerusalem and set the stage for the only Israel-Arab peace conference that ever made any difference. This is the stage of saying publicly, in Arabic to their own people, not only in English to foreign media, that, "Israel is there, she is Jewish, she will stay there, and it is in our common interest to make peace with her and get on with our lives."

As Bernard Lewis wrote on the weekend, repeating what I had said last week, repeating what Mr. Lewis and many others have been repeating for many years, this is the key issue. It is simple, and it is insoluble in the foreseeable future. If Israel were to be accepted into the region as a normal and legitimate neighbour, then the discussion would only be about where to draw the borders, and a happy conclusion would be reached soon enough. But so long as the propaganda of the entire Arab and Muslim world is turned to demonizing "Zionism" (Jews and Israel), and the public fantasy continues of driving Israel into the sea, what is the point of discussing borders?

As long as the conditions for even a temporary peace agreement -- a "hudna" in the Arabic lexicon, or cessation of open hostilities until the Arab side has had a chance to regroup -- must include Israel's recognition of the "right of return" for some millions of the descendants of Palestinians who were displaced in the late 1940s (and no reciprocal recognition of the Jews who were displaced across the Arab world at the same time) -- where can we get? The demand that a nation commit suicide can be no legitimate part of a peace conference.

Or has something changed?

Outward circumstances have changed, as they are constantly changing, not only in the Middle East. And one might hope for some chance constellation of factors that could be seized by wise statesmen. The chief such factor, at the moment, is Revolutionary Iran's bid for regional hegemony. While it continues, it creates a significant common interest for Israel and the Arabs. It is because of Iran that Saudi Arabia is attending the conference at Annapolis, and other Arab foreign ministers are looking in. Even Syria (Iran's Arab ally, together with Hezbollah and Hamas among Israel's immediate neighbours), is hovering vulture-like at the periphery of the conference in case the return of the Golan Heights might land suddenly on the table.

These Arab foreign ministers are quite necessary to dignify the Palestinian delegation. For in truth, Mahmoud Abbas does not represent more than the old Fatah rump within the West Bank. Hamas has been in the ascendant, both electorally and by force of arms. Hamas now controls Gaza; and the struggle between Fatah and Hamas for the allegiance of the West Bank -- in words, imagery, and weaponry -- resembles the early stages of Fatah's loss of Gaza. Who can expect Israel to make peace with a Palestinian representative who is the figurehead of a dying regime?

Indeed, Prime Minister Olmert himself is in power, with approval ratings at the elevation of the Dead Sea, only because of a vacuum in contemporary Israeli politics. He is under investigation on serious criminal charges, he does not enjoy the confidence of his party or cabinet, and he will be gone the moment any credible character emerges to replace him.

President Clinton's failed summit at Camp David was the prelude to a tremendous outpouring of violence. Rather than instill the slightest hope for progress towards some peaceful future, it tended to confirm to both sides that all hope was vain. It does not follow that the present round of chatter will end so catastrophically, but only because Iran is there, and because the Palestinians are too divided among themselves to launch another ambitious intifada.

In my view, the principal failure has been on the part of America and the West. This has consisted principally of the failure to insist on the "Sadat standard" of sincerity among participants in any peace round. We have an obligation to speak the painful truth to the Arabs: that Israel will remain "on their agenda" until they themselves agree to take it off.

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, November 30, 2007.

This was written by Eli Lake, Staff Reporter of the New York Sun. It appeared Nov 03, 2007.

WASHINGTON -- A former Soviet dissident and Israeli deputy premier whose ideas President Bush has cited as an inspiration for his ambitious freedom agenda said the peace talks kicked off this week at Annapolis "has nothing to do with promoting democracy," and he warned that Israel will be lucky if it does not end in catastrophe for the Jewish state.

In an interview yesterday, Natan Sharansky said he did not feel betrayed by Mr. Bush, whom he called a friend. But he said, "I am upset." "The greatness of President Bush is the way he would believe in the power of the idea of freedom," Mr. Sharansky said. "He believes in principles; he was willing to stand alone against all for these pressures, but it is not enough to stand for principles. He has to appoint the people who share these beliefs and who would implement them. He has not."

Those words appear to be a direct criticism of Secretary of State Rice, who has made the creation of a Palestinian Arab state her top priority in the last year, visiting Jerusalem nine times to press for the launch of final status negotiations between the government of Israel and the nearly vanquished Palestinian Authority, now dominated by Fatah after the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June.

Mr. Sharansky in 2002 was instrumental in persuading Mr. Bush that his administration should focus on building a Palestinian Arab civil society and the institutions necessary for transparent, democratic rule as a precondition for creating a Palestinian state. The last vestiges of that vision today are a commitment to building Palestinian institutions and the ascendancy of Salam Fayyad, an American-educated reformer praised widely for his efforts to end the misappropriation of international aid by the Palestine Liberation Organization under the late Yasser Arafat.

Another reason the Bush administration is pursuing peace talks now, however, is Iran. In 2006, following the cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel, European and Arab allies offered a kind of bargain: support for Iran's diplomatic and economic isolation in exchange for America's engagement in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

In September of that year, Ms. Rice's former senior counselor, Philip Zelikow told an audience at the annual retreat for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that such negotiations were a "sine qua non" for America's European and Sunni allies.

Since that time, Ms. Rice has sought to entice America's Arab allies in particular to support sanctions and isolation for Iran by crafting a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. On Tuesday, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and all the gulf states, aside from Kuwait, attended the Annapolis meeting that launched the new negotiations.

Mr. Sharansky yesterday said he thought it was ridiculous to entice European and Arab allies to do what is in their interest against Iran by pushing for a peace settlement now.

"Fighting against a nuclear Iran, it is not a favor to Israel -- it must be, it has to be the top priority in America," he said. "If America is believed to be promoting democracy, it has to be the top priority of the free world and not a favor to Israel. To think that countries like Saudi Arabia will be more cooperative in the struggle against Iran if there will be more success in building democratic societies in Palestine is ridiculous. Iran is a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia than it is Israel. The second greatest threat to Saudi Arabia is any democracy in the Arab world. A democratic Iraq is a great threat to them. They will never be an ally promoting any democratic alternatives in the Middle East."

Mr. Sharansky also questioned the efficacy of the Palestinian Arab president, Mahmoud Abbas. "You have one force, Hamas, that does not recognize Israel, which is not going to recognize Israel, and fight Israel. The other force, which is our so-called partner, accepted by everybody, it doesn't represent anyone, has no power, and cannot influence anything."

The negotiations are dangerous because they reopen the question of whether Israel is a Jewish state, Mr. Sharansky said. It is not a problem that Palestinians or Arabs do not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, he said, but he bemoaned the neutralism, with the exception of Mr. Bush, of the free world on this question.

"Sometimes you have to negotiate with your enemy," he said. "I am concerned that the free world, who are supposed to be our allies, with the exception of the leaders of the United States of America, are not prepared to give a strong statement. We won't hear a statement from European leaders; it would be too much of a provocation to say Israel is a Jewish state."

UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) -- is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Manhigut Yehudit, November 30, 2007.

Steven Gutkin, the bureau chief in Jerusalem for the Associated Press, stated that what is necessary to advance the road map at Annapolis are excruciating challenges. He correctly states that the painful concessions have now become excruciating.

Here are the "excruciating challenges" as Mr. Gutkin from the AP reports based on his perception of talks in Annapolis.

"they may have to slice Jerusalem in half with a wall, come up with 85 billion for Palestinian refugees if they are not given the right to return, agree on which territory Israel should give up for a future palestinian state, wrest control of the Gaza strip from hamas, give the Arabs equal size value to the land their giving up in exchange to be able to keep large settlement blocks." He also says that Israel will need some sort of a promise not to fire rockets before uprooting TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SETTLERS and if they don't cut Jerusalem in half, they will at least, have to figure out how to share it.

Here is the alternative- Manhigut Yehudit offers the Jewish People the road map that is the ONLY road map that the people of Israel can follow. This is the road map of Jewish values. The roadmap that says we treasure every grain of soil from our Holy Land. A road map that understands that the reason that we have a right to Tel Aviv and Hevron is because we have a covenant with G-D and that Israel is meant to be a Jewish homeland not a homeland that houses some Jews. Those who inflict on us painful and excruciating concessions must be taken out of their Audi's and sent packing. Our own people must be educated and de-programmed to understand that when you go follow the wrong map, it will be painful and excruciating. Ask any of the thousands of families who lost their loved ones in the Intifada, in Lebanon or even on the high ways (where road safety is not an important enough issue to those who are busy trying to get photo ops with the most anti-Israel US official -Condoleeze Rice-in decades.)

Manhigut Yehudit will never speak about excruciating sacrifices. We will bring light and happiness in the spirit of the Macabees with Jewish education, Annexation of our Holy soil, Redirecting money back to our own people to end poverty instead of funding terrorists, Jewish prayer on Har Habayit, Ending the unspeakable desecration of our Holy artifacts, Focusing on building up Israel not tearing it down.

Those who believe in the Jewish roadmap should encourage anyone who has the ability to vote in Israel to register for Likud under the banner of Manhigut Yehudit. Those who cannot vote should support Manhigut Yehudit with all their resources to help bring about a true Jewish State.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, November 30, 2007.

This was written by Stephen Schwarz and Irfan Al-Alawi and it appeared November 28, 2007 in The Weekly Standard

Stephen Schwartz is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard. Irfan Al-Alawi is a historian of religion and culture in Mecca and Medina.

Saudi justice: whipping a rape victim.

MUCH OF THE WORLD has expressed shock and outrage at the sentences recently handed down by a court in the Saudi Arabian city of Qatif. Judicial authorities there ordered that a 19-year-old woman be lashed 200 times and jailed for six months after she was kidnapped at knife-point and raped by seven men, twice by each. Her assailants received "enhanced" penalties--two to nine years in prison.

The pretext for this atrocious treatment of the victim was that she had been found in a vehicle with a man to whom she was not related. On Sunday, November 25, the Saudi ministry of justice affirmed its support for the punishments, claiming the woman had engaged in an illicit affair with the driver of the car.

The rape victim has vowed to appeal the judgment against her. She has said she recently married someone else, and was only meeting the man in the car, a friend from school, to retrieve a picture from him. She further disclosed that her male friend was also raped by the criminal gang.

The woman's lawyer, the well-known Saudi human rights activist Abd Al-Rahman Al-Lahem, has been suspended from the Saudi Bar Association for communicating with media about the case. This was not the first official sanction against Al-Lahem, who has been repeatedly imprisoned and forbidden to travel outside Saudi Arabia. Saudi bloggers and liberal journalists have commented extensively on the situation of "the woman from Qatif." Saudi sources indicate that punishment of the rape victim and penalizing of her attorney were motivated by the irritation of court officials at having public opinion aroused against them.

The rape took place a year and a half ago. Although much has been said and written outside Saudi Arabia about the case, few foreigners have noticed the cultural and sectarian background of these crimes. Qatif is a center of the large Shia minority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and the victim herself was Shia. Her attackers were Sunnis. The so-called religious police or mutawiyin, who are brutal in any case, were also acting here in support of Sunni domination over Shias in Qatif.

Al-Lahem has correctly denounced the whipping of his client as a violation of Islamic legal precedent. But the court decision illuminates three injustices prevalent in Saudi Arabia:

* Discrimination against women.
* Discrimination against Shia Muslims and other religious minorities.
* Arbitrary procedures in the Saudi legal system.

A Shia woman suffers further in such a case, because it is likely the aggressors in the incident, aware of her minority identity, knew that they could act with relative impunity, as a crime against a Saudi Shia will not be considered as grave as the same crime perpetrated against a Sunni victim.

The attention to the crime of Qatif has had some salutary effects. First, Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, who is believed to be aligned with King Abdullah in seeking reforms that would make the country more respected, criticized the sentence against the rape victim, on Monday, November 26, as a "bad judgment." Second, also on Monday, White House spokesman Dana Perino condemned the Saudi court action in sharp language that is all too rare in Washington when it comes to atrocious official acts in Saudi Arabia. "I don't think it matters if you're a female or a male. I think that the situation is very discouraging and outrageous," Perino said. "There is an appeals process, and we hope that the verdict changes. It is certainly not consistent with the judicial reforms that the Saudis have said that they would undertake." Third, her courageous lawyer's outspokenness is a hopeful sign. Al-Lahem was quoted in the Washington Post on Thanksgiving: "That verdict signals the death throes of the judiciary's old guard. They can see the end is near I saw that the overkill in that verdict was a sign of desperation." Regarding his suspension from the bar, Al-Lahem said, "I will have time to document the details of the last five years. They have changed the social and judicial history of Saudi Arabia."

Close observers of Saudi Arabia have argued for some time that extremism by the country's authorities signals a crisis of the regime, and is not a sign of self-confidence. The abominable verdict in Qatif is unfortunately in keeping with the ruling Wahhabi ideology of the Saudi kingdom. Wahhabism has a long record of humiliating women, and Wahhabi hatred of Shias is grossly visible not only in the kingdom itself but in neighboring Iraq, where Saudis have been incited by Wahhabi clerics to join the terrorist campaign against the Shia population and its shrines.

As Saudi Arabia becomes even richer based on the rise in oil prices, and its middle class expands, its citizens and residents (a quarter of its population are foreign workers without rights) are demanding political change. The hard core of Wahhabi elements in the royal family have responded by multiplying their extremist actions. A Saudi transition to accountability, pluralism, and popular sovereignty must come, slowly but inevitably.

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, November 30, 2007.

The confrontation between Islam and the Jews began in the Prophet Muhammad's time, and continues to this day. Israel's existence recalls Islam's age old Jewish problem, first felt at Islam's inception in Medina in 624 AD: How can Islam thrive and find salvation if Jews are politically powerful? And it requires the same solution chosen by the Prophet Muhammad -- elimination of political independence of Jews and the domination of Islam over them.

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam is an historic journey, from the birth of Islam, through its 1,200 year reign over the civilized world, to the last 300 years of Islamic decline, overtaken and dominated by the West -- then humiliated by a Jewish state. Islam's historic trials with Jews, and its relationship with conquered non-believers, help illustrate the Islamic world view - all through the eyes of Muslims.

In this groundbreaking film, the total rejection of Israel by Muslim states since its inception in 1948 comes to light as a religious duty for Believers. The Islamic roots of Anwar Sadat's 1977 Camp David Accords with Israel are exposed as "The Diplomatic Strategy Against Israel," by which Egypt sought to defeat Israel through diplomacy, rather than establish "Western Peace." Israel's misunderstanding of Islamic goals and values are highlighted by its enthusiasm for Yasser Arafat and the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Next, President George Bush's tragic misunderstanding of 9/11 as a "War Against Freedom," in which the United States played into the hands of Al-Qaeda and the Islamist cause by advocating democratic reform across the Middle East, is revealed. Finally, the Iranian agenda for acquiring strategic weapons to eliminate Israel comes clearly into focus.

Today, at the direction of Iran, Islamists are preparing for a fateful coming war for Islam -- and Israel is the number one target and obstacle in the path of Islamic revival. For Muslims, Israel embodies "injustice", and is the ultimate symbol of Islam's decline -- a Western, secular society imposed by the West on former Islamic lands. Only with the return of Jews to their historic status as "Dhimmi" or "Tributaries," tolerated and protected within Islamic society, can Islamic revival succeed -- resulting in "Islamic Peace" in the Middle East.

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam reaches the unavoidable conclusion that Western and Israeli misunderstanding of Islam is leading to a coming war -- which will have devastating consequences for the West, and worst of all for Israel -- Farewell Israel!

See the video at http://www.farewellisrael.com

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 30, 2007.

Olmert threw down the gauntlet yesterday when he said:

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights [assuming that the Palestinians in the territories will petition peacefully to be citizens of Israel, taking on the obligations of Israeli citizenship], then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished,"

This what the Left would have you believe.

Olmert's body language when he was holding hands with American President George W. Bush had the look of a beaten dog just glad to be there. For a few moments I thought he was going to lick the President's face as he tilted his head looking like a teen-age girl awaiting her first kiss.

Olmert is known to be an exceptionally weak Prime Minister which should surprise no one given his history as a manipulator, hiding behind various government offices he occupied.

Olmert wishes to rely on pledges made at Annapolis under mandates issued by Bush and Rice under a (do it or else), denials notwithstanding.

Olmert is well aware that none of the past commitments made by the Muslim Arab Palestinians under the moribund "Road Map" have been kept.

Terror continued under the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas before Ariel Sharon and Olmert evicted 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from their homes, farms, schools, synagogues, factories and cemeteries of Gush Katif/Gaza.

Gaza turned into a full scale Terror base, followed by a vote which put the more radical Hamas in control. Soon Hamas and Fatah began to struggle for power and money. They seemed to split but many of the Fatah army and police and the Arab Muslim Palestinians have been polled and showed a definite bias towards the Hamas attack policy.

Middle East experts, including those who are familiar with Islam know what treaties and agreements mean to Islam under Koranic law.

There are no true agreements that Muslims may make with "infidels" (non-Muslims), namely Israel, America and/or Europe. In both the Koran (written Islamic law) and the "Hadith" (Mohammed's Oral Law), Muslims are mandated to make agreements even if they have no intention of keeping them to advance the cause of Islam. Agreements called "Hudnas" are recommended which implements a "resting period" negotiated with the enemy but which is to end the moment the Islamists feel strong enough to renew the struggle or "Jihad" (war for Islam).

The maximum time allowed for any such agreement is 10 years and then all such agreements with "infidels" must be abrogated and declared "null and void".

The Free Western world has yet come to grips with this irrevocable commitment to "Jihad" by Muslims. The Arab Muslims make the claim that their land and all others is sacred. Worse yet, the West and the liberal media instantly genuflect to the claim that Islam is dominant and more sacred than any other religion. There will be no Peace under the rules and mandates of Koranic Law, no matter what the Muslim Arabs say or sign.

As for Olmert's statement that "Israel will be finished!", this shows a mind-set of a weak, dangerous leader who is ready and even anxious to accept defeat at the hands of Islam. It reminds us of when Olmert said: "I'm tired of winning." -- the mark of a defeatist.

Regrettably, Olmert has supporters in the Knesset who keep him in power for their own personal benefits. In the years to come, the mark of Cain will surely be stamped on their foreheads for their willingness to betray their brothers for personal gain.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 30, 2007.

The early advent of Shabbat makes possible for me today only the very briefest of postings, but I wanted to touch on key matters, with follow-up later as appropriate.


Khaled Abu Toameh of the Post has reported that a key PA official has told him that if and when Israel invades Gaza,

"Fatah won't remain idle...We will definitely fight together with Hamas against the Israeli army. It's our duty to defend our people against the occupiers...The homeland is more important than all our differences."

For Abbas to side with Israel in this instance would render him a traitor in the current political climate. But this provides a brief snapshot of what the "peace process" really looks like.


Israeli defense officials have expressed concern that the newly appointed envoy for the US on Palestinian security matters is going to lean on Israel to go easy.

The scuttlebutt I'm picking up is that Bush does not want to micro-manage the "process." This is good news as it cuts further pressure, although I'm not clear how much managing Rice intends to try to do.

What is unsettling is that the US has submitted to the UN Security Council a proposal supporting the agreements reached at Annapolis without first running this past Israel. Dan Gillerman, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, was left in the dark. The hope is that what will emerge is a proclamation of some sort and not a formal resolution, which would involve UN nations more closely in the process and further squeeze Israel.


A story has come out (World News Daily) saying that a Palestinian negotiator claims Olmert lied when he said that the Temple Mount is not negotiable, because he already promised it to the PA in arrangement with Jordan and Egypt. Several people have sent me this news release. My response is that it may be so, but I do not know without further confirmation. I have observed a propensity on the part of Palestinians to "leak" information that is not quite accurate, for their own purposes. Maybe Olmert discussed this with them but never promised. Maybe he did promise and is lying now (certainly a possibility). Maybe he is backtracking because he can only retain his coalition this way.


As to politics:

The police have, bewilderingly and infuriatingly, recommended that charges against Olmert in the Bank Leumi affair be dropped. There will be much more to say about this situation, which has generated considerable anger.

Barak, head of Labor, who promised to pull his party out of the coalition after the Winograd Report is released is now backtracking because of the "peace process." Word is that Shas is moving closer to pulling out but that Lieberman is not.


Yesterday was Nov. 29, the anniversary of the day on which the UN originally voted partition of Palestinian in 1947. I didn't want to let this pass without mention, but what I want to do is devote considerable commentary to this because of the multiple misunderstandings surrounding it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, November 30, 2007.

It is hard to make this stuff up. At first sight it seems that if a man's life were not at stake, the story would be funny. Alas, it is not as it reveals that Ahmadinejad who tries to strut on the world stage like a giant seeking martyrdom is nothing but as the Russian press reported, a fearful midget. So fearful, in fact, that he even enlisted impure dogs to protect him.

blogger Reza Valizadeh wrote that the "canines were deployed to sniff out possible explosives on November 14, before Ahmadinejad's appearance at an annual press exhibition. The sweep left exhibition visitors standing outside the venue for several hours." The four dogs were purchased in Germany at $150,000 each. Dogs are not used by other Iranian leaders' security teams. Indeed, they have not been used in the country during the 28 years of the Islamic republic's existence. Dog ownership is even controversial because the Koran considers dogs impure.

Shia docrine prescribes:

The water left over in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever.

There are ten types of filth and impurities: urine, feces, semen, carrion, blood of carrion, dogs, pigs, disbelievers.

When a dog, a pig, or a disbeliever touches or comes in contact with the clothes or body [of a Muslim] while he [the disbeliever] is wet, it becomes obligatory-compulsory upon him [the Muslim] to wash and clean that part which came in contact with the disbeliever.

This means that areas sniffed, touch, licked by dogs must be considered impure. Religious Iranians cannot but be surprised by their president's willingness to defile an area before entering it. It is not an action he could have taken lightly. He must be truly petrified. Just as illuninating is the fact that though the press exhibition must have been swarming with reporters, only one blogger dared reveal Ahmadinejad's religious transgression.

Reporters Without Borders freedom of the press index ranks Iran 166 out of 169 countries. What does that mean? It means that a journalist such as Akbar Montajabi had to change jobs 20 times. Last year I was told by an Iranian reporter I met in India that all his stories must be based on 6 approved sources. Even that does not protect reporters from paranoid Ahmadinejad. Reporters are routinely arrested, harassed, killed.

Ayfer Serçe, a Kurdish-origin Turkish journalist of the Euphrates news agency, was killed in late July by the Iranian army in Keleres, in the northwestern province of Azerbaijan. She first appeared to have died during an operation against Kurdish rebels but evidence received by Reporters Without Borders showed she had been killed on her way to the border after finishing her assignment. She had gone to the region in early July to investigate a spate of suicides by Kurdish women. The Iranian authorities refused to explain how she died or return her body to her family.

Three years after Iranian-Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was arrested and murdered after photographing families of prisoners outside Teheran's Evin prison, her killers have still not been identified.

Now, all reporters dare protest is their own treatment:

Valizadeh's arrest comes two days after dozens of Iranian journalists and intellectuals issued a statement to protest the jailing of journalists who are critical of the Iranian government.

One of the signatories, journalist Issa Saharkhiz, told Radio Farda on November 26 that a government crackdown on journalists has intensified in recent months. "There are some who are sitting and thinking of ways to fill up Iran's prisons. Unfortunately, we now see this not only in Tehran but also in the provinces," Saharkhiz said.

Saharkhiz added that journalists and media workers have lost their jobs as a result, and society has been limited to a "single voice."

In recent weeks, several journalists have been detained or charged in cities like Ahvaz, Rasht, and Sanandaj.

With reporters so effectively silenced, bloggers man the front lines. In addition to Reza Valizadeh, Maryam Hosseinkhah who writes on women's issue has also been arrested in the last 10 days:

It is within this context that a reader named Ahvazi left the following poignant comment on Kamangir's website:

The price of a German Dog: $150,000

Bail to release an Iranian: $50,000

If Reza was a dog he would have been valued highter!

Let me quote Mr. Khomenie when he said "An American dog has more rights in Iran than an Iranian".

I like to say that "A German dog has more rights in Iran than an Iranian!"

When all said and done, life in one totalitarian state is very much like life in any other. Everybody lives in justifiable fear and the leader in constant paranoia. Just go see the brilliant movie, The Lives of Others. Forget all about cultural differences. 2007 Iran is very much like 1985 East Germany. Only scenery, costume and language are different and they are not and will never be the heart of the matter.

Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, November 30, 2007.

At the recent Annapolis meeting, behind closed doors, up close and personal, the assembled Arab foreign ministers refused to shake hands with Tzipi Livni, Israel's Foreign Minister. She asked her Arab counterparts, especially her Saudi counterpart, why they did not want to shake hands with her. "I am not plague-ridden" Livni said. According to the Dutch minister, all the Arab ministers backed away from her as if "she were Dracula's sister." According to Fern Sidman, an unnamed Israeli source confirmed that PRESS HERE "the Saudis refused to shake hands and the Syrians refused to say anything nice." (Of course, another unnamed Israeli source also told Sidman that "at least they came to the meeting".) These details are also contained in the Washington Post and in Guysen International News.

My friend and colleague, Dr. Nancy H. Kobrin, had only three, chilling words for me about this: "Zainab Bint al-Harith". That is the name of the Jewish woman long and falsely alleged to have poisoned the prophet Mohammed.

In addition, the United States, Israel's strongest ally, apparently just circulated the Annapolis resolution to members of the UN Security Council -- but without first showing anything to Israel's Ambassador, Dan Gillerman who was, at the time, busy celebrating the General Assembly's November 29th, 1947 resolution that created a Jewish state. What a difference sixty years can make! (These details are contained in the New York Sun).

Livni and Gillerman have just both been publicly shunned. Israeli diplomats will have to grow bionic skins in order not to suffer the effects of such interpersonally cruel behavior. But look: Israelis have been kidnapped, blown up and wounded for life by Islamist terrorists. It can always be worse but the two kinds of assaults are intimately connected. The fact that the world allows the state sponsors of terrorism to isolate and shame Israeli diplomats also allows and even encourages terrorist fanatics to continue their murdererous rampage. One breeds the other; this is the cycle of violence.

Israel's civilian supporters have also been shunned, both behind closed doors and in public. May we all continue to bear this mistreatment with honor, patience, grace, and faith. And, as we count our blessings, let us also remember that Israel is a nuclear power whose military prowess has already proved essential in the battle against Iran and Syria -- and that Saudi Arabia is also well known for refusing to extend its hand when it comes to aiding other Muslims.

The significance and consequences of the Annapolis meeting are far worse than I have so far suggested. But many people understand public slights more than they understand diplomatic negotiations; however, for those who primarily focus on the latter, let me stand on the shoulders of others and point out that 1) Israel- and Jew-hating Arabists in the State Department have won one more round; President Bush refuses to publicly criticize the Saudis and has also failed to appoint diplomats who might do so privately.

Worse: As former Minister Natan Sharansky PRESS HERE has just pointed out, while Iran may be perceived as a threat to the stability of Arab national despots, democracy is perceived as the second biggest threat to their continued rule. Sharansky also notes that Mahmoud Abbas has absolutely no power. Thus, what is the point of forcing Israel to negotiate with the powerless diplomat when the United States has failed to bring Hamas, which controls Gaza, to the table in Annapolis?

In addition, Ted Belman of Israpundit has sent me Carolyn Glick's rather ominous report. Apparently, and not coincidentally, U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones just had an unprecedented meeting with the President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch, in which Jones demanded that the Israeli Court "interpret Israeli law in a prejudicial manner in order to demonize Israeli opponents of Palestinian statehood and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria."

According to David Bedein in Frontpage, Prime Minister Olmert "stood down from his opposition to international supervision of the agreement's implementation. Nothing remains of the principle established by Yitzhak Rabin, which was maintained by all Israeli prime ministers, that only Israel would decide whether the Palestinian side had met its commitments."

Finally, according to Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook HERE, one day after Annapolis, Abbas's Palestinian Authority re-broadcast a map in which Israel was completely absent and the Palestinian state occupied what is now Tel Aviv, Ber-Sheva, Jerusalem, and Haifa.

And he's the "good guy."

Here's what I have to say to the Israeli people: Vote Olmert out of office as quickly as possible. Do not, God forbid, assassinate him. President Beinisch: How dare Mr. Jones tell you what to do? Tell him to go to Hell -- which is right next door in Sudan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. To Jews and to our supporters and to freedom-loving people everywhere: Hang in, hang on, trust no one. Be prepared for anything.

Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and s co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/ This article is archived at
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/ 2007/11/30/up_close_and_personal_the_shun.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 30, 2007.

1. Upsetting the Haaretz McCarthyists -- Haaretz smears Israel Academia Monitor (IAM) for exposing academic anti-Israel extremists in Israel:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929723.html IAM must be doing something right!

2. Israeli Academics among those calling for Israel's extermination in a new final solution: http://counterpunch.com/onestate.html

3. Highly recommended: "Rachel Golem" recently completed an online parody of Amy Goodman and her anti-Israel far-leftist Democracy Now show. In the parody she interviews Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pol Pot and a few other people. I think it's quite funny and makes them all look like the hypocrites they are.

It is located at: www.rachelgolem.com

She am currently writing under a pseudonym because my Rachel Corrie parody caused a few "peace activists" to threaten me with bodily harm.

By Eric Fingerhut
Published in: Washington Jewish Week
November 26, 2007
www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID= 4&SubSectionID=4& ArticleID=8016

For years, some pro-Israel activists have been troubled by university professors who demonstrated bias against Israel in the classroom. But last week was apparently a first: A George Washington University instructor resigned after being accused of teaching a class that was biased in favor of Israel.

Hanna Diskin told the students in her "Arab-Israeli Conflict" class on Tuesday of last week that she would not be teaching the class for the remainder of the semester -- and would be leaving the D.C. university -- because she was upset that students in the class had complained about her teaching to the head of the political science department.

Diskin, visiting from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, told the class that the course she had been scheduled to teach next semester had been canceled due to the complaints. But a student in the class, senior Greg Berlin, said that political science department head Christopher Deering said that next semester's course merely had been deemed "inactive," or on hold, pending a review of class evaluations from this term.

Calls to Deering and to Bernard Reich, who filled in for Diskin last Thursday, were not returned.

Diskin declined to comment via e-mail. A GWU spokesperson also had no comment.

Berlin and a classmate, senior Elizabeth Kamens, both said that the problem with Diskin's teaching was that she focused only on Israel in a course that was supposed to deal with the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

"We would never cover the other side," said Kamens, who is Jewish.

"It became more of an Israeli politics class," said Berlin, noting that while understanding Zionism is important to studying the Arab-Israeli conflict, he wondered why they were they spending half of the semester learning about it.

Berlin said that he and a number of other students had expressed their "dissent" to Diskin in class about the way she was handling the course, but became frustrated when they would ask for an Arab perspective on an issue and Diskin would change the subject or talk over them. For example, after Diskin cited the number of Israelis who died in a particular military conflict, Berlin said, students asked for the number of fatalities on the Palestinian side. Diskin, according to Berlin, replied that only the Israeli figures were reliable, because only Israel was a democracy.

"I'm Jewish myself, but I feel there's a line between objectivity and teaching with a bias," said Berlin, who said he was one of a number of students who expressed their concerns to leaders of the political science department.

The students said they were assigned readings from only two books: the scholarly A History of Israel by GWU professor emeritus Howard Sachar and the book Myths & Facts.

Kamens said she was "a little surprised" that the latter book was selected for an upper-level political science course because of the book's structure. It outlines common "myths" about the Arab-Israeli conflict and then provides evidence responding to those myths.

Myths & Facts originated as a American Israel Public Affairs Committee publication decades ago and was updated by Mitchell Bard, executive director of the Chevy Chase-based American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, in recent years.

M.J. Rosenberg, who edited Myths & Facts when he worked at AIPAC in the 1980s, was surprised to hear it was being used in a college class.

"It's not a textbook," said Rosenberg, now the policy director at the Israel Policy Forum. "It's counter-propaganda" that is "not designed to show both sides," but to provide all the facts that support the pro-Israel side.

Rosenberg said it was "hard to believe" the book would be used in any college class other than one studying propaganda.

Bard said his book is "all based on facts" and is the "most concise collection" of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Coincidentally, Bard's organization, AICE, provided the funding to hire Diskin as a postdoc fellow at GWU. Bard said AICE -- which will fund 26 professors and six postdoc fellows at universities around the country this school year -- has no input on whom the university hires or course content, other than that the visiting instructors teach Israel studies.

He said professors who teach under AICE auspices are expected to be professional.

"If we're perceived as advocates, that would be counter to the idea we're promoting," he said.

Bard said he was still attempting to get further information about Diskin's departure, but said he had never heard a complaint that a university instructor was too pro-Israel and that it would be "ironic" considering the number of complaints that have been made about anti-Israel professors.

Daniel Pipes, whose Middle East Forum set up a Web site titled Campus Watch to monitor the statements of Middle East Studies professors for bias, also said that an accusation of pro-Israel bias in the classroom was "something I can't think of having happened before."

Pipes argued Diskin's departure signaled "another step" in enforcing attitudes throughout academia that are "anti-American and anti-America's allies."

He also defended the use of Myths & Facts as a textbook. "So far as I know, it is a reliable source, perfectly reputable," he said.

Berlin said Diskin's decision to resign appeared to be her own, since the political science department did not know anything about it until she announced it to her students.

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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, November 29, 2007.

On a recent visit to the threatened communities of Israel, we saw continuing evidence of the Weisglas/Sharon/Olmert policy of preventing natural expansion and development of land by Jews in Israel.

As we visited communities in Judea, Samaria, Hebron, S'derot, east Jerusalem, and the Negev, we saw the obstacles the Olmert government places before them as a means of advancing its stated determination to give away precious Jewish land and create a Palestinian state, with our beloved Jerusalem as its capital.

In S'derot, just northeast of the demolished Gush Katif communities, we met with Batsheva Levy. She tearfully told us of the impossible life she and her family have been leading for the past four years, as Kassam rockets land every day in her city. Four thousand residents have evacuated their homes, leaving 20,000 under a daily barrage of attack.

While Batsheva's life crumbles around her, Alon Davidi, another resident, whose wife and five children also live in fear, is determined to fight the government for every bit of protection and security possible. He emphasizes the fact that S'derot is inside Israel -- not in "occupied territory" and still it has been abandoned by an Israeli government more concerned with appeasing the enemy than with protecting its citizens.

In Yad Binyamin we met Ariel Dubrowin, a Job Katif representative who is struggling, with Rav Rimon of Alon Shvut, to arrange for the re-training of the refugees from the former Gush Katif.

In Ashkelon, we were greeted by our friends Dror Vanunu and Anita Tucker, both Gush Katif evacuees. They took us to a sun-drenched stretch of dry, bare sand in Ashkelon -- which will be the building site of Nissanit. Although the infrastructure is supposed to be ready in April, all we saw was one bulldozer and a few exposed pipes.

Dror and Anita told us about the Kfar Darom families who had been moved into apartments in Ashkelon and then into tiny caravans, (plasterboard portable homes) in Shomriya. They are finding it too difficult to stay together as a unit, and the families are now dispersing. What the Arab terror threat was unable to do, the deliberate negligence of the Olmert government has succeeded in accomplishing.

From Ashkelon we could easily see the Rotenberg electricity power station, which provides Israel with one-third of its electrical power. It is now clearly vulnerable to rocket attacks.

In Nitzan, the caravan community that houses 500 former GK families, we met with our good friends Rachel and Moshe Saperstein. Rachel runs the Operation Dignity fund which helps individuals with critical but often overlooked personal issues.

The New Nitzan, located between Ashkelon and Ashdod, is planned for 500 former GK families to build their permanent homes. The infrastructure is in place, and the lotteries have been drawn for the individual family lots. Individual homes must be built from compensation monies, but the government is only paying partially for the public buildings -- schools, youth centers, medical facilities, synagogues, recreational halls, and all the components that make up a community.

Under the guidance of Izzy Danziger, head of Mishmeret Yesha, Israel's independent first response program, we began our tour of the Shomron. We visited the outpost community of Chavat Ya'ir and saw the beautiful home built by Doron Ben Tzvi, along with a restaurant that provided breathtaking views of the surrounding mountains. There are 40 targeted communities on the Olmert government's hit list, and Chavat Ya'ir is one of them.

In Nofim, another beautiful mountain spot, we met Alex. He showed us the land he leased from the government and fenced off. The Arabs steal the fencing and use his land to graze their flocks. He seems to have no recourse.

We returned to Gilad Farm, where we had been on previous trips. The government attempted to destroy it many times but was always unsuccessful, largely because of the spirit of the people, who are determined to hold on to their land.

At Har Greezim we once again looked down at the sprawling Arab city of Shechem, with its shopping center and 16-story high-rises. The refugee camp was still there, crowded into a corner of the city. It was clear that if there were any interest in eliminating the camp and absorbing the refugees into the city, it could be done very easily. But that obviously doesn't serve the Palestinians' public relations purposes.

We drove through the much-terrorized community of Itamar, where 15 Jews had been murdered in June 2006, and arrived at Givat Olam, an organic chicken and dairy farm. It is also on the list of 40 to be destroyed.

We arrived at Elon Moreh, and were met by our good friends Rabbi Felix, Pinchas Fuchs and Zev Feldman. Pinchas took us to the Scali farm, the latest outpost of Elon Moreh. From there we had a fabulous view of Shechem and Kever Yosef, destroyed by the Arabs when Joseph's Tomb was given to the Arabs for "safekeeping" by the Israeli government.

At Tapuach junction we drove to the hilltop to visit one of our favorite places, Kfar Tapuach, where we met with old friends David Ha'Ivri and Moshe Hertzlich. Lenny Goldberg, another dear friend, was in Ariel that afternoon, just down the road, so we missed seeing him. It is interesting to note that Ariel will be on the "good" side of the fence, while Tapuach will be excluded. They are just meters away from each other, but one is targeted for extinction while the other will be allowed to flourish.

We arrived at the Shilo block, including Shvut Rachel, Achiya Kayda, Eish Kodesh and Adei Ad. We saw fabulous plantings of vineyards on the hilltops. Water lines were brought in. All of this occurred before the shmitta year began. Hundreds of Jewish workers toiled in the remarkable preparation of these lands. Would the government allow them to stay in Jewish hands? Despite the uncertainty, they knew they had to continue moving forward.

Our meeting and discussion in Shilo with Batya Medad and Chaya and Moshe Belogorodsky confirmed the belief that the Israeli government is acting worse than any external enemy, threatening Jews by curtailing their ability to live.

A visit to Amona, site of the infamous attack on Jews by Israeli police and soldiers, where nine permanent homes were destroyed, showed us that nothing has changed. The nine destroyed homes are nine mounds of rubble flying Israeli flags. The residents who remain there are permitted to live only in temporary caravans. The threats continue.

We drove through N've Daniel, a beautiful, thriving community which is the highest point in eastern Gush Etzion. We reached S'de Boaz, another caravan community with nine families, slated to be destroyed by the Olmert government. We saw that three permanent homes were in the process of hurriedly being built because of the stop-work orders that have already been issued on the buildings. The community has been struggling to survive for five years, with the army going through every day, inciting confrontations.

And then there is Hebron. What can one say about this amazing community that survives continuous harassment from the Olmert government? Twenty thousand people arrived in Hebron for Shabbat Chaye Sarah. We were among them. The joy of praying in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the resting place of our matriarchs and patriarchs, is indescribable. We celebrated an Oneg Shabbat at the home of our friends, Yifat and Shalom Akobi and their six children. They live in the threatened Beit HaShalom, purchased by Jews several months ago in a transaction that is constantly being challenged.

Winter is coming and the residents are denied permission to put windows on the building or to repair the leaking roof. The Israeli government is indifferent to the rights of the Jewish men, women and children living in the building. Just a few months ago they sent 3,000 troops to destroy a dozen Jewish homes in the Jewish-owned Shalhevet area. This is the area in Hebron named after the infant Shalhevet Pass who was killed by Arab snipers. Our talk with David Wilder later that evening underscored the daily battle with the government endured by the Hebron Jews.

Meeting with Arieh King in Jerusalem, I was once more informed about the Jewish National Fraud that has been perpetrated on the Jewish people by the Fund supposedly dedicated to preserving Jewish land. Arieh is planning a Zionist alternative to the JNF.

There was a November 4 demonstration in Jerusalem outside the American Consulate on Agron Street to protest the planned Annapolis summit. Condoleezza Rice was in town, meeting with Tzipi Livni, and Olmert was speaking at the King David hotel. An hour before the scheduled demonstration, I was appalled to see the black uniformed Yassamnakim, or special forces, on horseback and on their black motorcycles, with hundreds of soldiers arriving for crowd control.

Areas were cordoned off and the crowd of demonstrators was not allowed to get near the hotel where the march was to have ended. Instead, they were herded into a narrow street nearby where a spirited rally took place, unheard and unseen by Jerusalemites. What a tragedy when Jews are perceived as the enemy by their own government.

Our visit made it obvious to us that the Olmert government does not represent the Jews of Israel and that political power must be restored to the people in order to overcome the government's perfidy.

Helen Freedman, former executive director of Americans For a Safe Israel (www.afsi.org) co-hosts the weekly cable TV program "Israel Update." She can be contacted at ghfree@aol.com. This article appeared yesterday in the Jewish Press.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 29, 2007.

We need spiritual leaders, like rabbi Akiva, to unite Jews and re-ignite struggle for our future on all Jewish land! Hypocrisy and apathy must be eradicated!

Annapolis -- the Hollow Photo Ops!

Nobody really wants this conference. Everyone knows that it will not bring peace, just procrastination in dealing with Arab terror against Jews in Israel. And yet it is on -- with the fake smiles, handshakes and useless, ambiguous statements!

At the ceremonial opening of the international summit at Annapolis, United States President George W. Bush read out a joint statement agreed upon by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The statement included a commitment by both sides of the conflict over the Land of Israel to "make every effort" to strike a deal by late 2008. The PA side insisted that the statement not include the phrase "a Jewish state," and it was dropped. On the other hand, the word " Jerusalem" was also not mentioned.

It is not just Hamas against any agreement with Israel. PA security forces killed at least one demonstrator, injuring dozens more, when they opened fire to break up protests in Ramallah, Hebron, Nablus, Qalqilya, and Tulkarm against the Middle East conference. In celebration of the upcoming Annapolis conference so-call Palestinians fired two rockets and four mortar shells at Israeli cities from Gaza on Tuesday morning. Tens of thousands of Arab Palestinians rallied against the Annapolis peace conference, chanting "Death to Israel, Death to the United States ".

The two sides have reached an agreement that the US will become the judge of all outstanding disputes, effectively putting the Americans in the position to dictate a solution to Israel and the PA, which neither side, especially Arabs, will be happy about or comply with.

Bottom Line: No denunciation of terrorism. No recognition of Israel, not just as "a Jewish state". These were two requirements that Israel asked from PLO at Camp David!

57 Arabs were injured on Wednesday when PA security forces opened fire during a funeral for a civilian killed during Tuesday's anti-Annapolis protests in Hebron. -- Is anyone still complaining about Israel's 'brutality'?

PA is Making it Clear! Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, the day after the Middle East conference, the US president does not negotiate in the Palestinians' name, does not represent them and his words are not relevant to the Palestinian cause. On such issues as recognizing Israel. If the US president seeks an exchange of territory, he can do this with Mexico. Abbas' political adviser Abu Rodeina then maintained that the Palestinians made no commitments at Annapolis. (Does anyone still believe in the peace process with Arabs?)

Education War. Just a day after the Annapolis peace conference an information clip produced by the Palestinian Authority was shown on Abbas-controlled television, with a map in which Israel is painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. The description of all of the state of Israel as "Palestine " is not coincidental, and is part of a formal, systematic educational approach throughout the PA, in contradiction to the Oslo agreement. This uniform message of a world without Israel is repeated in school books, children's programs, crossword puzzles, video clips, formal symbols, school and street names, etc. (The time has come to renew Zionist education of Jewish people!)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

What is so special about Arabs and their occupation of the Jewish land? Many millions have being transferred every year in order to resolve the international or internal conflicts worldwide, even after the fourth Geneva convention. But not Arabs from Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza ! If it is not Arab oil and/or simply deep animalistic anti-Semitism, then what?

Conference is Just a Tactical Game for Arabs. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia promised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he never would recognize Israel. (The objective is to weaken Israel's position prior to military action against the Jewish state!)

Peres's 'Peace' Game. The Peres Center for Peace plans to give out 100,000 "PeaceMaker" computer games on the day of the Annapolis conference. Players can decide which side to take and work around suicide bombers and Israeli counter-terrorist attacks. However, the game does not include simulation of what happens after a peace agreement is signed on paper but does not exist in reality. (Playing with the lives of Jews in Israel has become the favourite pastime time of Israeli delusional politicians, like Peres.)

PA Thief Steals MK Eitam's Car. A PA Arab stole MK Effie Eitam's car early on Thursday morning. The thief called Eitam to negotiate, saying he was in Ramallah and would return the car in exchange for NIS 12,000. "There is only one positive aspect to this incident," Eitam said, "as a Knesset member I now feel what many regular Israeli civilians feel when their car is stolen." The theft was a natural result of Israelis' proximity to the PA, "a lawless entity with no order or security." (There is only one way that this close proximity can be easily resolved to end Arab terror and crime in Israel, by moving this "lawless entity" to Sinai.)

Quote of the Week:

Article19: "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated." Article22: "Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine..." Article12 "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." -- Fatah Constitution -- The enemies of Israel, who are in reality the occupiers of the Jewish land, have been stating their plan to demolish Israel clearly. They are not kidding!

Revolving Door. Border Police guards arrested 616 Arabs without permits to be outside of Judea and Samaria. Twenty of those arrested were wanted terrorists. (For how long will the illegal Arabs and terrorists be allowed to Israel ? Isn't it time to deport them to somewhere further away?)

Blasphemy is not Permitted in UN. The Arab lobby at the United Nations, backed by Russia, foiled a PA initiative to include a condemnation of Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip in a UN resolution against Israel, calling for the reversal of this situation. The Arab delegates, including Egypt, Syria and Libya, claimed Mansour's initiative would be interpreted as an official UN condemnation of Hamas, and would gain Israel international legitimacy. (It is absolutely forbidden to condemn a terrorist organization like Hamas in anti-Israel resolutions and give Israel legitimacy in the process. It is a blasphemy! Isn't it against UN chatter?)

Arab Stabs Israeli Employer. An Arab attempted to kill his Israeli employer by repeatedly stabbing him a week ago in the Samarian community of Porat. (Israel provides Arabs with jobs, water, electricity, medical treatment etc. In return, Arabs export to Israel Qassam rockets, terror and death. We need to let our trading partner go, far away from the Jewish land, and do their bloody business among themselves!)

Kadima -- Most Corrupt Party. The results of an extensive poll on government corruption finds that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for the second year in a row, is considered the most corrupt politician in Israel. Fifty-six percent of the public defined his behavior as "corrupt to very corrupt." Former Finance Minister Avraham Hirschson (Kadima) came in a close second, with 55 percent of the public calling him "corrupt to very corrupt." Hirschson is accused of stealing public funds. (After all, Kadima was founded on the best corruption principles of the Labor and Likud parties, by Peres and Sharon.)

Saudi Justice -- Barbaric State. Saudi Arabian authorities carried out the kingdom's 136th beheading of the year. Nearly 40 people were beheaded in Saudia Arabia in 2006, including four women, and between 83 and 90 the year before. A woman who was gang-raped was sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes. Her crime: Being in the car of a man who was not a relative.

Major Polluters of Environment and Minds.

It is know that several Arab and Muslim states are the major suppliers of world oil. At the same time, there are many Arab and Muslim states that are not blessed with oil. They found another export product that required not little effort to make but yield maximum profit -- Drugs! Like their Gulf state brothers, who have being actively polluting our planet with oil based industry and are still involved in preventing the discovery and implementation of alternative sources of energy or more effective usage of the oil based one, they found products that pollute people's minds and destroy their health: marijuana, hashish and heroin! There are reports that the 'Muslim mafia' is branching out to South America 's production of cocaine as well.

"This year has been a bumper year for marijuana cultivation in the Bekaa Valley, the largest, growers say, since the "golden years" of Lebanon 's 1975-1990 civil war, when marijuana and heroin grown and processed here flooded the markets of Europe and the United States. By the end of the 1980s, the northern Bekaa, under supervision of Syria, was awash with both, marijuana and opium poppy, generating an annual local economy worth $500 million. "The worse the security situation is in Lebanon, the more we can grow," said Ali, a marijuana grower." Afghanistan is producing 90% of the world heroin! What are coalition arm forces doing about it? Nothing! htt p://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1016/p06s02-wome.html

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 29, 2007.
This is a news item from Arutz Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) The United Nations held its annual "Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People" on Thursday. The day commemorates the day in 1947 when the UN voted to partition British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Since 1977, the day was officially marked as a day for the "Palestinian people," which is generally a day of mourning.

Ambassadors from Iran, Syria, and Lebanon will speak to the UN General Assembly as part of the day's events. Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman will speak as well.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2007.

It was be a stretch of some proportions to say I am now happy with Olmert, but I am decidedly less unhappy. Yesterday he had a meeting with Bush, after which he met with the press. And then he said a number of things that should properly have been said at the conference itself, when the whole world was listening and Abbas was recounting all the concessions they must have from Israel.

First, the Temple Mount is not negotiable. Well, mazel tov! Of course it's not negotiable, but nice to have our prime minister on board here. The unfortunate part is that I have no confidence that what he said yesterday will apply the day after tomorrow, but it may be that he feels he must stand on this in order to keep his coalition. And the fact is that without the Temple Mount the Palestinians definitely won't settle.

Then he said that while Israel will try to meet the goal of completing negotiations by the end of 2008, Israel was not committed to that deadline.

Olmert also emphasized that the agreement would not be implemented until all requirements under the roadmap regarding dismantling of terror infrastructure -- in Judea and Samaria and Gaza alike -- are fulfilled. This is both reassuring and unsettling at the same time. Good to know that he won't proceed until terrorism is taken out, which means never if the assessment is honest. But, there is the question of whether that assessment will be honest. And yet another question leaps out at me once again. He says the agreement won't be "implemented." This implies that -- instead of going step by step according to the road map -- Israel will go ahead and negotiate that state (step 3), and then hold tight and delay implementation until terrorism is defeated (step 1). This would put us in a position of being heavily pressured to let the Palestinians prematurely have the state that had been negotiated.

Olmert also said, "We do not need to lose proportion here. This was not something meant to change history." What a difference from the inflated rhetoric he used prior to the conference. This attempt to diminish expectations tells us that he is very unsure that anything good will come of this.


Rice has appointed the special US envoy who will be monitoring compliance according to the stipulations of the road map: former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Gen. James Jones to monitor. A general schooled in diplomacy, he will be judging the crackdown on terrorists by the PA and the freezing of settlement activity by Israel, and reporting to Rice.


Remember Livni's statements regarding how the Arabs were coming to Annapolis to support the process, which involved safeguarding Israel's security? It was ridiculous on the face of it, but look how it played out: the Saudi foreign minister not only refused to shake hands with Olmert, he also insisted that the Saudis enter by a different door from the Israelis. What is more, of the representatives of 15 members of the Arab League with whom Livni hoped to have some contact, only Jordan, which has a full treaty with us, was willing.

The Arab states attending were Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Additionally the Muslim states of Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia were present.

Dutch European Affairs Minister Frans Timmermans made the observation that they "shun her like she is Count Dracula's younger sister."

Clearly, there is no warming of attitude, no willingness yet to embrace Israel as part of the Middle East. This is where the true problem lies.


Yesterday two Kassams and 20 mortars were fired at Israel from Gaza.


So lovely to be able to report good news: A wall from the time of Nehemiah, 2,500 years ago, has been discovered in the City of David, outside of the walls of the Old City. This was announced by Dr. Eilat Mazar, the archeologist who recently uncovered what is now presumed to be remnants of David's palace, on the same site. Dating of the wall was made possible because of the wealth of pottery and artifacts found in conjunction with it. "This find opens a new chapter in the history of Jerusalem," Mazar said. "Until now, we have never had such an archeological wealth of finds from Nehemiah's period."

As we are able to see our biblical history coming alive, we are provided with a perspective that is solid and reassuring. The dig is being underwritten by the Shalem Center and the City of David Foundation.


The movement of Ne'emanei Eretz Israel (perhaps best translated as the faithful to the land of Israel) announced today that it plans to establish three new outposts in Judea and Samaria during Chanukah.

"The gravest thing about the Annapolis peace conference is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's barefaced talk of a Palestinian state. This is our answer to the prime minister's plan...," said Daniella Weiss, a key figure in the movement.

And I say bravo to them. I analyze and discuss security issues and diplomatic issues, but I make no secret of the fact that I believe this land is ours and that there are ways to do justice to the Palestinian Arabs without giving them a state. Our people have, perhaps, been pushed too far now, with a prime minister willing to tamper with our heritage and make outrageous statements regarding the fact that Jerusalem is not a Jewish issue. He sits gladly with the murderers of Jews who would destroy us even now, offering to give them more and more.

Hazak hazak (be strong!), may the people who care about our land give hope to all.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 29, 2007.

Below is an excerpt from an Editorial in The Wall Street Journal

How do the so-called moderate Palestinians expect Israel to cede territory when they'll cede nothing on the right of Israel simply to exist? The U.S. is in no realistic position to force peace on people unwilling or unable to make it -- to get Abbas to reclaim the Gaza Strip, for instance, or prevent Hamas from raining rockets on Israel.

Nor can the Administration decently ask Israelis to compromise their security for the sake of a "peace process" that exists more in the minds of Western diplomats than it does among the human beings living in harm's way.

Bush and Rice run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the Clinton Administration, which made a fetish of photo-ops, left the hard issues to the end, and tried to substitute atmospherics for substance.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 29, 2007.

Adam Entous wrote this report; it was distributed by Reuters
(www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2864581220071128). Reporting by Adam Entous and Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Howard Goller.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Israel on Wednesday played down prospects of restarting peace talks with Syria at this time despite Damascus's participation in a U.S.-sponsored conference.

U.S. President George W. Bush has also shown little enthusiasm for an Israeli-Syrian peace track, casting doubt on the chances of a breakthrough soon.

Asked if he saw an opportunity for renewed Israeli-Syrian peacemaking now, Bush told CNN: "That's going to be up to Israel and Syria ... I think what they ought to do is focus on a Palestinian state ... That's what we're focusing on."

Syria took part in the Annapolis, Maryland, conference after Washington agreed to allow discussion of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed in a move not recognized internationally.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was "happy" with Syria's participation in the conference, adding that he hoped it would be possible to revive negotiations, which collapsed in 2000 without resolving the fate of the Golan.

"I hope this will happen. I see on our part a desire that change will occur and I will be happy to see that when it becomes discernible," Olmert told reporters.

While Syria's presence in Annapolis could "open additional avenues," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said: "We don't think it's feasible now with the present regime. Of course the regime can always change policies. It is something that's constantly being checked."

The United States invited Syria at the urging of Arab states in a bid to broaden support for the conference.

Syria's deputy foreign minister, Fayssal al-Mekdad, told a closed session of the conference on Tuesday that Israel should pull out of occupied land before Arab countries would normalize ties with the Jewish state.

Olmert for months has passed messages to Syria through Turkey and other third parties, seeking assurances peace talks would lead Damascus to sever ties with Hamas Islamists who seized control of the Gaza Strip, the Hezbollah guerrilla group in Lebanon and with Iran, Israeli officials said.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has likewise set a precondition for revived peace talks: an Israeli commitment to a complete withdrawal from the Golan.

Tensions flared between the neighbors when the Israeli air force carried out a strike inside Syrian territory on September 6. Some U.S. officials have linked the raid to suspicions of secret nuclear cooperation between Damascus and North Korea. Damascus and North Korea have denied any nuclear ties.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 29, 2007.

This was written by Tom Gross and it appeared 21 November 2007 in The Chronicle Of Higher Education,
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/ ?q=Y2FjNjkyNDU5MTlhNTVkZDZhMDg4OTU2YjE0Zjk4Y2Y=

Tom Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News.

At Palestinian University, Charcoal Burned into Student's Face, and Nails Hammered into his Feet

It is interesting that among the mass of coverage in the media today to coincide with the Annapolis Conference, there is next to no mention of the continuing human rights abuses occurring in Palestinian-run areas including those involving "moderate" Fatah.

For example, while a determined many would say bigoted group of British academics is still trying to organize a boycott of Israeli (and only Israeli) universities, this is what is happening at a Palestinian one.

"West Bank Campus Closes After Alleged Torture of Student"
By Matthew Kalman
The Chronicle Of Higher Education
November 21, 2007

Classes at Birzeit University, in the West Bank, were suspended on Tuesday after escalating violence between Palestinian political groups on the campus.

Tension has been rising between supporters of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement and the radical Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine over a West Bank security crackdown in which militants in the Popular Front, known as the PFLP, have been arrested by Fatah-dominated security forces.

The university's administration decided to suspend classes and evacuate students from the campus after a Fatah-affiliated student was assaulted in his dormitory room, apparently by four men from the PFLP. The student, Ahmad Jarrar, was treated at a hospital for severe injuries suffered as he was apparently being tortured.

The assailants used charcoal to burn Mr. Jarrar's face. They also hammered nails into his feet, according to eyewitnesses. Fatah gunmen then arrived at the campus and threatened to kill PFLP supporters.

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, November 29, 2007.
Download the PDF file by clicking here.

Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Shainsha, November 29, 2007.

This was written by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook and it appeared yesterday in Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin.

Day after Annapolis: Palestinian Authority TV shows" Palestine" map erasing Israel

Just a day after Israeli and Palestinian leaders at the Annapolis peace conference pledged to negotiate a peace treaty by the end of 2008, Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority continues to paint a picture for its people of a world without Israel.

An information clip produced by the Palestinian Authority Central Bureau of Statistics and rebroadcast today on Abbas-controlled Palestinian television, shows a map in which Israel is painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag, symbolizing Israel turned into a Palestinian state.

The description of all of the state of Israel as "Palestine" is not coincidental, and is part of a formal, systematic educational approach throughout the Palestinian Authority. This uniform message of a world without Israel is repeated in school books, children's programs, crossword puzzles, video clips, formal symbols, school and street names, etc. The picture painted for the Palestinian population, both verbally and visually, is of a world without Israel.

The fact that this campaign continues before the ink on the Annapolis agreement is even dry appears to contradict the central promise of the Palestinians at the Annapolis conference: that Israel has a right to exist.

To view video on PMW website click here.

Contact Shainsha by email at Shainsha@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 29, 2007.

John Loftus had translated some documents captured from Iraq. They included instructions for making nuclear weapons! It is very difficult to determine accurately which countries are doing what with nuclear development they want to conceal.

"The gist of the new evidence is this: Roughly one-quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990s. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid-to-late-1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans' noses."

"Loftus then cites Israeli sources who claim that the Iraqi nuclear program was transferred to the Deir az Zour province in Syria." The US failed to follow up on that. Not looking hard enough, the US didn't find much. Israel did, apparently destroying a Syrian nuclear bomb factory. Sec. Rice, however, acted as if Syria were not becoming an international menace. She invited Syria to attend the Annapolis conference and demand the Golan Heights from Israel (as if that would turn the Syrian rogues into cherubs).

Now the US is being witless about Iran. Iran's 3,000 centrifuges put it only months away from developing a nuclear bomb. It is too late to talk it out of doing so. Yet that is what the Bush regime is trying to do, praising Iran more than the surge for the success in Iraq. This praise whitewashes Iran's war against us in Iraq.

(It never occurred to those who urge diplomacy that the US has nothing to offer fanatical Iran that would make it desist from nuclear development and its plan to conquer the world. They didn't think this through. They just wanted to avoid having to make a difficult decision, a pre-emptive attack. What else could the US do with Iran? The US no longer can pay others off. The others, in fact, pay the US off.)

Israel is no wiser. PM Olmert said Israel needs to develop contingency plans for the day after Iran has an a-bomb. Iran may well let Hizbullah "deliver" the bomb to Israel. After all, Iran ordered Hizbullah to bomb a Jewish center in Argentina, and got away with it for years. Finally, Argentina had Interpol issue arrest warrants for Iranian officials. Iran responded by asking Interpol to issue arrest warrants for the Argentinians, for "insulting" Iran. Iran feels it can get away with anything (IMRA, 11/20). Arrogance means war.

What does Olmert think Israelis should do, the day after? Ask God for a ticket upstairs? The leaders of the US and Israel are ostriches. Pres. Bush might have been tougher, if the Democrats had not criticized him so much and so unfairly.

PS: There were numerous reports about this in the specialized media. I saw some. Unfortunately, our leaders did not pursue them. This allowed needless recrimination and distraction from our mission and our defense. I would like more awareness in America that this is the second time that Israel's action saved us Ameicans, not only Israelis.


The "joke," first. I was minding a friend's apartment. It was across the hall from the compactor chute. Leaving his door ajar, I brought garbage to the chute. A few feet away, the Super's wife was trying to calm down an hysterical woman. This woman wantonly accuses the Super's children of stealing food from her. Distracted, I pushed the apartment door open. Immediately the woman turned her rant on me. What is that man doing in her apartment? The Super's wife continued trying to calm her down. I explained that this was my friend's apartment. The woman tried to get in; I tried to shut the door, but she had hysterical strength. The Super's wife, whose English is limited, was explaining to the woman that this was Apt. 1K, she's in 1L. Then I realized that the Super's wife was addressing me. I looked behind me and saw the woman's coat hanging there. It was I who was in the wrong apartment! The joke was on me. The paranoid woman had left her own door ajar, and I had pushed against it, which was right next to my friend's door. I had given her something really to fear.

Political paranoia is expressed about the McCarthy era by the quaisi-communists who have crept back into Hollywood, the media, and academia. They pretend there wasn't a serious problem of Communist influence and spy recruitment, before Sen. McCarthy and others exploited its notoriety demagogically, and that the only problem was McCarthyism, and that only innocent people were the victims of it. A friend's wife, who gets her notions from NPR and the NY Times, asserted that people generally were afraid to express their opinions then.

Nonsense. A teenager then, I was well informed about Communist influence. Nobody I knew was afraid to express liberal opinions. Some innocent people were persecuted, but so were some real Communists, though they had been purged from the government before then. The main exception was teachers in New York State who refused out of indignant principle to sign a loyalty oath. McCarthyism hardly extended beyond acting and for long. The allegation of general intimidation is paranoia, deliberately injected to revise the historical record against America and to stimulate suspicion of our present government for its anti-terrorist intrusions..

Some fears seem extreme but are not paranoid. I fear imminent destruction of Israel. The State Dept. is pressing Israel to let down its Territorial defenses and give up secure borders. The government not only does so, but fails to try to root out its enemies in Lebanon and Gaza. Instead it is rooting out its greatest patriots from the Territories and Jerusalem. It let foreign enemies acquire thousands of rockets. When they bomb out Israel's runways, how would the famed Israeli Air Force take to the air? I think Israel's only chance is to drop atomic bombs on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. Israel wouldn't do that.

My fellow Jews like to tell themselves they are a smart people. Smart? They got caught by a Holocaust they were warned against. Now they ignore similar warnings. They still think "the world" will protect them. They don't know who their enemies are.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, November 29, 2007.

The Annapolis Summit saga continues based on 5 misconceptions....

  • That Palestinian society can be reformed by outsiders

  • That economic assistance to the Palestinians can alleviate political problems

  • That Mahmoud Abbas can become the agent for change and therefore he deserves the support of the West

  • That Palestinian society can be quickly transformed into a good neighbor of Israel and that a stable settlement is within reach

  • That Hamas control of Gaza can be uprooted by inter-Palestinian politics

With all of the platitudes during the Summit leading to bi-weekly meetings ahead, we will capitalize on the momentum created by our united widespread open opposition to the Summit.

We quote Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) who said, "Middle East negotiations should proceed with caution ... While all Americans hope for a lasting peace in the region, the American people cherish our ally Israel and the security of Israel must come first...Peace talks have failed in the past because one side wanted peace and the other side wanted Israel."

UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) -- is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 28, 2007.

This was written by Paul Martin and it appeared today in The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20071128/FOREIGN01/111280047/1003/FOREIGN

Abu Haroon bids farewell to his son before joining other men in a drive north to launch al Samoud rockets into Israel on Monday.

KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip -- Abu Haroon, a black-clad bearded militant from the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, placed a Kalashnikov automatic rifle in the hands of his nephew. The rifle was twice as big as the child.

"Remember, as I may not be coming back: Learn to use this against the enemy one day," he said, giving the boy a farewell cuddle. #

"I am proud of you, my son. Sometimes, it is necessary to kill," said Haroon, handing his son dates freshly picked from the tree towering over a small house in this densely populated town -- one of the main centers of clashes in the intifada that started seven years ago.

A veteran of the conflict with Israel, Haroon said he first threw stones at soldiers as an 11-year-old, then began firing bullets in 2000, the start of the second intifada, and soon learned the dark arts of rocket preparation and dispatch.

After his farewells, four armed men in balaclavas joined Haroon, prayed on mats stretched out beside their weapons, and climbed into a white jeep. It was a gloriously sunny afternoon. They drove off northward, an al Samoud rocket carefully concealed with an oily cloth in the back of their battered white sport utility vehicle.

"We have orders not to fire any rockets on Tuesday because of the Annapolis summit, but we can resume normal activities after the summit ends," Haroon explained, claiming he is totally loyal to the political leadership of Fatah.

He would not say who was giving the orders, or what the chain of command is. Many analysts think President Mahmoud Abbas, who has publicly condemned rocket firing as "silly and counterproductive," at most only has limited control over the brigades. His Palestinian Authority provides cash to many brigade members through security salaries or, since President Yasser Arafat's death, through a monthly social security payout.

Next stop was a back-street gathering with other members of the group, as children milled around, admiring their heroes. Inside a safe house, Mohammed, a 23-year-old computer specialist, was using Google Earth to locate the target on the Israeli side of the fence. In good English he went to college -- Mohammed complained that these days, the maps are deliberately made inaccurate to foil rocketeering precision.

Mohammed was being allowed to join his first rocketeering mission since joining the group three years previously. His mother, he said, cried repeatedly about his decision, but his father, a Hamas supporter, gave his blessing.

"I am ready and willing to die," he said. "I'm excited but also a little nervous."

More men and two more red-and-white rockets joined the group as the vehicle sped along dust tracks.

The men examined the heavens for signs of the feared "zanana" -- named onomatopoeically because of the buzzing noise made by Israeli unmanned drones that are equipped with cameras. There is good reason to fear them. Only a few days ago, two other Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade fighters returning from a mission were gunned down from the skies.

After careful reconnaissance, the group set up their three short-range al Samoud missiles -- crude but occasionally deadly weapons -- amid a tree-lined lane close to the border. They estimated that Israel would take two minutes to identify their location.

Lighting a long, white fuse, they prepared to beat a hasty retreat.

But their three rocket missiles failed to fire.

"It's the detonators," explained Haroon disconsolately. "We are really short of decent equipment these days."

The virtual siege of the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control in June has made it hard to get spare parts and the ingredients for explosives.

"But we are inventive; we make do," he said.

As dusk turned to darkness, the men found a new location amid prickly pears and orange trees. This time the detonator worked, and one rocket took off with a whoosh, leaving behind a long trail of white smoke. It veered crazily to the left.

"Even if we didn't kill any of the enemy tonight," said Haroon, "at least we made the Israelis afraid. They must know we will resist -- summit or no summit."

ISRAELI POLICE TODAY said three rockets were fired Monday and that one struck a kibbutz and that another fell into empty land near the town of Sderot, which is about half a mile from the border.

"No one was injured yesterday," Chief Inspector Mickey Rosenfeld told a group of South American reporters visiting the Sderot police station. "But there's been a huge increase in the numbers of rockets fired into Israel since we withdrew from the Gaza Strip two years ago." Ten persons in the area have died, he said, and rockets have fallen on schools.

"Our citizens get around 20 seconds warning from a siren to scatter and take cover," he added, "but if they explode close to you, it's curtains."

Behind him was a collection of hundreds of rusting rocket remains, some caked with mud. Each had a date chalked in yellow or white. One read "26/11/2007."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, November 28, 2007.

During the early evening hours of March 19, some eight months ago, Hebron's Jewish community moved into a 35,000 sq. foot building, located on the main road between Hebron and Kiryat Arba. The building, purchased for over $700,000, was named "Beit HaShalom."

Initial police investigations led to a positive conclusion: the purchase is 100% kosher. The IDF commander of the Hebron region had no objection to a Jewish presence in the house; to the contrary, he regarded the site as a strategic asset and gave his blessings to the purchase.

However, members of the government, with then Defense Minister Amir Peretz at the forefront, demanded a solution to the new "Jewish problem" in Hebron. They didn't have long to wait. A recently invented military order, never before implemented, was pulled off the shelves: "An order against bothering usage." Hearings, based on this strange, draconian military order, began before a military appeals panel of three judges.

Twenty nine days after the Hebron community claimed the building, a Hebron Arab named Rajbi issued a claim in the Israeli Supreme court, saying that the building belonged to him and that he had not sold it to the Hebron Jewish community. (His claim was filed while he was being held in a Palestinian authority jail in Jericho. His lawyers claimed he was being held for his own protection).

The timing of the complaint must be noted. Squatters can easily be evicted for up to thirty days following their occupancy of a building. After that time period, eviction becomes much more complicated. Rajbi demanded that the Jews be expelled using this 'squatters' eviction law.'

Concurrently the police, who originally found the purchase documents to be in order, notified the court that they now had a suspicion that some of the documents were forged. Supreme Court president Dorit Beinish ordered the police to conclude their investigation within 45 days and report back to the court. (Justice Beinish, it should be noted, recently met with the American ambassador in Israel and discussed with him 'the settlers and the settlements.')

The police were unable to complete their investigation within 45 days; they delayed their report to the court four times.

A week and a half ago the prosecutor's office finally reported back to the Supreme Court: following conclusion of the police investigation, the prosecutor's office would support eviction of the Jews from Beit HaShalom, on the basis of the "squatters' eviction law.' However, they gave absolutely no reason for this conclusion. They made no mention of falsified documents, or of a fraudulent purchase. The impression left with the media was that the purchase was illegal, but no proof was offered.

Yesterday, during another hearing held by the military appeals panel, the judges demanded that the prosecutor explain their findings concerning eviction using the 'squatters' eviction law.' She responded: "...the position of the State is that the sale was kosher (i.e. legitimate)."

Yet, several hours later Hebron's attorney received an eviction notice stating that the building would be evacuated within 48 hours based on the "squatters' eviction law", during which time the decision could be appealed.

In other words, the sale of the building was legitimate, the documents are all in order, yet Jews still cannot live there. Why? Quite simply: Annapolitics.

Annapolitics has nothing to do with justice, fairness, objectivity, or basic human rights. According to various high-level sources, Israel, pre-Annapolis, promised the Arabs and Bush that the Jewish residents of Beit HaShalom would be expelled from the building in the very near future. The fact that the purchase was legal is irrelevant. The only factor which matters is appeasement: appeasing our enemies on both sides of the line: the Americans and the Arabs.

Make no mistake. The Americans are enemies. Under the leadership of Rice and Bush (in that order) the United States has been transformed into one of Israel's most dangerous foes. The policies being forced down our throats, including abandonment of virtually all of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, is only the beginning. The Golan Heights are not far behind.

Why? It's likely that Rice and Bush are placing their history- legacy hopes on a miraculous Middle East peace accord. However, there's another reason -- this is the price America is demanding of Israel to take care of the Iranian nuclear threat. But for Israel, this is like asking which do you prefer, to be murdered or assisted suicide?!

Israel's leaders aren't overly righteous either. Olmert: 'the results of 1967 will be changed significantly,' and Foreign Secretary Tzippy Livni: 'it's no longer Arab against Jew, rather moderate against extremist.' These words leave little doubt as to the direction they are taking and how we, the residents of Judea and Samaria, will be defined (in one breath with Hamas and Hizballah).

What can we pray for? Also very simple. The lynchpin of this entire absurdity is Abu Mazen -- Mahmoud Abbas, 'president' of the PA.

If Olmert goes, Tzippy, Barak and Bibi are waiting in the wings. Bibi -- his reaction wasn't one of horror, rather that we conceded too much without getting anything in return. And when Bush concludes his presidency, who knows who will replace him.

But if Abu Mazen should disappear from the scene, the deal's off. So, maybe we should pray that Hamas get to him ASAP. They know how to do the job and he's more than likely in their sights. Why should the Jews of Hebron have to be the first sacrifice of Annapolitics?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 28, 2007.

This was posted by Freedom Fighter yesterday and it comes from the JoshuaPundit website

For the third night in a row, riots have broken out in those north Paris suburbs known in France as `La Zone', areas de facto ceded to France's restive Muslim population, where the police only go in armed bands.And apparently they've now spread to the south of France, in cities with large Muslim populations like Toulouse.

In 2005, the 'youths' rampaged throughout France,torching buildings, assaulting non-Muslims and police, hurling gasoline bombs and indulging in that unique French Islamist pastime known as the car-B-que. There was a brief reprise in 2006, right around Ramadan.

This time, there's been more of the same, only with an ominous twist...this time the 'youths' are shooting at policemen and firemen as well as the other activities, and over 80 officers and firemen have been injured.

"From what our colleagues on the scene tell us, this is a situation that is a lot worse than what we saw in 2005," Patrice Ribeiro, a police officer and senior union official, told RTL radio Tuesday. He added, "A line was crossed last night, that is to say, they used weapons, they used weapons and fired on the police. This is a real guerrilla war."

The latest flareup was sparked (no pun intended) when two of the 'youths' were killed when they ran their moped into a police cruiser. Sounds like an ample excuse to me...

Another thing that sounds familiar is the litany of excuses for this kind of behavior in certain quarters..poverty, unemployment, lack of social progress,Islamophobia, blah blah blah bolshoi.

There are lots of poor people in the world, but comparatively few are making a regular habit of shooting at policemen, assaulting people who are not part of their particular ethnic persuasion and burning shops and public buildings.

This is a jihad against French society, and at least some Frenchmen realize it.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon, speaking to his police: "We will not give up. We will fight with all the strength that the Republic can give. You are the rampart of our Republic."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, November 28, 2007.

The scenario has changed greatly and we must work around our constraints.

These are the issues:

1. Israel is being placed on the sacrificial altar and is being marked for destruction.

2. The American media has blacked out coverage on the pro-Israel side. What this means is that alot of our supporters are in the dark about what is truly going on.

3. AIPAC's good leaders are being framed for an antique law that doesn't even meet the criteria for a case. It is based on espionage that did not occur. The government fed information to AIPAC and then tried to stop the Israel lobby.

4. There are books condemning the Israel lobby,ie, the book "The Israel Lobby" which is a pack of lies -- trying to undercut AIPAC's ability and purpose. Also, the Jimmy Carter book demonizing Israel -- "the Apartheid State".

5. In the meantime, the arab lobby is very powerful. I attended a conference led by CIPAC yesterday. I was told that 24 senators and congressmen were invited to attend their meeting. Not one person attended. We were told that the muslim community donates heavily to congress. We must ensure that the support of Israel has not shifted...

6. This funding might be the cause of the change in U.S. policy. One of my fellow lobbyists said that alot of Congressmen and Senators say whatever we want to hear. We must look at their voting record to see where they truly side.

7. We have a generation of misinformed people -- because of the universities, the media and books out there.

8. We have become fragmented. Different groups are going out lobbying and don't have the clout that is needed to face the muslim opposition. We are able to glean some successes...but if this trend continues -- where arab opposition is building and congress does not want to hear what we have to say, then we need a whole different strategy.

9. Because of the scenario, we have apathy among the ranks. We need to get to those people and explain the truth.


1. We need to unify...coordinate our efforts so that we can save Israel and the Jewish people.

2. We need to educate....wherever we can...in universities, in synogogues, in churches...We need the help of the community. Perhaps our rabbis might be a good starting point. We need to change our mindset or we will cease to exist.

3. We need to get help from wherever we can. The Republic Jewish Coalition is one source...CIPAC, John Hagee are other sources. We are just 5 million Jews...The Christian right can be about 100 million...and that is something Congress must listen to if they want to get re-elected.

4. We need to coordinate and mobilize...We need to get activists from everywhere. Every synagogue, every house of worship can be an avenue of support.

I suggest that we start we bring in Rabbi Pesach Lerner's umbrella group along with Conference of Presidents. It is that critical.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Barbara Sommer

Contact Barbara Sommer by email at sommer_1_98@worldnet.at.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, November 28, 2007.

Annapolis, MD. -- Hundreds of reporters arrived at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis from around the U.S., and, indeed, from around the world yesterday, in order to cover a one-day Middle East summit, which kicked off a new negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Fifty nations were invited to witness the process. After exhaustive security checks, reporters were ushered into the U.S. Naval Academy basketball stadium, where they waited two hours to cast their eyes on a large scale screen to watch and observe U.S. President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas give speeches, launching negotiations that will continue on a bi-weekly basis throughout the year 2008, as they exchanged platitudes of peace.

Mr. Bush set the tone and framework for negotiations, saying that Mssrs. Abbas and Olmert would conduct biweekly negotiations beginning on December 12th.

Where there are disputes, Mr. Bush declared, the U.S. would be the "judge" to correct the conflicts.

The president invoked the "road map" of April 30th, 2003, specifically mentioning the precise date and guiding spirit of the negotiations. Bush's mention of April 30th conveyed a subtle message to the Israeli government, which had added 14 reservations on May 25th, 2003.,[1] almost all of which demanded that the Palestinian Authority(PA) take full responsibility to disarm all terror groups before proceeding with negotiations.In other words, Mr. Bush was asking Israel to negotiate with the PA, come what may, by invoking the road map of April 30 rather than the road map that Israel had ratified on May 25, with strings attached.

In order to do some reality testing, The Bulletin asked U.S. State Department officials present at the basketball stadium if Mr. Abbas would indeed be required to disarm and disband the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the terrorist organization which remains an integral part of the Fatah, which continues terror actions unabated. U.S. State Department officials would not answer the question, even though the Al Aksa Brigades remains on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Concerning another major issue where the U.S. would be "the judge" of matters in dispute, The Bulletin asked U.S. State Department officials what their position was concerning the Palestinian school curriculum, which the Israel Ministry of Defense had concluded were rife with anti-Semitic incitement and which erased Israel from the map and denied any connection of Jews or Judaism to the land of Israel.

U.S. State Department officials looked into the matter and said that they had taken no stand on the issue.

However, USAID, a powerful arm of U.S. foreign policy which renders financial assistance to the PA and to other foreign entities, has recently distributed a report on Capitol Hill which asserted that the PA had deleted such incitement from their curriculum.

Hence, U.S. "judgment" on such crucial policy differences between Israel and the Palestinians show that the U.S. can easily ignore facts on the ground and simply expedite the Palestinian position.

At the stadium, reporters were not allowed to publicly air any questions of Messrs. Abbas, Olmert or Bush. After the screen rolled up, reporters busied themselves with details of what they had seen and heard. Not one reporter raised a question as to why no public questions were permitted.

Majority Of Palestinians Against Israeli Sovereignty Over Western Wall

On the morning of the Middle East Summit in Annapolis, 72.5 percent of Palestinian are opposed to Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall in any peace agreement. Only 18.7 percent would support such an arrangement.

This is shown by a new public opinion poll conducted by Dr. Elias Kukali among Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza between Oct. 27 and Nov. 6.

The poll found that 52.7 percent of Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are opposed to having Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. To the proposal that there be Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem while there is Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods, 40.6 percent responded favorably.

The poll also shows that a majority of Palestinians -- 68.2 percent -- are opposed to any concession on the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and to limit their return to Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Only 23.5 percent agreed to the proposal to establish a compensation fund and to absorb the refugees in the future Palestinian state; 72.2 percent of Judea and Samaria residents and 77.3 percent of Gaza Strip residents are opposed to the idea of a land swap in which settlements would be annexed to Israel in return for alternative territory.

The poll was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

It questioned 1,200 Palestinians from Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

End Note
Excerpt from "Israel's road map reservations," www.Haaretz.com, May 27, 2003

Israel attached 14 reservations to the road map, which the U.S. has promised to "fully and seriously address," but this promise was not an assurance that all of Israel's demands would be met. The following is the text of the reservations:

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

These organizations will engage in genuine prevention of terror and violence through arrests, interrogations, prevention and the enforcement of the legal groundwork for investigations, prosecution and punishment. In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure; collection of all illegal weapons and their transfer to a third party for the sake of being removed from the area and destroyed; cessation of weapons smuggling and weapons production inside the Palestinian Authority; activation of the full prevention apparatus and cessation of incitement.

There will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror. The security plans to be implemented are the Tenet and Zinni plans. [As in the other mutual frameworks, the road map will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians].

2. Full performance will be a condition for progress between phases and for progress within phases. The first condition for progress will be the complete cessation of terror, violence and incitement. Progress between phases will come only following the full implementation of the preceding phase. Attention will be paid not to time lines, but to performance benchmarks (time lines will serve only as reference points).

3. The emergence of a new and different leadership in the Palestinian Authority within the framework of governmental reform. The formation of a new leadership constitutes a condition for progress to the second phase of the plan. In this framework, elections will be conducted for the Palestinian Legislative Council following coordination with Israel.

4. The Monitoring mechanism will be under American management. The chief verification activity will concentrate upon the creation of another Palestinian entity and progress in the civil reform process within the Palestinian Authority. Verification will be performed exclusively on a professional basis and per issue (economic, legal, financial) without the existence of a combined or unified mechanism. Substantive decisions will remain in the hands of both parties.

5. The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.

6. In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.

7. End of the process will lead to the end of all claims and not only the end of the conflict.

8. The future settlement will be reached through agreement and direct negotiations between the two parties, in accordance with the vision outlined by President Bush in his 24 June address.

9. There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts); the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem; and all other matters whose substance relates to the final settlement.

10. The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the road map will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement.

11. Promotion of the reform process in the Palestinian Authority: a transitional Palestinian constitution will be composed, a Palestinian legal infrastructure will be constructed and cooperation with Israel in this field will be renewed. In the economic sphere: international efforts to rehabilitate the Palestinian economy will continue. In the financial sphere: the American-Israeli-Palestinian agreement will be implemented in full as a condition for the continued transfer of tax revenues.

12. The deployment of IDF forces along the September 2000 lines will be subject to the stipulation of Article 4 (absolute quiet) and will be carried out in keeping with changes to be required by the nature of the new circumstances and needs created thereby. Emphasis will be placed on the division of responsibilities and civilian authority as in September 2000, and not on the position of forces on the ground at that time.

13. Subject to security conditions, Israel will work to restore Palestinian life to normal: promote the economic situation, cultivation of commercial connections, encouragement and assistance for the activities of recognized humanitarian agencies. No reference will be made to the Bertini Report as a binding source document within the framework of the humanitarian issue.

14. Arab states will assist the process through the condemnation of terrorist activity. No link will be established between the Palestinian track and other tracks (Syrian-Lebanese)

[Editor's Note: In point of fact, the Arabs have done zilch about reducing hate of Israel, educating their people to peace, or stopping terrorism. Violence and terrorism are now endemic in Arab society and they teach hatred of Jews beginning when their children are barely out of infancy.]

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il This article appeared today in The Bulletin (Philadelphia)

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 28, 2007.

1. I was sitting on a park bench yesterday in Haifa next to four other fellas when suddenly my foot hit this strange looking bottle, like an old oil lamp. No sooner was it kicked when a genie popped out. The genie told each of us on the bench that we get a single wish, which would be granted at once.

The first fella said his wish was that Israel's inflation rate and growth rate be better than those in the US. Poof, in a flash of light, it was so. The second said his wish was that Ehud Olmert should be targeted by a large number of police investigations for corruption. Again a poof, and it was so. The third fella thought a moment and said he wishes that Paris would be inundated in violent riots by Arab thugs. And flash of light later, it became so. The fourth guy said his wish was that Ilan Pappe leave Israel, and that Baruch Kimmerling and Tanya Reinhart stop writing anti-Israel propaganda. And lo and behold, 'twas so.

Then it was my turn. The genie asked what I wanted as my wish. I said, let me get this straight. Israel's economy is in better shape than that of the US, Olmert is facing multiple indictments, Paris is in flames from a violent intifada, and three of Israel's worst academic anti-Semites are neutralized? Just so, replied the genie. In that case, I said, I'd like a Diet Coke.

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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 28, 2007.

This was written by David Fisher and it appeared as an Opinion Piece in Ynet

Where was tolerance of Arab film professor who refused to teach student in IDF uniform?

In 1998, a young filmmaker approached the New Israeli Foundation for Film and TV for assistance in filming a documentary about a Palestinian family. By documenting the family, he sought to address the issue of the right of return and the Palestinians' desire to go back to their homeland 50 years after they were expelled from it.

Even though the film's theme and perception was difficult to bear even for those who are sensitive to Palestinian distress, the movie was examined based on artistic criteria and was granted funding. The film's creator was called Nizar Hassan.

At the time, Hassan saw fit to approach an Israeli foundation that relies on state funds to support, in the name of tolerance and liberalism, a pro-Palestinian movie that challenges the State of Israel's right to maintain a Jewish majority. Ten years have passed, and the very same Nizar Hassan displayed his own intolerance by refusing to teach a student who arrived at class directly after performing military reserve service, and was therefore wearing an army uniform.

Hassan simply doesn't like the army that almost each one of his students served in, and he was unwilling to see the khaki uniform that symbolizes this army in his classroom.

We can assume that Nizar Hassan would speak out against a Jewish lecturer who kicked out a Muslim student wearing a hijab or an Arab student wearing a Kaffiyeh -- and rightfully so. However, the example I just gave is not quite commensurate with the case at hand, because religious distinctions which we should all respect are not the same as an army uniform that nobody puts on because he wants to.

Academia, culture dominated by radical leftists Yet this is precisely the crux of the matter. Each one of us should show tolerance to the other, to a limit, of course -- in this case, the limit decided by the college where Hassan teaches. This tolerance should be reflected in accepting the religion, customs, beliefs, and views of each and every one, including the acceptance of a student who arrives at class wearing an army uniform.

Nizar Hassan is not the only one. These days, academia and culture are dominated by a radical leftist approach that has nothing to do with the liberal views associated with the Left. Based on this approach, in the name of the sense of insult and discrimination felt by the minority (an Arab one in this case,) the same minority is allowed to show intolerance, contempt, and rejection to those belonging to the majority.

While doing this, the minority will continue to preach against the racism and discrimination it suffers. The moment it has the power, even for a brief moment, it will do all it can to hurt the majority, in the name of that same sense of discrimination along with a strong desire to "do justice."

We should be clear about this: Racism is still racism, discrimination is still discrimination, and intolerance is still intolerance even if those who display them are members of a minority group. After all, Nizar Hassan and his comrades are the ones who often preach to the Jewish public, saying that those who suffered racism and anti-Semitism must be tolerant and enlightened in their attitude to other people. If so, why is this concept, which is being applied to the Jewish public, invalid when it comes to the Arab community?

Hassan displays outrageous hypocrisy. In the past, he was supported by Israeli foundations in making his movies, but once he became an appreciated filmmaker, he developed a negative attitude to Israeli money. These days he is being funded by foreign funds and makes sure not to speak Hebrew, while identifying himself as a Palestinian and not as an Israeli. Yet all this doesn't stop him from making a living by teaching in an Israeli college funded by the Israeli government and by the students, many of whom serve in the army. Did we already say hypocrisy?

Israel Academia Monitor is based in Kfar Shmaryahu. Contact it at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 28, 2007.

In Annapolis yesterday, President Bush read a joint statement on behalf of Olmert and Abbas. This was a last minute statement that was made possible because it simply didn't mention the core issues that had caused so much dissention between the parties.

It says that the parties "agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008."

The deadline of the end of 2008 -- theoretically designed to bring culmination before Bush's term ends -- is not binding, but a goal to aim towards, although undoubtedly there would be pressure applied.

Protesting Israel Agreeing to the Two State Plan (photo: Carrie Devorah)

Olmert and Abbas will first meet on December 12, and every two weeks thereafter; a steering committee will work "continuously" to develop a work plan. The goal is "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security." To that end, there will be a peace treaty that "will resolve all outstanding issues, including core issues without exception."

The parties will immediately begin to implement their respective obligations under the road map and will continue to do so until the treaty is achieved. An American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism will be set up to monitor implementation, and the United States will serve as the judge of whether commitments under the road map have been fulfilled.


How bad is this?

I understand that Abbas (as his predecessor Arafat did during Oslo) balked at the last moment and had to be coerced by Rice -- the queen of the coercers -- into agreeing to this joint statement. Ali Waked, reporting from Ramallah for YNet says that the Palestinians think that Israel came out ahead. They are disgruntled because there is no mention in this agreement of Israeli withdrawal to pre-'67 lines, or to eastern Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state, or to the "return" of refugees to Israel.

But the reverse is also true. There is no written acknowledgement of Israel as a Jewish state (thus the door is potentially open for refugee "return"). There is no assurance of Israel's right to retain major settlement blocs. There is no reference to Jerusalem as the eternal undivided capital of Israel.

It's all wide open.


It is of particular and serious concern is that the US will decide when the Palestinians have met their road map obligations regarding the elimination of terrorist infrastructure. Actually, this is terrifying. Because the PA security apparatus is NOT going to eliminate terrorist infrastructure. They have never ever made a serious effort in this regard, and with Hamas breathing down their necks and Abbas weaker than ever, they are certainly not going to do so now.

But every so often they make a show of it. They arrested some Hamas people in Judea and Samaria --and never prosecuted any and have since let most go.

So what happens if the US -- as arbiter of fulfillment of commitments under the road map -- decides that the show is sufficient and permits itself to be taken in by the surface appearance? What if the US -- so eager to show results before Bush retires -- cuts the PA slack for the millionth time? What if our security people know it's not safe to move on to the next stage (which would involve our withdrawal), even though the US says it is?

Under this formula we have relinquished our right to protect ourselves.


There is unease with regard to proceeding according to the road map for yet another reason. There has been a great deal of talk about jumping to stage 3 -- formation of a permanent Palestinian state, even while stage 1 -- which requires the elimination of terrorism -- is not complete. There's been some convoluted notion that the state that would be negotiated would serve as incentive and would not be actualized until stage 1 was fulfilled. I have addressed the dangers implicit in this before.

What I see here is that the stages of the road map are not addressed and it is not all together clear that the described process will require completion of stage 1, and then stage 2, before stage 3 is even reached.


What particularly irritated me was the statement in the declaration that reeked of moral equivalency: "we express our determination...to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis."

Excuse me! Our defensive measures -- including selective killing of terrorists -- are NOT terrorism. We are defending against terrorism. And incitement? The incitement of the PA is outrageous and nothing of this sort exists within Israeli society. Take a look at Palestinian Media Watch which documents that just today PA TV ran a map that erases Israel. http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_nov2007.htm#b281107

Such studied even-handedness on the part of Bush does not augur well for the US role in this matter.


Actually, I look at this whole preliminary agreement and I want to say to Bush, "You've got to be kidding! This is a joke, right?" Although a joke that is no longer funny because it now has potential consequences. The PA simply is not in a place to see through its commitments and it's lunacy to pretend that it can. There is no way in the world that Abbas could possibly get his act together (even assuming he wants to) in just over a year. He doesn't even control all of Judea and Samaria, and from what I'm reading there has been anti-Annapolis unrest there that has made his standing even weaker. People are unhappy because he wasn't victorious -- with promises on all those core issues and the US squeezing Israel hard. Abbas has won nothing with his participation in this show.

As to incitement -- it would take years to redo those textbooks that have no maps of Israel and praise jihad.

Bush in his statement at Annapolis, in which he introduced the joint declaration, spoke of an "historic opportunity to encourage the expansion of freedom and peace in the holy land.

"We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security."

If he really believes this he is so far out of touch with reality as to require professional help. The fact that the PA had elections does not make it a "democratic" entity; it is very very far removed from the liberal principles such as protection of human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of press and equal rights under the law that are concomitant with true democracies. The PA is a corrupt, terror-ridden, violence-worshiping, grossly ineffectual entity that sure is not about to metamorphise into something else in 13 months.


And, let us not forget, there is still the issue of Gaza, which everyone has agreed must be an integral part of a Palestinian state. How is Abbas to accomplish this? What makes anyone think it's possible? (An interesting note: Abbas is referred to as head of the PLO, which nominally gives him authority to negotiate for all Palestinians. But there is no reference to Gaza at all, which is a serious omission.)

I read one commentary that suggested that the way to deal with Gaza is by having the IDF go in and weaken Hamas for Abbas. But Khaled Abu Toameh vociferously disagrees. He describes the thousands who marched in Gaza City on Tuesday, chanting "We will never recognize Israel."

Said Abu Toameh, "The Annapolis conference may have improved relations between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, but it has also deepened divisions among the Palestinians. The negotiations that are expected to take place after the Annapolis meeting will only aggravate the crisis on the Palestinian arena, making it harder for Abbas to even consider the possibility of returning to the Gaza Strip."

As to Abbas relying on the IDF in Gaza, Abu Toameh explains:

"The last thing Abbas would want is to return to the Gaza Strip with the help of the IDF. Such a move would only damage his credibility and turn many Arabs and Muslims against him. 'Abbas would be a fool to return to the Gaza Strip aboard an Israeli tank,' remarked a Hamas official in the West Bank. 'Any Palestinian who enters the Gaza Strip with Israel's assistance will be treated as an enemy.'

"History has shown that Palestinians who were empowered by Israel did not last for long in power. The best example is the Village Leagues, a group that was established in the West Bank after Israel dismissed most of the elected pro-PLO mayors in the early 1980s.

"The heads and members of the Village Leagues were quickly condemned as traitors by their own people and some of them were assassinated." With all the hoopla, then, Bush has simply made it harder for the "moderate" Abbas and diminished the possibility of resolving the Gaza issue.


Yet another factor that is deeply disturbing is the difference in the stances of Abbas and Olmert.

Abbas made a statement saying that they "must" have east Jerusalem as their capital. Actually, he said, there must be an end to "occupation of all Palestinian lands since 1967, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Syrian Golan and occupied Lebanese territory.

"We need East Jerusalem to be our capital, and to establish open relations with West Jerusalem,"

As I've noted repeatedly, there are no concessions on the PA side.

But Olmert? He's standing on his head to show how much he's willing to sacrifice, and Livni is just one step behind him. Said he, "We are ready for painful concessions...I have no doubt that the reality that was formed in our region in 1967 will change in a most significant manner. I know this, and we are ready for it."

We? Speak for yourself, Ehud. He does not have a mandate to do this.

Besides which, it is the very worst of negotiating stances. I've read that some Palestinians, observing Olmert's eagerness, have concluded that it's best to stall on finalizing negotiations. If they want to bring matters to closure, they might be expected to compromise somehow, but if they act reluctant, Olmert will keep on offering more.

How much easier we could rest if we had someone strong for our side at the head of our state. He made no demands in his speech, other than the need for peace. No talk of Jewish Jerusalem or our sacred heritage.

(See Moshe Sharon on the matter of negotiations with the Arabs at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193413129&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)


I know that Olmert typically does not keep his word, but I am particularly incensed by his failure to do so with regard to the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

He couldn't have been clearer just a little over two weeks ago, when he said that unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state" there would be no talks at Annapolis: "I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."

Just one day later he referred to "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people" as the "launching point for all negotiations. We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people."

And now, such recognition has not been forthcoming and he has proceeded anyway.

He must be called on this.


Obviously there will be a great deal more to say, but this suffices for today. As I often comment, this is a situation that has to be watched. Who knows? Olmert might actually be indicted for corruption, causing him to leave office. Abbas might be taken down in Judea and Samaria by Hamas. The PA might stonewall so totally, insisting they want it all, that negotiations muddle on with nothing happening. The US might get honest enough to admit it when the PA does not meet its obligation to dismantle terror infrastructure.

Maybe it will fizzle before too much damage is done...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, November 28, 2007.

The parallels between Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, and Condoleezza Rice's Olmert in Peaceland, are too frightening to ignore

Well, it has been quite a week for the peacemakers.

In the 72 hours prior to yesterday's Annapolis conference, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza fired six Kassam rockets and over a dozen mortar shells at Israeli towns and cities throughout the Negev.

Jerusalem was placed on high alert on Sunday, with roadblocks and checkpoints set up at the various entrances to the city, after intelligence reports indicated that two terrorists were on their way to the capital to carry out a mass attack.

And in Hebron, a young Palestinian armed with a knife was caught at the Tomb of the Patriarchs planning to stab the first Jew he could find.

Phew -- after all those decades of bloodshed, it sure sounds like reconciliation is finally at hand.

But hey, what's a few explosive projectiles, two would-be suicide bombers and a sharpened blade between friends? When US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is determined to throw a party, she isn't going to let pesky little details, such as Palestinian attempts to murder Israelis, get in the way of salvaging her chances at a legacy.

Peace of the brave, or peace of the knave, it hardly really seems to matter all that much to Ms. Rice. As long as the lighting is just right for the grand photo-op, and her coiffed hair is oh-so-perfectly in place, the future of the Jewish state will just have to take a back seat to more pressing concerns.

INDEED, watching the carnival unfold at Annapolis this week, I was inspired to reach for Lewis Carroll's classic Alice in Wonderland, where the main character falls down a rabbit-hole into a world far removed from our own, one where the rules of logic and common sense simply do not apply.

One can easily imagine Secretary Rice in the role of the Queen of Hearts, badgering and threatening Israeli and Arab officials to make sure they show up and smile. Or, to borrow a phrase from the book, "The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round."

And how about the Mad Tea Party, where the March Hare, the Hatter and the Dormouse crowd together at the table and proceed to lambast and insult Alice to her face? With that image in mind, consider how Israel has been greeted by various Arab participants at the Annapolis gathering.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal declared that he would not even shake Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's hand, and on Monday, the Saudi embassy in Washington expelled Israeli journalists from its premises for seeking to attend a press conference.

The Gulf Arab emirate of Bahrain flatly rejected a proposal to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, while the Palestinians refuse even to recognize the country as a Jewish state.

If our Arab foes won't shake hands with us and won't even recognize us, then what are the chances that they will truly wish to live in peace with us? Or, as Alice herself put it, "It's the stupidest tea party I ever was at in all my life!"

The outcome of this process, like the trial presided over by the King and Queen of Hearts at the book's end, is a foregone conclusion. In the story, at the very opening of the hearings, before even a word of evidence has been presented, the King turns to the jury and declares, "Consider your verdict."

And that, quite sadly, is what Annapolis and the process it is meant to spawn, is all about. For everyone, it seems, including many members of our own government, views Israel as the party which must submit to the other side's demands, regardless of whether truth, justice and morality would dictate otherwise.

AND THAT is what makes the parallels between Alice in Wonderland, and Ehud Olmert in Peaceland, so frighteningly real. By plunging down this rabbit-hole, we have placed ourselves in a land of make-believe, only one where the consequences are likely to be far more painful and real than those in the children's story.

But if you remember the book well, then you know that all is not truly lost.

For Alice's nightmare finally comes to an end when she can stand it no longer. Turning to the Queen and her assembled guests, the newly-assertive young girl realizes the folly of the proceedings around her, before telling them, "Who cares for you? You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

"At this," says the narrative, "the whole pack rose up into the air, and came flying down upon her: she gave a little scream, half of fright and half of anger, and tried to beat them off, and found herself lying on the bank, with her head in the lap of her sister, who was gently brushing away some dead leaves that had fluttered down from the trees upon her face."

It was, after all, just a bad dream, one which fizzled away as soon as Alice came to her senses and stood up to her would-be aggressors.

May Israel and its leaders finally do the same, and realize that fantasy worlds such as Peaceland exist only in their imagination.

Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This article appeared in Jewish World Review

To Go To Top

Posted by Delta Vines, November 28, 2007.

Dear Friends:

Just to share, a friend of mine in Israel has been standing as a G-d fearing Jew living in the land of the Jews, Israel. Arieh Zaritsky and I have been friends for almost ten years. Our whole family counts ourselves blessed to call him friend! During the past six months or so, in our phone conversations, Arieh has said: "It is up to us to stand up for our land and our freedom, with His help. Sometimes G-d needs us to talk AND to do". And so, they have started. May G-d bless their effort!

This account was written by Hillel Fendel and it appeared in Arutz Sheva


(IsraelNN.com) The New Jewish Congress was launched in Jerusalem on Tuesday -- the same day as the Annapolis summit, whose defeatism it seeks to fight.

Organizations, speakers and supporters from across the spectrum of nationalist, right-wing and religious thought were present at the Renaissance Jerusalem Hotel to take part in the opening sessions. Though many of the participants have been at many right-wing gatherings before, a sense of cautious enthusiasm that "this could really be it" was palpable.

The plenary session was chaired by Congress co-organizer Prof. Hillel Weiss of Bar Ilan University. Others responsible for organizing the Congress were Katy Cohen and Prof. Arieh Zaritzky, while a fourth co-organizer, Dr. Gadi Eshel, read aloud the Congress charter, entitled: "The Eternal People in an Eternal Covenant in the Land of Israel." Excerpts:

"G-d commanded the land of Israel to the People of Israel as a heritage -- to settle it, to walk through it, to love even its dust, to know it, to observe the Torah in it, to long for it throughout 2,000 years of Exile. And when the time of the Return to Zion came, we were to ingather our dispersed exiles into it, take the barely-alive remnants of Israel and revive them upon it, raise pioneers in it, settle it with brides and grooms, children, families and communities, build upon it towns and factories, preserve it, rejoice in its rebuilding, build in it a national home that would be a light unto the nations -- and to establish G-d's Holy Sanctuary in its heart, Jerusalem, Zion, on Mt. Moriah.

"Everything is interwoven and inseparable -- the tradition of Israel, the holiness of the Land, the unity of the Jewish People in Israel and abroad, defense and security, and life of creativity and deep bonds with the land.

"Every community that we plant throughout the land strengthens the roots of the Eternal Nation's Eternal Covenant here -- while at the same time preventing it from being bound by 'Auschwitz borders.' Let us not fool ourselves: 'Auschwitz borders' invite Auschwitz -- not only for the Jews in Israel, but for Jews everywhere, and for all of humanity!

"It cannot be that a temporary rule in the State of Israel will steal from the People of Israel its land, will conspire to expel them and give it away to a foreign nation -- our bitterest enemy...

"Any traitorous or anti-Semitic declaration that emanates from the second Munich conference, wherever it is held, has no value whatsoever. The Nation of Israel and its State must shred it into the trash bin of history.

Those who take upon themselves, seemingly in the name of the State of Israel, to commit national suicide, lose their right to rule in the State of the Jewish Nation.

"No Jew will abandon his home, give up his inheritance, freeze construction in his land or pave the way to Auschwitz borders in order to fulfill that evil decree.

"A group of people that take upon themselves, seemingly in the name of the State of Israel, to commit national suicide, lose their right to rule in the State of the Jewish Nation.

"We hereby determine that IDF soldier and members of the Israel Police are forbidden to take part in the crime of expelling Jews from their homes and inheritance, of transferring parts of our Holy Land to our enemies, and endangering the Nation of Israel -- in any form!

"We call upon all those who are loyal to the Land of Israel and the Nation of Israel and every Jew who loves life, to arise, unite, remove the decrees "from our people and from the cities of our G-d," and emplace Jewish sovereignty over the entire Land. In the words of Joshua and Caleb when Moses sent them to scout out the Land, 'Let us ascend and inherit the Land, for we can overcome it.'"

Rabbi Dov Lior

Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi Dov Lior said that the Jewish People are required to both settle the Land and conquer it, and that the latter command "involves military force, with all the associated risks. For many years we did not have the ability to fulfill this Torah commandment, but now we can -- and so we must! We must not fear the threats of the evil ones, but we must rather persist, and not allow the weakness of our government to become a 'weeping for generations.'"

Rabbi Lior praised the Congress as "a welcome attempt to prevent our destruction and to return to real Zionism. The Land of Israel is something that can unite all sections of the nation -- but not when our students can go through 12 years in our educational system and then feel they have to take off for India to 'find themselves.' ... We are in a situation that I would not describe as a dead-end, but rather one in which we do not currently see the way out. When in such a predicament, we learn from our forefathers that we must be strong and emphatic, as Joshua and Caleb were, about our rights to this Land!"

MK Aryeh Eldad

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) took a slightly revolutionary approach: "Yes, we had a large protest rally yesterday, but the tone was one of conciliation and loving everyone -- to the extent that even members of the coalition government were able to come and speak of the dangers of Annapolis, even though they themselves are sitting in the government and building the scaffolding on which will be built the gallows on which we are all to hang, Heaven forbid! During the Disengagement, we called for civil disobedience, and it didn't happen; we called for refusal of orders, but only a few responded; we called to cut the fences in Kfar Maimon, but the public-minded leadership didn't allow it... When Olmert returns from Annapolis and will start paying his debt to the Americans by destroying outposts such as Migron or Assaf [43 and 17 families, respectively, both of them in critical locations north of Jerusalem -- ed.], if we don't use the tools of this Congress to make a real fight and to capture the leadership, then we will become irrelevant."

Dr. Yossi Ben-Aharon

Arab affairs expert Dr. Yossi Ben-Aharon: "The test of this generation is the Land of Israel. Uprooting a Jew from his home or his land is a crime against the Jewish people's link with the Land, and this is therefore the challenge we face... A true opposition, if we had one, would announce clearly that it is not obligated by whatever is decided in Annapolis. We must declare with a loud voice: This government's vows are not our vows, and its obligations are not our obligations!"

Chabad Rabbi Shalom Wolpe

Rabbi Shalom Wolpe, a Lubavitcher who heads the Task Force to Save the Land, surprised some with his remarks: "The Rebbe [Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson] said that saving lives is more important than the sanctity of the Land, and that if giving away the Western Wall would save even one life, we should give it away. But the bottom line is that giving away even a small part of the Land is itself dangerous to our national existence here, and is therefore forbidden... Some say that we are not Zionists. I say that if Zionists are those who wish to give up the Land, then we are truly anti-Zionists... If Olmert returns from Annapolis with a promise to establish a Palestinian state, we must establish our own new state in Judea and Samaria. We must fight Amona-style; we must refuse orders to expel Jews; and we must make it clear that if Olmert wishes to expel Jews from Judea and Samaria, no one leaves in one piece!"

Attorney Elyakim HaEtzni

Attorney Elyakim HaEtzni, a long-time ideologue of the Yesha Council and now one of its strong opponents, said, "Forty nations were invited to Annapolis -- but one people who was not represented was the Jewish People! Yes, Israel was there, but not the Jewish People. I do not mean this lightly. Both the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate spoke of the bonds between the Land and the Jewish Nation - but today, such a formulation would not be accepted by Israel's Supreme Court! The State of Israel no longer carries out reverse discrimination in favor of the Jews, as it was created to do, but rather expels Jews, wants Arabs on the Jewish National Fund board, and the like. Who will defend the Jewish Nation?!"

I say that if Zionists are those who wish to give up the Land, then we are truly anti-Zionists.

Gideon Charlop

Architect and Temple Mount expert Gideon Charlop: "The Temple Mount and the idea of the Holy Temple do not appeal to the public; we need new, modern methods by which to 'sell' these concepts..."

Botanist Mordechai Kislev

Botanist Prof. Mordechai Kislev of Bar Ilan University enthralled his listeners by speaking of the discovery of a grassy growth called "smoke raiser." He explained that when it is added to burning incense, it causes the smoke that arises to do so in a straight column -- precisely how the Talmud describes the smoke emanating from the incense in the Holy Temple. The discovery was made in Jordan, and he is about to depart for Egypt to corroborate reports of a similar discovery there.

JNF, Fenton, Davidi

Naftali Karni of the Jewish National Fund and Elad city planner Aya Greenfeld spoke of their program to "sell" the entire Holy Land as a historic and holy site, for both internal-educational and international-tourism purposes.

Jerusalem City Council member Mina Fenton discussed the dangers of missionary Christians in the Holy City.

Alon Davidi of Sderot reminded the participants that the ideals of the Land of Israel cannot be taught in a vacuum: "My neighbors are mainly concerned about Kassam rockets landing in their homes; you cannot come and talk to them right now about the Land of Israel."

Prof. Eidelberg

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, speaking in English, said that the main problem in Israeli public life is its undemocratic political system: "The MKs are not directly elected by the citizenry, and are therefore not accountable. Ben-Gurion himself realized this after about two elections, and deplored the system. The people of Israel are not apathetic; they're simply powerless! We are unable to have influence. We need just one person who will be strong enough to lead this revolution and effect the change!" His impassioned speech swept up at least one woman, who asked, "Why don't you lead us?"

The people of Israel are not apathetic; they're simply powerless!

Rabbi Yoel Schwartz

Rabbi Yoel Schwartz of Yeshivat Dvar Yerushalayim, a well-known expert in many fields of Torah who has written over 200 books on Jewish law and thought, shared several thoughts:

"We must believe in ourselves and in our ability to effect change. This is why on Chanukah we are not permitted to light torches, but rather simple, individual candles -- to show the power of the individual....

"Those who live outside Israel must either move to Israel, or else perpetuate their bonds with Israel by setting aside a charity box in which they place a dollar or two every day for each family member, that they will then use either to fund their Aliyah [immigration], or for some other Israel-related use. This will be their daily reminder and link with the Holy Land...

"Why is it that public trust in the law system in Israel drops from year to year? It's simply because it's not our Jewish law system; it's not what we received at Mt. Sinai, but something put together from foreign sources. We must revive Jewish Law in our modern State of Israel. But how can this be done? After all, the Torah says that a thief is punished only by paying back double -- and one who commandeered property must only return what he took! What will be with all the gangsters under such a system? The answer is that in the Jewish system, children learn these laws from a very early age -- first from the Torah, then the Mishna, then the Gmara. They are steeped in the idea that one must be more careful not to cause damage than to be caused damage. When a society is steeped in such values, there is barely any need for all these laws -- because people simply don't steal! Only when a society is taught foreign values is there a need for such strict laws. The Torah, too, allows us to enact different regulations when there is a need...

"The Seven Noachide Commandments must be taught, disseminated, and encouraged throughout the world. Both Christians and Moslems understand their importance; a leading Moslem sheikh in Italy is in favor, and I have translated my book on the importance of the Noachide Commandments into Arabic -- and I have been told, though I don't know it for a fact, that two terrorist attacks have already been prevented because of this book..."

Rabbi Dov Stein of the Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin secretary Rabbi Dov Stein said, "It would appear that one is not allowed to ask Halakhic questions on the topic of state-and-politics, such as refusal of army orders, of any rabbi who receives his salary from the government -- for he is, unwillingly, beholden to those who pay his salary, and therefore may not be able to answer correctly."

Other speakers included philospher Ohad Kamin, military historian Uri Milstein, Col. (ret.) Moti Yogev, Prof. Menashe Harel, Rabbi Yishai Baavad, former MK Sha'ul Yahalom, VAT founder Shifra Hoffman, Honenu legal rights organization founder Shmuel Medad, Rabb Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute, Moshe Feiglin, and many more. Respondents are asked to list the five issues or problems they feel require urgent attention and for which they would be willing to be active.

Tzibur Bnei Yisrael

An organization called Tzibur Bnei Yisrael (Community of the Children of Israel) was also present, seeking to advance its newest project, entitled The Top Five. Respondents are asked to list the five issues or problems they feel require urgent attention and for which they would be willing to be active. Issues could include corruption in government, widening socio-economic gaps, education, apathy regarding the Land of Israel, decreasing religious awareness, lack of Gentile awareness of the Noachide commandments, and more. The results will then be compiled, and persons will be asked to attend discussion and action groups on their "pet" issues. For more information, send email to info@tzibur.org.

Address to the Founding Session of the New Jewish Congress
by Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi

Honorable Members of the Sanhedrin,
Distinguished Rabbis, Professors, leaders and activists of Jewish Organizations,
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Shalom from Rome to all of you,

I regret being unable to personally participate in the founding session of the New Jewish Congress. I want to assure each one of you that my heart is with you during these tragic times in which the Jewish People now lives. I pray that this crisis will be resolved soon with the emergence of a new Jewish leadership, able to prove that the Zionist dream is still alive.

The hope of the Jewish People to live in peace and security in the Land of Israel was not extinguished in the past by mighty empires. Nor will it be extinguished today by the joint efforts of Arab dictators, U.S. politicians who are subservient to their diktat, and corrupt, collaborationist Israeli politicians bowing in surrender at Annapolis.

The nightmare which started with the Oslo agreement has not yet ended. Every decent human being who analyzes the reality in good faith will easily admit that the attempt to steal Jewish Land in order to create a "state" for P.L.O. gangsters caused tragic consequences, to the point that even Arabs in P.A.-occupied territories already realized what they had lost in terms of freedom since the day parts of Judea and Samaria were surrendered to Arafat.

The role played by a U.S. administration subservient to the interests of America's oil lobby is completely unmasked. George W. Bush claims to lead a "War on Terror", or a war against "Islamofascism" ["Saudi" Arabian Salafi/Wahhabism]. In the Middle East he is actually leading a war to damage America's only reliable ally and to reward terrorists and their "Islamofascist" ["Saudi" Arabian Salafi/Wahhabi] financiers.

Beyond propaganda, the reality of today's world is that the 9/11 terror attacks made their Saudi masterminds even more powerful than before. The Bush administration covers up the role that the princes who now rule "Saudi" Arabia had in financing [Salafi/Wahhabi] al-Qaeda from the very beginning.

The real boss behind Bin Laden, former "crown" "prince" Abdullah, now rules as "king" of "Saudi" Arabia and dictates to Bush what to do in order to avoid further attacks against America. This is one of the reasons why, while Western media speak of a "Road Map", Arab media call the Saudi plan being put into effect in Annapolis to cut Israel into pieces by its real name, "Abdullah's Plan".

The strategy of the Bush administration consists in "feeding the crocodile, hoping we will be the last ones to be eaten". The sacrificial bait the White House offers the Saudi masterminds of "Islamofascism" [Salafi/Wahhabism] is Israel.

Everyone knows that once a "Palestinian" state is created, [Salafi/Wahhabi] Hamas ["Palestinian" branch of the international Salafi/Wahhabi Muslim Brotherhood, sister organization of Salafi/Wahhabi al Qaeda] will immediately take control of it, just as happened in Gaza.

Once one gives Judea and Samaria to the "Palestinian" Authority, he will soon have [Salafi/Wahhabi] Hamas in control of Judea and Samaria. Once one gives Jerusalem to the "Palestinian" Authority, he will have [Salafi/Wahhabi] Hamas in control of Jerusalem, too. That would spell ruin for Israelis and Arabs alike. Gaza today is a chilling example of the barbarism that will prevail in parts of the Land of Israel stolen from the Jewish People tomorrow.

I am describing a reality which is easily understandable. One does not need to be an "expert" or politician to understand it. George Bush and Condoleeza Rice know it very well, surely better than I do, and so do Ehud Olmert and those members of the so-called Israeli "national camp" who do nothing to prevent this tragedy.

Bush, in particular, claims to read the Bible every day, but seems unable to understand that, according to that same Bible he reads, the Land of Israel was gifted by G-d to the Children of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. The Land of Israel was not given to anyone else -- including the descendants of Ishmael -- who received plenty of territory to live elsewhere.

Consequently, whoever tries to steal its Divinely-appointed heritage from the Jewish People is not simply declaring war again one nation or another, but against G-d Himself and His Divine Decrees. The United States received abundant Divine blessings as long as it defended the rights of the Jewish People to its Land. The Soviet Union, which stood for the destruction of Israel, vanished from world maps.

Should the United States change its foreign policy to oppose God Himself, if it chooses to gift Judea, Samaria and even Jerusalem to those who burn U.S. flags, the flow of Divine blessings to America will also change. It is the moral duty of every U.S. citizen to prevent their country from being transformed, as it is now being transformed, into a Destroyer of Israel.

It is the moral duty of every Jew, in Israel or the Diaspora, to oppose self-proclaimed Jewish "leaders" who cooperate in stealing a Divine heritage from their own People.

As for those who today take upon themselves the task and responsibility to shape a new Jewish leadership, a leadership which is able to defend those areas of the Land of Israel which were liberated through enduring efforts and personal sacrifice, I pray G-d bless them in assuming the role of Light to the Nations, and in preparing the path of Redemption by saving the whole Land of Israel from repeated attempts at usurpation.

Shalom and Blessings from Rome,

Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi


Secretary General,

Advisory Council Member,
(Professor Nahum Rakover,
Founder and President, Jewish Legal Heritage Society;
Former Deputy Attorney General, State of Israel;
Former Advisor to the Knesset on Jewish Law;
Professor of Law Emeritus, Bar-Ilan University)

Muslim Co-Founder and Co-Chairman
Root & Branch Association, Ltd.

Contact Delta Vines by email at delta_vines@sbcglobal.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 28, 2007.


The Arabs, who historically squeezed most but not all Jews out of the Land of Israel, claim that modern Zionists came to a country already populated with Arabs. Actually, there was hardly any population there, and much of them were not Arabs.

"In fact, however, numerous testimonies from the 1800's prove that the number of Arabs living in the Land of Israel was very low. The American writer Mark Twain, for instance, who visited the Holy Land in 1867, wrote about the Jezreel Valley, ÆThere is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent -- not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation... To find solitude, come to Galilee for that... these unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness... We reached Tabor safely... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Nazareth [today a teeming Israeli-Arab city of 65,000 people -- ed.] is forlorn... Jericho the accursed lies a moldering ruin today...'" (Arutz-7, 11/19.)


Israel lacks separation of powers among the branches of government. The Supreme Court (and Attorney-General) intervene at will in any issue. Justice Min. Friedman is proposing that security, budget, and diplomacy be legislated off-limits to the Court.

Reaction was mixed. The Left, which the Court favors, claimed he was undemocratic. Other people thought his particular remedy was not feasible (Arutz-7, 11/19).

His particular remedy probably is not feasible. Some solution is needed if Israel is to regain democracy and preserve itself from the leftist attempt to turn it over to the Arabs.


"...the range of improved Kassam rockets has grown to the point that Ashdod soon can be targeted..."

"Hamas terrorists are camouflaging their infrastructure using the same strategy employed by Hizbullah in the six years after the IDF withdrew from Lebanon and until the Second Lebanon War broke out last year. Like Hizbullah, Hamas has amassed weapons in underground bunkers that were dug below bushes and houses, leaving them undetected from the air. Hamas also has built an underground network of tunnels for smuggling weapons and transporting terrorists. "They dig holes in the roads, place powerful explosive devices inside and cover them with asphalt, so that it's impossible to detect them..."

IDF soldiers found that Hamas terrorists were using skills taught them by Hizbullah and Iranians (Arutz-7, 11/19). Olmert's policy on the Arabs helps their eventual conquest.


The Palestinian Center for Human Rights accuses the Gaza police of committing torture (IMRA, 11/19).

Torture is a big issue in the US presidential campaign. Candidates express revulsion to it. Now let them express revulsion to the use of torture by Muslim governments! EVIL AXIS GROWING?

Iran is forging closer ties with Venezuela and other "non-aligned" states such as Bolivia and Belarus (IMRA, 11/20).


In earlier news, Olmert said he was not freezing existing settlements, but the Defense Ministry has not issued any new building permits for Judea-Samaria in seven months.

There are other ways he is harming them. Even Haaretz admits that Arabs (led by leftists and foreigners) have been sabotaging Israeli crops and agricultural equipment (while spreading slander that Israelis are sabotaging Arab crops). Hundreds of trees and vines are chopped down or burnt at-a-time, and buildings and equipment set afire. The damage is running into tens of millions of shekels. Police don't call it terrorism, so they don't give this extensive ideological crime a high priority. Neither do they track the stolen property into Arab villages, nor do they enter the villages after the farmers have traced their property to those villages. Arabs steal water or slice the irrigation pipes so water spills out for their flocks. For Muslims, crime pays. Because the attacks are not called terrorism, the government does not compensate farmers (whom the government is not protecting and whom it punishes when they attempt to protect themselves).

The police claim they investigate every complaint, including by intelligence methods (IMRA, 11/20).

Then why does it take repeated attacks on the same farms before police come to check? They could catch vandals in the act. Israel is in the grip of an anti-Zionist dictatorship.


Over Army objection, he approved P.A. acquisition of 25 armored vehicles and more ammunition. Critics said it reflects his moral degeneration, for the armored vehicles would fall into Hamas' hands (IMRA, 11/21). Russia is eager to supply them. Russia!

If they don't fall into Hamas' hands, they nevertheless could be used to slaughter the lightly armed settlers, as long predicted.

PM Olmert makes dangerous concessions to the P.A., ostensibly to strengthen the Abbas regime. Ironically, the more terrorists released for "goodwill," the more Hamas claims that proves Abbas is collaborating with Israel, and the weaker Abbas becomes.

If the Israeli government were sincere and rational, it would demand that the Muslims honor their peace agreements before Israel would negotiate any final terms, or Israel would smash them. Then, for every concession the Arabs demand, Israel would demand two, because the Arabs are the aggressors. A decent Israeli government would never let the world forget that the Arabs are the aggressors. At least, the government would consider the earlier concessions an experiment to evaluate before making additional ones.

Instead, the government sticks with its counter-productive policy of making concessions such as releasing terrorists, without public evaluation of that policy. It does not evaluate how much terrorism released terrorists commit. Plenty!

Neither does the government uphold its standing by declaring the Muslim Arabs the aggressors and the war criminals. The best it does is defend itself from some, only some, of the fabricated charges against it of war criminality. It does not try to teach the world that the Islamists lie routinely, and therefore they should not be heeded.

Rather than demand that the Muslims honor their peace agreements with Israel and eradicate terrorism, Israel makes concessions just to bring the Arabs to the table to receive more concessions.

Olmert calls Abbas a partner for peace. Everybody knows, however, that Abbas does not control his territory. He speaks only for himself. The militias do not follow him. He cannot enforce much. He probably is afraid of being assassinated if he moved hard against terrorism, which I don't think he would want to do, anyway. Israel ought to determine what power he has and whether he has the power and the will to fulfill any agreements. So far, he has fulfilled none! In that case, he's no partner. A proper analysis would extrapolate what would happen with Israel's concessions. The Right suspects that Hamas will take over and use them to war on Israel. (If Abbas were a powerful warlord, he would use them against Israel.)

The leftist Israeli government is in sympathy with most of the Arab demands. Ignoring the Arabs' weak claims to any of Palestine and their possession of the bulk of it, in Jordan, the Olmert clique thinks that Israel is not entitled to the Territories and that if it gives up them and the key Jewish sites in Jerusalem, the Arabs would make peace, because that is the leftist theory. Yet even the US Congress recognizes that jihad is built into the Fatah charter, and is moving to demand that Abbas eliminate jihad from the charter of his movement. Expecting an imperialist religion to accept some territory and not try to conquer the world is like a hypothetical ancient offer to Alexander the Great of Turkey and expecting him to spare Iran and India. He had his agenda, and would not be moved from it until his debauchery make him mortally ill. Conclusion: depose Olmert!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, November 28, 2007.

As the world focused its attention on yet another round of Middle East peace negotiations, this time orchestrated by the Bush administration and held at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, it was clear that hope does not spring eternal for any kind of meaningful and long lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the imminent future.

Despite proclamations from President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas asserting a commitment to forge ahead with the US sponsored "roadmap to peace" in the region, there remains a multitude of stumbling blocks and endemic policy disagreements between the sides.

Just moments before President Bush delivered his speech to the Mideast peace conference on Tuesday, it appeared any hopes of getting a written agreement signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders had slipped away. An Israeli official had then announced that a "joint understanding" between Israel and the Palestinians had been reached, which essentially translated into an agreement to agree -- not an actual peace deal. Said US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice of the peace talks: "This work will be hard, it involves risks and sacrifices for all concerned. To be sure, the issues to be resolved by both parties are very challenging, but difficult to resolve does not mean impossible to resolve."

Over 40 countries were represented at the peace summit including most of the Arab world with the notable exceptions of Iran and Hamas, the latter being listed by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh denounced the summit in a televised address Tuesday. "The Palestinian people will not be bound by anything the Palestinian Authority agrees to in Annapolis," he said.

Desperate for recognition by the Arab states, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert called on the Arab nations in attendance to also make concessions, namely to end their boycott of Israel. "The time has come to end the boycott and alienation and the obliviousness toward the state of Israel," he said. An Israeli official, however said, "The Saudis won't shake our hands; the Syrians won't say nice things about us, but they're here."

President Bush called for an "end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; and to confront terrorism and incitement." He hailed the peace summit as an "historic opportunity to encourage the expansion of freedom and peace in the Holy Land and called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, living side by side with Israel. He said his hopes for a negotiated settlement, "will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state appears to be one of the testier sticking points for the Palestinians. Arabs and Palestinians have opposed calling Israel a Jewish state because, they say, it would preclude many refugees from returning to Israel, and the label fails to account for thousands of Arabs residing there. The potential influx of Palestinian refugees from Jordan represent a demographic time bomb for Israel because as a democracy, this could mean that Palestinians, clearly in the majority can quietly and democratically vote Israel out of existence.

The issue of the status of Jerusalem also poses problems. After Bush's announcement, Abbas said that he will not back down on his demand that East Jerusalem be named the capital of any future Palestinian state, nor will he relent on his calls for Israel to dismantle its outposts in the West Bank.

"I must defend the right of our people to see a new dawn," Abbas said, calling also for the release of Palestinian prisoners, the lifting of roadblocks and the removal of what he called the "separation wall" that surrounds the West Bank.

Olmert said that Israel was "prepared to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations" of peace. He also said he had "hesitations and doubts" about attending Tuesday's summit, but Israel nonetheless "will be part of an international mechanism" to establish the guidelines and boundaries for a future Palestinian state.

The issue of dividing Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, has drawn harsh criticism from Olmert opponents in Israel as well as an array of Jewish organizations in the United States. According to a report from Israel National News, tens of thousands of people staged a mass demonstration Monday night in Jerusalem's Paris Square, across from the Prime Minister's residence, denouncing Olmert's oblique references to the division of Jerusalem and the relinquishing of Judea and Samaria. Participants in the demonstration sponsored by the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea and Samaria (Yesha), included members of the governing coalition from the Kadima, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu parties.

Also on Monday night in Washington, Olmert took issue with leaders of US Jewish organizations who voiced their staunch opposition to the dismantling of Jerusalem. Olmert declared at a news conference Monday following his meeting with leaders of U.S. Jewish communities that "the government of Israel has a sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel," making it clear that Jews outside of Israel had no right to participate in decisions about the future of Jerusalem. The prime minister told reporters that the issue had "been determined long ago." His remarks were seen as a slap to American Jewish leaders who oppose tentative plans by the Olmert administration to put Jerusalem on the negotiating table.

Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel, told hundreds of Jews in Chicago Monday night that "Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) is not up for discussion, Yerushalayim is not for sale, Yerushalayim must remain undivided forever." The Orthodox Union (OU) immediately responded to the prime minister's remarks with a statement saying it did not intend to dictate policy to Israel, but expressed its "resolute stand" that all Jews in the world have a share in "the holy city of Jerusalem."

Agudath Israel of America adopted a resolution Sunday at its 85th national convention in Connecticut bluntly stating "Israel should not relinquish parts of Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty, and the American government should not pressure the Israeli government into doing so." Both statements echoed an assertion published on the website of the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem which states unequivocally that "World Jewry opposes Israeli negotiations which would include any discussion of ceding sovereignty over part or all of Jerusalem." The group soberly notes in its statement that this is "the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel that a significant group of American Jewish organizations have created a broad united front to pursue a policy directly involving Israel that is based on an explicit principle that supercedes deference to the sitting Israeli government."

Meanwhile in the cities of Ramallah and Hebron, thousands of angry Palestinian protestors clashed with police in what they called a sell-out by a weak and compromised Palestinian leadership. Police shot and killed one protester in Hebron, CNN's Ben Wedeman reported

The Bush administration expressed its hopes that the peace summit would, "trigger final status talks between Israelis, Palestinians, encourage Israel and the Palestinians to honor "road map" agreements, help to strengthen Palestinian government infrastructure and help to establish a broader Arab-Israeli peace." President Bush vowed to, "do everything in our power to support their quest for peace." The skepticism of a real peace coming to fruition was justified as Israeli and Palestinian leaders acknowledged they did not address any of the divisive issues that have killed so many previous attempts to construct peace deals.

Bush announced that Israeli and Palestinian steering committees were scheduled to meet on December 12th to work out the fine points of a final peace agreement and both Olmert and Abbas vowed to seal a deal by the end of 2008, meeting every two weeks to push the talks forward.

During the peace talks in Annapolis, several Jewish organizations protested the event including Americans For a Safe Israel who called Israel's attempt to make more territorial concessions to the Palestinians "suicidal". Said one protestor who chose to remain anonymous, "Look what happened after Israel forcibly evacuated 10,000 Jewish residents from Gush Katif in Gaza in 2005 in an attempt to appease the Arabs and make peace. Not only did this gesture not make peace, but they (the Palestinians) now use Gaza as a launching pad for daily Kassam rocket attacks on Israeli cities like Sderot, causing death and many causalities. Every time Israel relinquishes land to the Palestinians, the last thing that Israel gets in return is peace. When will we ever learn that the Palestinians don't want peace, but rather, their agenda calls for the total eradication of Israel and the murder of as many Jews that they can".

In Washington, another group of Jewish protestors gathered and referred to the summit in Annapolis as "Munich II". 22 year old Yisroel Rubin said, "Our leaders in the Israeli government are morally and spiritually bankrupt, vapid and empty leaders who are devoid of a sense of Jewish destiny. For them, the Zionist dream has come to a screeching halt. They have removed G-d and Torah from their lives, immersed themselves in corruption and are now leading us down the path to another Auschwitz."

When asked what Israel's alternative was at this juncture to insure the Jewish character of the state of Israel, Rubin responded by saying, "After 1967, Israel should have annexed the liberated territories of Judea and Samaria and arranged for a population transfer of the Arabs who clearly represented a fifth column, a people engaged in seditious activities against Israel. Why would the Arab want to live in a Jewish state? Let him go live as a first class citizen in an Arab state." "Our greatest and most tragic mistake," he said, was not "paying heed to the prescient message of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane who predicted everything that is happening now back in 1979. He saw everything so clearly and warned us that if we do not take action, the very existence of Israel could be in jeopardy and that's exactly what's happening now. All I can say is that our future, like our past is in the hands of G-d. We must continue to pray for the State of Israel, for the Jewish nation."


To Go To Top

Posted by Mike Travis, November 28, 2007.

Monthly Jihad Report
October 2007
Jihad Attacks: 242
Countries: 19
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 1252
Critically Injured: 2287


What part of 'Religion Of Peace' don't you understand?

BAGHDAD: Female suicide bomber wounds 7 US soldiers, 5 Iraqis

SRI LANKAN: suicide bomber tries to assassinate government minister

ANNAPOLIS: sets 2008 for Palestinian state

FRANCE: Rioters 'were out to kill us' police officer

USA: Jihadists target intel base in Arizona

SAUDI: rape victim attacked by shamed brother

IRAN: Announces Second Long-Range Missile

TORONTO: Jewish students flee Arab mob

GAZA Hamas Document Forbids Concessions in Annapolis IRAQ: Suicide bomber kills 28 at Iraqi police base

LEBANON: Hezbollah recruits thousands in Lebanon crisis

MOGADISHU, SOMALIA: Islamic militias gun down a vendor at a market.

IRAQ: A suicide bomber disguised as a shepherd manages to kill nine Iraqis, including three women.

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN: A suicide bomber kills two civilians walking along a road.

SOMALIA: Six civilians are killed when Islamic militias attack Ethiopian troops in a populated area.

AFGHANISTAN: Religious extremists kill four Afghans with a roadside bomb.

MOSUL, IRAQ: Jihadis murder four people. A woman is also gunned down in Basra

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 28, 2007.

1. It ignores Israel's legal right to all the land. The Arabs have no legal right to the land.
2. It ignores that Jerusalem is the holiest site in Judaism. Christianity and Islam can't make such a claim.
3. It ignores that Israel conquered Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in a defensive war thereby entitling Israel to keep them.
4. It ignores that the Charters of Hamas and Fatah call for the destruction of Israel.
5. It ignores that Islam requires that Israel be wiped off the map.
6. It ignores that any "peace" agreement with the Arabs is a Hudna only.
7. It ignores that the PA has never lived up to its commitments undertaken pursuant to the "peace" process.
8. It ignores that the PA harbours, aids and abets terrorists.
9. It ignores that the PA has always incited its people to hate and kill Jews
10 It ignores that the PA has never done anything to advance peace.
11 It ignores that Abbas is a puppet without power or authority.
12 It ignores that Hamas is the elected government of the PA.
13 Although it ostensibly supports negotiations, it constantly puts restrictions on what may be negotiated, e.g., Palestine must be created, must be viable, must be contiguous, must have its capital in Jerusalem
14 It requires the right of return to be open for negotiations.
15 It is under the auspices of the UN which discriminates against and demonizes Israel
16 The US under the guise of being Israel's friend, forces Israel to act contrary to its interests.
17 No one in the Quartet is impartial
18 The end result is a foregone conclusion.
19 Israel doesn't have the right to say "no".
20 The Arabs are not held accountable for creating both the Arab and Jewish refugees.
21 The Arabs are not held accountable for terror or anything else.
22 All promises made to Israel by the US and the PA are routinely broken.
21 Israel is accorded no respect.
22. Israel is denied the right of self-defense
23 Israel is subject to constant criticism.
24 It will bring war not peace.
25 The Arabs refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I could go on but will leave that to you.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 27, 2007.

What would you do if your foreign policy agenda had these priorities:

  • Get Arab and European support for solving the Iraq crisis.
  • Mobilize Arab and European forces against a threat led by Iran and its allies, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.
  • Get Iran to stop its campaign to get nuclear weapons.
  • Reestablish American credibility toward friends and deterrence toward enemies.
  • Reduce the level of Israel-Palestinian conflict.

That pretty much describes the U.S. framework for dealing with the Middle East nowadays. The Annapolis conference is not going to contribute to these goals. The most likely outcome is either failure or a non-event portrayed as a victory because it took place at all. No one is going to say: We are so grateful at the United States becoming more active on Arab-Israeli issues that we are going to back its policy on other issues.

On the contrary, the conference is more likely to show the inability of the United States to produce results, thus undermining belief in U.S. leverage in the region in general. It shines the spotlight on the most divisive issue, the great excuse for not doing more to help U.S. efforts, raising its prominence. What most of Washington simply fails to understand is that any real demand for Palestinian or Arab concessions will be fodder for radical groups and frighten Arab regimes, pushing the latter away from support for America rather than toward it. And any Israeli concessions obtained by this process will not satisfy their demands either.

Despite thousands of claims by lots of famous people, national leaders, and respected journals, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not make radical Islamism or terrorism go away. Would you like to know why? Because even if this issue could be solved -- which isn't about to happen for reasons requiring a different article -- to do so would necessitate a compromise including an end to the conflict, acceptance of Israel, and compromises by the Arab side. These steps would inflame the extremists and make any Arab rulers who accepted it vulnerable to being called traitors. It would increase instability in the Arab world, also by removing the conflict as splendid excuse and basis for mobilizing support for the current rulers. Arab politicians understand this reality; most people in the West don't.

Such considerations are accurate analytically but the conference will take place any way. It has been reinterpreted by the U.S. government as the opening of a long-term process rather than its culmination. The analogy is to the Madrid meeting of 1991 -- which started a nine-year-long failed peace process -- rather than to the Camp David summit of 2000, which marked its breakdown.

Given the fact that the meeting is going to take place, and one would like to see as little damage result as possible, what is the worst mistake that could be made to ensure that an already difficult situation becomes worse? Answer: invite Syria.

Let's remember a few things. The meeting was called to deal with the Palestinian issue. Bringing in the Syrian question is going to destroy that focus. Palestinian leaders know this to be true and no doubt are horrified by Damascus getting equal time.

But that's just the start of the problem. Run your eye back up the page to the five points listed as priorities for U.S. policy.

Iraq? Syria is the main sponsor of the terrorist insurgency. It has a deep interest in ensuring that no moderate, stable, pro-Western regime takes root in Iraq.

The radical alliance? Syria is a leading factor in the problem, a partner with Iran for twenty years. Anyone who believes that Damascus can be split from Tehran understands nothing about the mutual benefits Syria gets from the alliance, far greater than anything the West could possibly give to its dictator President Bashar al-Asad.

Iranian nuclear? When Iran gets atomic weapons it will be a great day for Syria, ensuring its strategic protection, damaging Western influence, and helping the radical Islamist cause that Syria backs.

American credibility? It undermines years of U.S. efforts to pressure Bashar away from radical adventurism. Syria can now show that it can kill Americans soldiers in Iraq, murder democratic Lebanese politicians, foment Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip, and sponsor Hizballah's effort to seize power in Lebanon without incurring any serious risk or cost.

On the contrary, Syria is now making demands on the United States for concessions in order to entice it to show up. This is happening at the very moment when plans for an international trial of Syrian leaders for political assassinations in Lebanon is gathering momentum, as Syria's campaign to install a puppet government in Beirut has just been foiled.

Is the conference's purpose, however ill-conceived, to make progress on Arab-Israeli peace and strengthen the Palestinian Authority? Having Syria present lets in the main Arab sponsor of Hamas, a state working tirelessly to throw out the current Palestinian leadership and raise the level of Arab-Israeli violence.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His latest book, The Truth about Syria was published by Palgrave-Macmillan in May 2007. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/articles/archives/oldindex.html.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 27, 2007.

This was written by Bret Stephens and it was published today in the Wall Street Journal
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010912 Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

Remember Nancy Pelosi's spring break in Damascus? Condoleezza Rice apparently does not. When the House Speaker paid Syrian strongman Bashar Assad a call back in April, President Bush denounced her for sending "mixed signals" that "lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror." Today, said sponsor of terror will take its place at the table Ms. Rice has set for the Middle Eastern conference at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Only at Foggy Bottom would Syria's last-minute decision to go to Annapolis be considered a diplomatic triumph. The meeting is supposed to inaugurate the resumption of high-level negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, with a view toward finalizing a deal on Palestinian statehood before the administration leaves office. On a deeper plane of geopolitical subtlety, it is supposed to bring Israel and the Arab world together in tacit alliance against Iran.

This raises three significant questions. First, how does Syria's presence at Annapolis affect those goals? Next, how does Syria's presence affect U.S. policy toward Syria? And what effect, if any, will all this have on Syria's behavior in the region?

Much is being made of the fact that, in accepting the administration's invitation, Syria apparently reversed a previous decision, coordinated with Iran, to boycott the conference. This plays into the view that Syria can be persuaded to abandon its 25-year-old ties to Iran and return to the Arab fold, thereby severing the encircling chain that links Tehran to Damascus to southern Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. High-profile ridicule of the conference by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who called it "useless") and spokesmen for Hezbollah and Hamas add to the impression that Mr. Assad may be prepared to chart an independent course--all for the modest price of the U.S. agreeing (with Israel's consent) to put the issue of the Golan Heights on the conference's agenda.

It really would be something if the Syrian delegation could find their own road to Damascus on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. But that would require something approximating good faith. The Syrians' decision to be represented at Annapolis by their deputy foreign minister--his bosses evidently having more important things to do--is one indication of the lack of it. So is the Assad regime's declaration (via an editorial in state newspaper Teshreen) that their goal at Annapolis is "to foil [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's plan to force Arab countries to recognize Israel as a Jewish state." And lest the point hadn't been driven home forcefully enough, the Syrian information minister told Al Jazeera that Syria's attendance would have no effect on its relations with Iran or its role as host to the leadership of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups.

At best, then, Syria will attend Annapolis as a kind of non-malignant observer, lending a gloss of pan-Arab seriousness to the proceedings. At worst, it will be there as a spoiler and unofficial spokesman of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. If it's clever, it will adopt a policy of studied ambivalence, with just enough positive chemistry to induce the administration into believing it might yet be prepared for a real Volte face, provided the U.S. is also prepared to rewrite its Syria policy. Recent attestations by Gen. David Petraeus, that Damascus is finally policing its border with Iraq to slow the infiltration of jihadis, suggest that's just the game they mean to play.

What price will the U.S. be asked to pay? Contrary to popular belief, recovering the Golan is neither Syria's single nor primary goal; if anything, the regime derives much of its domestic legitimacy by keeping this grievance alive. What's urgently important to Damascus is that the U.N. tribunal investigating the 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri be derailed, before the extensive evidence implicating Mr. Assad and his cronies becomes a binding legal verdict. No less important to Mr. Assad is that his grip on Lebanese politics be maintained by the selection of a pliant president to replace his former puppet, Emile Lahoud. Syria would also like to resume normal diplomatic relations with the U.S. (which withdrew its ambassador from Damascus after Hariri's killing), not least by the lifting of economic sanctions imposed by the 2003 Syria Accountability Act.

No doubt the Syrians believe the U.S. can deliver on these items: Dictators rarely appreciate the constraints under which democratic governments operate. Yet there is no credible way the U.S. can deliver on the first demand, and only discreditable ways in which it could deliver on the second. The administration may be tempted to re-establish normal diplomatic relations and ease sanctions, which is about as much as it can do. Yet Damascus would view these concessions either as signs of niggardliness or desperation, and hold out for more.

Put simply, there is nothing the U.S. can offer Mr. Assad that would seriously tempt him to alter his behavior in ways that could meaningfully advance U.S. interests or the cause of Mideast peace. Yet the fact that Ms. Rice's Syria policy is now a facsimile of Speaker Pelosi's confirms Mr. Assad's long-held view that he has nothing serious to fear from this administration.

So look out for more aggressive Syrian misbehavior in Lebanon, including the continued arming of Hezbollah; the paralysis of its political process; the assassination of anti-Syrian parliamentarians and journalists; the insertion of Sunni terrorist cells in Palestinian refugee camps, and the outright seizure of Lebanon's eastern hinterlands. Look out, too, for continued cooperation with North Korea on WMD projects: Despite Israel's September attack on an apparent nuclear facility, the AP reports that North Korean technicians are back in Syria, teaching their Arab pupils how to load chemical warheads on ballistic missiles. And don't hold your breath expecting Syria's good behavior on its Iraqi frontier to last much longer.

In the meantime, we have the Annapolis conference, and the one-day photo-op it provides Ms. Rice. In the spirit of giving credit where it's due, the least the Secretary can do is invite the Speaker to the party.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Chaim Grosz, November 27, 2007.

Just what blinding power money has.

Headline Saudi Arabia announced today that it has released 1500 One Thousand Five Hundred repentant terrorists. Just what did they agree to in their renouncement of the ways of terror to be considered for release, they committed themselves NOT to perpetrate any acts of terror on Saudi soil, and will pursue their chosen profession against the great satanic forces fighting against Islam.

The only countries falling into this category are all western democracies specifically the United States of America, Israel, England, France and Germany.

The irony of this event is that it coincides with a false peace drive to try and find a formula to resolve a conflict between Israel and all other Arab countries demanding for the name Israel and the Jewish character of Israel to be nullified and absorbed into the Moslem homogony, thus the Islamic symbol of the Crescent will encompass the entire landmass of the Middle East.

The horrific events of 9/11 was hatched in an unprecedented use of an airliner to commit mass murder which was committed upon the orders of alleged Saudi individuals known as the Moslem Brotherhood which spawned the Saudi Al Quaida in their attempt to decapitate the Egyptian Armed Forces by the use of gaining the control of a passenger jet full of men, women, children, but amongst the passengers were also the top Egyptian Generals and by destroying the airliner all aboard would also be murdered The chosen airline company that would not have raised suspicion was known as The Crash of Egypt Air 990 which occurred on October 31, 1999.

I remember first hearing about the accident early in the morning after the airplane went down. It was October 31, 1999, Halloween morning. I was in my office when a fellow pilot, a former flying companion, phoned with the news: It was EgyptAir Flight 990, a giant twin-engine Boeing 767 (The problem was not so much the scale of the carnage -- a terrible consequence of the 767's size the same airplanes used in 9/11), this bewildering fall out of the sky on a calm night, without explanation, during an utterly uncritical phase of the flight. on the way from New York to Cairo, with 217 people aboard. It had taken off from Kennedy Airport in the middle of the night, climbed to 33,000 feet, and flown normally for half an hour before mysteriously plummeting into the Atlantic Ocean sixty miles south of Nantucket.

Two years afterward the U.S. and Egyptian governments are still quarreling over the cause -- a clash that grows out of cultural division, not factual uncertainty. A look at the flight data from a pilot's perspective, with the help of simulations of the accident, points to what the Egyptians must already know: the crash was caused not by any mechanical failure but by a pilot's intentional act, this perplexing but known reason was known just days before 9/11

A close inspection of the passenger list will be very revealing as to just why this particular flight was chosen to determine just how difficult it would be to take total control and the difficulty it would be for a person with a minimal training to take control and destroy the airplane and kill all aboard.

This diabolical act was conceived in Saudi Arabia by the elite of Saudi society was known by the Saudi intelligence agencies, yet was allowed to occur only because it was going to be carried out of Saudi Arabia and as is the custom by their culture it is capable of deniability.

I wonder how many Soldiers of the United States and how many innocent civilians would be slaughtered by these just released Saudi trained killers and when would the other 3500 remaining terrorists in training be released upon the world to wreck havoc in the name of Allah.

What is written above is history and is well known, what is yet to be learned just how can a country governed by the rule of humane laws get enmeshed with a country governed by a despotic culture that has embodied in its laws the suppression of people just because of their gender.

Is our leadership so blinded by the Saudi money that they are held hostage to look the other way to sever injustices meted out to their own citizens, beheadings, hangings, public beatings, severing of limbs, rape and the pervasiveness as the norm of wife abuse, and then proclaim we are interested in spreading "democracy" in the middle east.

If enslavement to despots and getting excited over scraps not given but only promised, of using the rights of humanity to allow a demonic demagogue to pull the wool over the eyes of the worlds governments and avoid to confront with force if necessary their avowed goals of world dominance or the total destruction of the worlds economies because of a false sense of political correctness.

Such can only be justified by either a person that has been bribed or a total foolish idiot that thinks he the most brilliant person and is the greatest gift to mankind.

That direction will only lead to such a great carnage that it will never be forgotten in the annals of human history.

If you ask so what is the solution, the world must adopt the method of self preservation and any country that issues a threat against your country be it economically, militarily, or utilizing terrorist methods. Wage all out war against such country until they are completely subjugated by their total surrender. Maybe other countries having the same diabolical designs will take pause before they try and follow in their footsteps.

Failing to taking such draconian action due to any perceived notion of non-existence unenforceable international laws that are only binding upon civilized countries will simply result in the total destruction of our civilization and we will revert back to the rules governing cave men.

The current joy of convening a conference with known despots who rule by terrorizing their citizens, self serving oppressive religious doctrine, leaders of countries who have no support from their citizens and is holding on to his power by utilizing ever trick known to confuse and befuddle his detractors, sworn terrorists that has no control over his own terrorist, a person who initiated a war, just or unjust, because their former despot tried to assassinate his father, all in all every one attending has a personal agenda non of which is compatible with any other person or their respective governments, yet somehow are so delusional into somehow finding a solution to a religiously driven conflict over a sliver of land that each claim belongs to them and has been festering for over 1600 years.

Not only will it fail, not only will it be still born, it will never even reach the point of conception, the way to find peace in that part of the world is for the entire world instead of giving their version of justice or how to make peace, just leave them alone to either find a livable peace which is not possible in this current environment or let them finish the war that was begun in 1947 and was never allowed to get resolved where it actually belonged on the battlefield.

Chaim Grosz lives in Miami Beach, Florida. Contact him at CGrosz@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, November 27, 2007.

This was written by Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist. His latest book is Stop The Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution. He also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

It was predictable in this age of wishful thinking.

After 138 Muslim leaders last month wrote an open letter to Christendom calling ostensibly for peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding, self-proclaimed Christian leaders and other celebrity Christians took the bait.

The appropriate response would have been to search their own Scriptures, to get down on their knees to beseech God to give them wisdom, to seek the counsel of others, particularly those expert on Islam, history and the persecution of the church in Muslim lands. Instead, some get-along-with-the-world Christians apologized for the past and current actions of their fellow churchmen in defending their lives and their beliefs against Islamic aggression and terror.

Among more than 100 theologians, ministry leaders and prominent pastors, signing the letter were Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church and Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

As a Christian myself, I want to make it very clear these men do not speak for me. More importantly, I do not believe they speak for Jesus.

If we can achieve religious peace between these two religious communities, peace in the world will clearly be easier to attain," they wrote. They called for interfaith dialogue to build relations that will "reshape" the two communities to "genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another." And they asked the Muslim leaders to forgive Christians for their sins -- including the Crusades and "the excesses of the war on terrorism."

Some of that might sound quite appealing. In fact, without true spiritual discernment, the substance of the open letter from the Muslim leaders might seem to be a genuine breakthrough in mutual understanding, worthy of such a contrite response.

For instance, take the Quranic verse that served as the inspiration for the Muslim leaders in "A Common Word Between Us and You."

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). -- Aal 'Imran 3:64

It sounds nice. But any student of Islam would understand the real message. What does it mean? The key is the third sentence: "And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him)."

The word "Muslim" literally means "one who submits to Allah." In other words, far from attempting to find common ground with Christians, these Muslim leaders are in fact using the words of their own "holy book" to proclaim themselves as the only true monotheists in the world today. While Muslims are, of course, free to believe that, it hardly forms the basis for interfaith dialogue and the search for common ground.

Looking at the verse in context, it is obvious this part of the Quran is little more than an argument with the other "people of the book" -- Jews and Christians.

3:65: Ye, People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye no understanding?

3:66: Ah! Yes are those who fell to disputing (even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge! But why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah who knows and ye who know not!

3:67: Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian, but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (which is Islam) and he joined not gods with Allah.

3:68: Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham are those who follow him, as are also this Apostle and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have Faith.

3:69: It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive.

3:70: Ye People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (yourselves) witnesses?

3:71: Ye People of the Book! Why do you clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth while ye have knowledge?

This section of the Quran, like most sections of the Quran, is hardly a call for finding common ground. It is an indictment of Judaism and Christianity, a forceful call for conversion.

In fact, that's all it is.

In the eyes of orthodox Islam, there is only one way for Jews and Christians and Muslims to get along -- Jews and Christians must stop accepting lies, submit to Islam, become Muslims or accept the harsh treatment they deserve living as dhimmis under the thumb of followers of the Quran.

Likewise, it is a perversion of the Bible to assume Christians should seek peace first over truth. It is hardly what Jesus preached in Matthew 10, where He told believers they would "be hated of all men for my name's sake" -- even within our own households and families.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword," Jesus said in Matthew 10:34.

This message is reiterated in Luke 12:51: "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division."

Jesus did not teach believers to seek common ground with the world. He did not teach us to conform ourselves to the ways of those who deny Him. He did not teach us to compromise our faith to find peace. He, did, however, command us to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).

If today's Christian leaders want peace, they should be about the business of their Lord, spreading the Gospel to Muslims and other non-believers, rather than conducting interfaith dialogues with those who keep those non-believers in darkness.

This comes from Europeans_who_support_Israel@yahoo.com Contact Crystal at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 27, 2007.

For the uninitiated: vaudeville is an old-time stage show in the US, which featured songs and dances, juggling, and slapstick (a physical comedy with collisions, chases and such).

This, my friends, is what Annapolis is, if you consider it closely and don't take it too seriously.

Last night, a dinner was held for participants at the State Department. Bush told those assembled that in order to reach their goal "tough compromises" would be necessary. And I ask myself, exactly what compromises have the Palestinians made and what compromises are they likely to make.

The answer on both scores, of course, is 'none.' They're much better at making demands than making compromises.

In fact, I'm now reading that some in Bush's administration doubt that the Palestinians are ready to make the necessary concessions. Good morning! Where were you guys when Annapolis was planned? This has been apparent from the get-go. How could you have been foolish enough to proceed in light of what has been obvious?


Olmert is quoted as having said, "We and the Palestinians will sit together in Jerusalem [after the conference ends] and work out something that will be very good. We definitely will have to sit down very soon."

"We will definitely have to sit down very soon." Did he say that? It sounds exactly like the way an acquaintance speaks when she says, "We'll have to do lunch sometime soon," and means not a word of it.


And would you believe they're still working on that joint document? The main obstacles are Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which refusal should the sound a death knell with regard to future negotiations!), Palestinian insistence on a timetable for establishing a Palestinian state, and Palestinian efforts to include the phrase "ending the occupation that started in 1967" (which would obligate us to return to the '49 armistice lines).

And then there's this, which is the real vaudeville part of the situation:

PA negotiator Saeb Erekat has told The Jerusalem Post, "Gaza is a big problem for us. We know that a Palestinian state cannot be created [with] Gaza being separate from the West Bank, east Jerusalem. A single territorial agreement, that's the way that a Palestinian state will be established."

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Periono, agreed: "There will only be one Palestinian state, and it's going to be difficult work. It's going to take some time for the Palestinians to work through the situation with Hamas right now. They're under obligation to do that."

Just how they are going to accomplish this, with Hamas entrenched in Gaza, was not made clear. Erekat talks vaguely about a referendum, but keep in mind that Hamas has said clearly that they will not accept any agreements made as a result of Annapolis. And if there should be a unity government re-established, it would play by Hamas's rules.

And so the question has to be asked: What fools imagined that this is the right time for negotiations, when a divided Palestinian situation exists? Does not even a modicum of logic dictate that it would have been wise to wait until the Palestinians had their act together as a nationalist unit (which I predict will never happen) before trying to establish a Palestinian state? (Hint: without that nationalist unit there is no basis for a state.)

The answer, with regard to the fools, is this: Proper timing for optimum results on behalf of the Palestinians is not the first order of concern for the Bush administration. This is transparent. So transparent they should be ashamed of themselves. Their first concerns are the ones listed here the other day (take your choice): putting together the "moderate" Arab coalition against Iran, securing their own legacies, gaining public approval.


Then we have the analysis of Khaled Abu Toameh. Says he:

"Headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the delegation consists of several senior officials who, for the past 14 years, have been conducting failed negotiations with Israel."

This makes the Palestinian people very dubious about any achievement now. Abbas and Qurei were key in Oslo negotiations, which the Palestinians see as a huge failure.

Abu Toameh reminds me here of something I know about but have not alluded to recently: During the Camp David negotiations Abbas dissuaded Arafat from making compromises. In fact, I have a lovely quote, that I've used from time to time, from that old leftist Yossi Beilin, who said that Abbas's positions were more extreme than Arafat's, since he "was among Arafat's 'restrictors' during the Camp David Summit."

So...picture this: Bush is addressing the very Palestinians who have failed at negotiations in the past and have a history of being rigid and refusing to compromise, and he tells them that "tough compromises" will be necessary. What is more, because Hamas is now breathing down their necks (more on this below), they actually have far less latitude for compromising than they did during Camp David.

Definitely vaudeville. If Bush weren't playing with the rights and security of Israel, it would be very very funny indeed.


PA officials are actually very much afraid of a Hamas takeover in Judea and Samaria. Makes a nice backdrop to "peace negotiations," does it not? Hamas has been threatening this for some weeks and there is concern that they will use anti-Annapolis rallies as focal points for garnering support and provoking riots. Thus PA security violently broke up a rally yesterday.

Additional news is that the IDF has arrested some Fatah operatives who are suspected of serving as secret Hamas agents and helping to build a military infrastructure for Hamas in the area of Ramallah.


As there is a seven hour time lag regarding happenings in Annapolis, I will not attempt to cover or analyze the day's events here. The postmortem will have to wait until tomorrow and following.

What can be said at present is that in principle, as announced by Bush, Israel and the PA are to start bi-weekly negotiations in December (presumably to be completed before he leaves office), and Abbas said that a Palestinian state must have east Jerusalem as its capital. We'll see how far this goes, but we know we will have our work cut out for us. Olmert is on very shaky ground domestically and his government must be brought down.


There is a conference, intended to counter the mind frame engendered by Annapolis, being held today by a group called the New Jewish Congress. It is examining issues such as the national and international legal status of the Temple Mount and seeking to strengthen Jewish rights at every juncture; Adin Steinzaltz is probably its most well known participant.

Rabbi Shlomo Wolpe, at this gathering, has called for a "declaration of Jewish independence" if Olmert tries to cede Judea and Samaria.

That this is a right wing group is unquestionably the case. But its positions reflect the strong inner sense of outrage felt by many today because of what Olmert is seeking to do, and what it proposes is not so much "far out" as simply necessary in these dangerous times. I do not know if there would be a declaration of Jewish independence if Olmert tried to move out 80,000 residents of Judea and Samaria, but I believe there would be something akin to a civil war. They would not go quietly, nor would others stand passively by and let this happen. There has been a declaration circulating widely by e-mail here in Israel stating that Olmert has no mandate from the people for what he is attempting to do and that the people will not consider themselves bound by what he commits to.


Return to the issue of Beit Hashalom in Hevron. I have just spoken with David Wilder, spokesman for the Hevron community, who tells me the following:

A letter was received about 10 days ago from the State Prosecutor's office saying that it was supporting eviction of the residents of Beit Hashalom. The basis for the eviction was a law that says if residents are in a place for less than 30 days and questions of the legality of their being in that place arise (in this case the ownership of the building), they can be evicted while the issue is investigated. (After 30 days, investigation proceeds while they remain in residence.)

There are two major problems with this. One is that it is not less than 30 days since the residents moved into Beit Hashalom, it is about seven months. The official argument is that the Arab who claims it is still his building registered his complaint less than 30 days after they moved in, and that the clock stopped then. This is being legally challenged.

The second problem is that the Prosecutor's letter states no reason why the legality of the purchase needs to be further investigated. If it said that, for example, clause 3 of such and such a document that the Jewish residents submitted as evidence of their ownership is questionable, then there would be something for the Hevron community to respond to. It's more difficult to respond when no focus for the investigation is cited. The community legally has 15 days to appeal the eviction and a lawyer letter has been sent demanding clarification of the basis for the proposed eviction so that there is something specific to appeal.

It is worth mentioning that the Arab who says it is still his building was filmed receiving the purchase money from representatives of the Jewish community. He claims he later returned the money (likely a life-saving statement so that fellow Arabs would not kill him) but there is no documentation for this.

The truly painful and sad part of this is that David and the community don't have confidence in the process of law -- they are not certain that if they can prove the legality of the Jewish purchase of this building that it will insure that the residents can remain, or return. There is, rather, the sense that the government will find a way to advance its political agenda.

David tells me that he has it on good authority (and I had heard this elsewhere as well) that Olmert orally promised the Palestinians within the framework of Annapolis that the removal of the residents of Beit Shalom would be taken care of. This position is strengthened by the way the government has acted: If the Arab made his complaint less than 30 days after Jews moved into the building, why was the eviction notice just sent out now?


This then is what I wish every single reader to understand: There are issues here that transcend the right of these particular residents to live in a building that was legally purchased. There is, first, the right of Jews to live in Hevron, the holiest of Jewish cities after Jerusalem, within an area that was specified by Oslo as Israeli controlled area. And there is the issue of fair treatment under the law. As it is, settlers (voting, tax-paying citizens) repeatedly find the cards stacked against them -- and for the Palestinians -- in dealings with the government. A nominally Jewish government with a particular political agenda.

I want every reader to understand why talk of a "declaration of Jewish independence" makes some sense in the face of this. To be undone by one's own government is in this and similar instances unbearable beyond words. Despicable. Shameful.

Contemplate 2,000 years of exile of the Jewish people who have returned and now find themselves threatened and diminished by fellow Jews who presume to govern them. It is beyond words.


Let's end on a good note. Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) came to Jerusalem on Sunday to participate in a rally on behalf of Jerusalem. He's one of the best friends we have in Congress. See his talk at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbySC4heMSo

And while you're at it, contact him. It doesn't pay to only complain. Our friends need to know we appreciate them. Couldn't locate an e-mail for him, but you can phone at 202-225-2815 or fax at 202-225-0011.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 27, 2007.

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018925.php) wrote:

As the Munich -- uh, that is, Annapolis -- conferences approaches. The huge unrecognized fallacy of this conference is that the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with a smaller Israel. The only Israel that will satisfy them, because of the jihad ideology, is no Israel at all.

Below is the article by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM -- At the request of the Palestinians, the U.S. has been holding back from Israel reports critical of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' purported attempts to fight terrorism in the West Bank, according to diplomatic sources familiar with the reports.

The U.S. has been closely monitoring Abbas' implementation of commitments to fight armed groups in the West Bank ahead of this week's Annapolis summit. In line with understandings, State Department and U.S. security representatives were to share their observations with Israel while the U.S. also monitors Israeli commitments to dismantle anti-terror road blocks and to take initial steps toward bulldozing what are termed illegal outposts, or Jewish structures built in the West Bank without government permits.

While the U.S. has been reporting to the Palestinians on Israel's actions on the ground ahead of Annapolis, according to informed diplomatic sources, it has withheld some State Department reports critical of Abbas' Fatah security forces purported fight against terror.

Fatah forces in recent weeks carried out what it called arrest operations against some gunmen in the West Bank, including members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leaders of Fatah's declared military wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

According to Israeli security sources, Fatah rounded up some Brigades and PFLP members in the northern West Bank city of Nablus and transferred them to nearby Jericho, where they spent one night in a Fatah compound and were then freed but told they must stay in Jericho until after Annapolis. Most gunmen continue to receive room and board at Fatah compounds.

Several Brigades members rounded up and brought to Jericho, including a deputy commander of the terror group, last week entered U.S.-training courses for Fatah forces under way in the city. The U.S. and EU run regular training courses for Fatah militias to bolster Abbas against Hamas.

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years and has carried out thousands of shootings and rocket attacks against Jewish civilian population centers.

Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, U.S. security coordinator for the Palestinian territories, has been closely monitoring the actions of Fatah forces in the West Bank, particularly Nablus, a city that was to serve as a litmus test for Abbas' ability to impose law and order in the West Bank. Dayton heads the U.S. team to train and arm Fatah and was the principal architect of a U.S. plan to fund Fatah forces.

According to diplomatic sources familiar with his reports, Dayton filed largely positive reviews of the performance in recent weeks of Abbas' forces. But other State Department monitors and U.S. security coordinators wrote reviews highly critical of the U.S.-backed Fatah militias, some noting Abbas' forces carried out mostly symbolic gestures.

The diplomatic sources said the critical U.S. reports were held back from Israel at the request of Abbas' office for fear it would negatively impact negotiations leading up to this week's Annapolis summit.

One Israeli security speaking to WND, though, balked at the alleged attempt to withhold the information.

"The U.S. is going to tell us something we don't know about Fatah? Holding anything back won't achieve anything," he said.

At the Annapolis summit, Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are slated to issue a joint declaration that is widely expected to outline a Palestinian state to be created in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian teams arrived in Washington yesterday.

The Israeli representatives -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzippy Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak -- will meet today with President Bush, as will Abbas and his senior negotiators. Later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host a dinner for all conference participants; both she and Bush will address the dinner.

The Annapolis summit will officially open tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern with a three-way meeting between Bush, Olmert and Abbas, after which each will deliver a speech and Abbas and Olmert will present a joint Israeli-Palestinian document. Later, larger sessions with take place, with foreign ministers of several Arab countries, including Syria and Saudi Arabia, presenting their views.

On Wednesday, Olmert and Abbas will meet with Bush about specific ways to carry out the declarations presented at the conference. According to Israeli sources, the three will discuss creating a Palestinian state before Bush leaves office in January 2009.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Riad Awwad, November 27, 2007.

Since our father is only one man, Abraham, we the arabs and you the jews have the same father. We have had, since than, a great relationship until the big forces in the world have interveened to spoil it.

After the holocaust the jews thaught were to go, and they came to their cousins, the arabs. The problem is the arabs did not welcome their cousins like they should, with flowers, but with war!!

I think this is the reason our area could not become like Japan or Switherland and has become the contrary, living hell every day !!

There is only blood shead between us!

The terorists are the others that do not want peace to come forth in our region, political interests are those that do not let Irak, Lebanon and Israel be peacefull and calm...

Well, let us try to make peace now, if not for us, then for our chidren and our grandchildren here to come !!

Contact Riad Awwad at riadawwad2004@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Mandel, November 27, 2007.

Diplomatic failure follows when the peace process becomes an end in itself.

A U.S.-brokered peace conference between Israelis and Palestinians in Annapolis this week, is supposed to produce an outline for a peace settlement. But does the Bush administration show any indication of having learnt the lessons from the Oslo process's failure to produce the elusive peace settlement President Clinton tried to broker in 2000? What indeed were those lessons?

A chastened Dennis Ross, chief U.S. Middle East negotiator for twelve years until Oslo's collapse into bloodshed in 2000, helpfully laid them out in an interview with me six years ago. Speaking of Palestinian terror and incitement to hatred and murder, he observed:

you cannot have a peace only of negotiators and leaders, and not of publics ... [I] believe that we ... became so preoccupied with this process that the process took on a life of it's own. It had self-sustaining justification. Every time there was a behavior, or an incident or an event, that was inconsistent with the process ... the impulse was to rationalize it, finesse it, find a way around it and not allow it to break the process.

If these were the great American mistakes during Oslo, George W. Bush gave an early indication in his presidency of understanding and acting on them. He held Arafat responsible for the terrorist war, and shunned him beginning with his first day in office. In June 2002, Bush declared that new Palestinian leadership -- untainted by terror and corruption, reformed of PA institutions, and sustained in action on ending terror and incitement -- were prerequisites for his unprecedented presidential support for creating a Palestinian state.

In practice, however, the American tendency has been the opposite -- to discard or subordinate prerequisites, while asserting that these have been largely met.

Thus, in April 2003, Bush accepted the roadmap peace plan produced by the Quartet (European Union, United Nations, Russia, and the U.S.), which agreed, in principle, with his June 2002 conditions, but diverged in practice. The roadmap ordained immediate Israeli concessions and redeployments in response to untested Palestinian reforms.

This meant pretending that the roadmap met Bush's conditions, which it, in fact, discarded. That in turn signified that the U.S., while having side-lined Arafat, commenced dealing with a reshuffled pack of veteran Arafat loyalists -- Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, Nabil Shaath, Ahmed Qurei, with Salaam Fayyad later added to the deck -- claiming this amounted to new Palestinian leadership. When Arafat died in November 2004 and Abbas was formally elected PA president the following January, the embrace with the Arafat old guard became complete.

This embrace was not result of the fulfillment of any of Bush's conditions. Under Abbas, there has been no PA action to jail terrorists and dismantle their organizations. Indeed, Abbas explicitly ruled out doing that, contrary to Oslo and the roadmap. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has carried out the lion's share of recent terror attacks, is actually part of Fatah.

In the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools, and youth camps, incitement to hatred and murder of Jews, and glorification of terrorism as a religious and national duty, remains the order of the day. Abbas himself has praised terrorists as "heroes," disclosed last October in Arabic that, "It is not required of Hamas, nor of Fatah, nor of the Popular Front to recognize Israel," and could be found earlier this year calling for a political partnership with Hamas.

However, the Bush administration feigns ignorance of all this. Rice's encomium for the PA leader last February, lauded President Abbas:

I want everyone to know, particularly the Palestinian people, how much we admire the leadership of President Abbas as a leader of the Palestinian people ... we've made a lot of progress over recent years in particular because of the hard work of President Abbas.

Bush himself declared last September that "President Abbas is committed to peace." Two years ago, Rice began praising Abbas for "cracking down on those who perpetrate violent attacks" -- attacks which, in fact, continue unabated on a daily basis. Such flat earth endorsements for Abbas are legion.

Shoring up weak foreign leaders for fear of worse is hardly unknown diplomatic practice, nor is the existing alternative -- Hamas -- any more acceptable. Nonetheless, it is an axiom of diplomacy that concessions and rewards should follow moderation, not precede it. Instead, Bush has proposed to Congress an unprecedented $410 million package for Abbas: no strings attached, no benchmarks, and no performance standards.

In short, preoccupation with process is back. Self-sustaining justification is back. Rationalizing and finessing extremism and violence are back. As a consequence, diplomatic failure looms. Any agreement that might be reached, an unlikely situation in itself, will prove a dead letter.

Daniel Mandel is a fellow in history at Melbourne University & Director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy. This article was published in the National Review Online and is archived at
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q= ZWY2M2Q4ZTg0ZWU0N2QyY2FjNTJjZTljNGVkZDNlMDk

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, November 27, 2007.

What does a Palestinian right of return have to do with the creation of a Palestinian state? President Mahmoud Abbas, chief negotiator for Fatah, insists on making this an issue within the context of a peace process meant to create two juxtaposed sovereignties, one Jewish, one Arab. Indeed, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, chief negotiator for Israel, does not demand a right of return for descendants of Jews exiled from their Arab homelands at about the same point in time Arabs left the emerging state of Israel. Furthermore, more Jews fled, about 850,000, than Arabs, about 711,000, during this period. Today, descendants of those exiled Jews are likely productive citizens perhaps in Israel, perhaps elsewhere. Alas, many if not most of those Arab descendants are less than productive refugees, bizarrely still in camps after about 60 years. Just because those Arabs cannot seem to make a go of it, even in an environment conducive to their ethnicity, is that Israel's fault? How come the lion's share of Jews, even exiled Jews, beget descendants that prosper no matter where they go? Are such Arab descendants, posing as victims, so fragile that cannot make it in the world outside Israel? Again, what does a Palestinian right of return have to do with the presumed primary goals of the peace process between two peoples fed up with the status quo? Could it be that Abbas, an unrepentant Holocaust revisionist, a protégé of the billionaire Yassar Arafat who apparently was allergic to the concept of peace, has some ulterior motive when he obsesses on a non-starter issue?

Never ignore Jewish Israel's function as the perfect patsy to absorb the camel's share of venom spewed by Muslim populations that otherwise would be directed at exploitative rulers throughout the Middle East. If, 'Allah forbid,' peace ever broke out between Arabs and Jews, who then would assume the role of perennial scapegoat in this dysfunctional region of the world? Might Abbas merely be a more polite well-dressed successor to Arafat, running but another lap for the Machiavellian team of despots that pay his salary? Of course, the two named two faced smoothie Mahmoud Abbas A/K/A Abu Mazan looks good in the eyes of the non-Muslim civil world compared to leaders of Hamas, Hizbullah, kindred spirit terror groups, and of course that other Mahmoud whose mantra is 'wipe Israel off the map'. In fact, the naïve non-Muslim industrial world would like nothing better than to see peace between Israel and the so-called Palestinians, no matter what Israel must surrender in land, security, and heritage, hoping that tranquility would somehow spread throughout the oil-drenched deserts of the Middle East, stifling the Persian aggressors, defusing any possible threats to a sustained flow of the ever needed prehistoric carbon based liquid without which life as we know it would grind to a halt.

The right of return indeed is Abbas' trump card, insuring that any peace process is doomed to failure. Ironically, that trump card is also good for the Jewish homeland, obviating any possibility that lands justifiably secured by Israel in 1967 as a result of vanquishing Arab aggressors would be traitorously ceded to Arabs for promises of peace as substantive as the wings of a butterfly. Eventually, when Israel elects a tough as nails intelligent Prime Minister, beholding to no other nation, willing to shed the perception of U.S. protectorate that in fact dilutes the Jewish homeland's sovereignty, he or she would not be reticent to call a spade a spade, to call a despicable Holocaust revisionist like Abbas a despicable Holocaust revisionist. He or she would forthwith put an end to the shelling of Israeli citizens by Gaza terrorists, reclaiming that wretched snake pit they now inhabit, disposing of the militants, transforming that strip of land abutting the Mediterranean into a five star seaside resort boasting world class greenhouses. He or she would warn all those nations that threaten Israel of dire consequences, deploying war planes over their capitals in a display of strength, letting them know in no uncertain terms the enormous price they would pay should they foolishly attack directly or through terrorist proxies. He or she would declare Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, all of Jerusalem, and eventually Gaza as part of sovereign Israel now and for all time. He or she of course would welcome worldwide venture capitalists to invest in what would soon become an even more prolific first world hub for education, research, commerce, industry, and tourism. Indeed, he or she would use the term 'right of return' in conjunction with the concept of 'respectability'. Respectability rightly returns to a nation that exhibits strength! The Jewish homeland more than deserves such a leader. Let's hope he or she soon arrives!

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, November 27, 2007.

Dear friends,

Only hours to curtain-up on the Annapolis farce, Cal Thomas yet again nails it precisely. His article was published on the TownHall website:

Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America.

Please read and get wiser, and if you are delusional, like so many on the left, please make an effort to wisen up. Can you?

Your Truth Provider,

Just as Thanksgiving and Christmas come around with predictable regularity, so, too, do Middle East peace summits arrive near the end of modern presidencies.

Bill Clinton had his and now the Bush administration is treading where previous fools have trod with what appears to be the diplomatic equivalent of a shotgun wedding in Annapolis, Md.

These gatherings never bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. That's because only one side wants peace. The other wants pieces of Israel, chipping away at its borders until it can gobble up what remains of the country.

Liken it to a neighborhood plagued by gang violence. After repeated assaults on the residents and a rash of home burglaries, the gangs propose a deal. If homeowners remove their burglar alarms, dispose of any weapons they have for protection and vacate their houses, allowing gang members to move in, the gangs promise not to engage in any more violence. Who would make such a deal?

The so-called Palestinian side brings nothing to the table. It has yet to fulfill a major pledge made at previous summit meetings. If the Palestinian side were applying for a bank loan, they would be turned down for defaulting on prior loans. Only in the twisted logic of Middle East "diplomacy" is their credit undamaged.

How deep into denial is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she promotes a charade that can only damage Israel and bring the region closer to another war? What could possibly persuade her that the Palestinian side is serious about making war no more and living in peaceful coexistence with Israel? Certainly not their actions, or their Holocaust denial, textbook and media slander of Jews and repeated assertions that Israel must be destroyed.

There are 22 Arab states. Will a 23rd bring stability to the region? There is no evidence -- none -- that the establishment of a Palestinian state will end the violence. On the contrary, it will signal the end of Israel, because it will show to Israel's enemies that the perpetrators of violence and the breakers of promises are never held accountable. Why shouldn't those who hate Jews and other "infidels" regard Annapolis and every other such gathering as steps on the road to Israel's oblivion?

It is Israel -- and Israel alone -- that receives pressure to make concessions. The only pressure on the Palestinian side is to show up at these road shows in order to be handed another pound of Israeli flesh. It isn't a piece of land that the Palestinians want. It is all the land. They say so. Through six wars and numerous intifadas and other terrorist attacks, the Palestinian Charter, sermons, newspaper editorials and many other outlets, the message is clear: Israel is an illegal occupier of Muslim land and must be evicted by any means necessary.

The United States and the rest of the diplomatic world that believes there is an as-yet undiscovered formula that will tame Israel's enemies is self-deluded to the point of self-destruction. Having destroyed Israel, it won't end there. Crazed Islamic fanatics will sign up in droves for the "honor" of coming to America to blast away at our foundations. In fact, according to our ludicrously named Department of Homeland Security, they are already here because we willingly let them in under the same misguided creed that guides U.S. policy in the Middle East. If we just show them how welcoming and wonderful we are, they will see we mean them no harm and change their minds about killing us.

Republicans mocked such sentiments when the left suggested in the '80s that unilateral disarmament would persuade the Soviet Union we meant them no harm. Now, members of the Bush administration are applying this same illogic in Annapolis and expect a positive response. It, too, deserves derision.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert faces possible indictment at home for allegedly trading political favors for a large discount on a home he purchased in Jerusalem. If he buckles in Annapolis to pressure for more concessions without first demanding the Palestinian side live up to previous agreements, his actions will move from alleged malfeasance to a sellout of his country's interests.

Contact Yuval Zaliouk by email at ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2007.


The Arabs fear most that Israel will build more towns, adding to the land that it insists it must retain. If acts of terrorism predictably were followed by erecting new towns, the terrorists would not be heroes to the Arabs and Israelis would be have a positive response. The Arabs would come to terms (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA 11/18).

True. Unfortunately, the government is anti-Zionist. Dr. Lerner does not acknowledge that. His advice would not be taken by the government. His objective, besides reporting fully and fairly, should be to oust that government.

My objective would not be to bring the Arabs to terms but to get them to leave, so Israel can retain the entire Territories, its core homeland and strategic borders and depth.


Defense Min. Barak has issued no new building permits to Jews in Judea-Samaria, not even for the big towns near Israel, supposedly to be retained (IMRA, 11/18).

Although Jews are not allowed to build there, Israel and not the P.A, is called apartheid!

If Jews are forbidden to build more in towns they presumably would keep, don't presume they would keep them. Assume that the State Dept., which pressed Israel to withhold new permits, and the Israeli government, intend to dispossess the Jews from all of them.

The original arguments against such dispossession were that it perpetuated the historic injustice of dispossessing the Jews from the core of their homeland and that it ceded strategic borders, depth, and water to a genocidal enemy. A newer argument, based on the pauperization and demoralization of the ten thousand Israelis dispossessed from Gaza, is that the pauperization would be so extensive with the larger population in Judea-Samaria, that it would destroy Israeli morale and end Zionism. Think the State Dept. and the Israeli Left didn't think of that?


In a resolution condemning Israel (what else is the UNO for?), the P.A. observer offered a stiff condemnation of Hamas for its brutalities in Gaza. The Arab states and Russia maligned that P.A. observer personally and made him limit his statement to an objection to Hamas' coup. They wanted to avoid a UNO condemnation of Hamas that they thought Israel would use to justify counter-measures such as cutting off electricity (IMRA, 11/18).

Meanwhile, Hamas keeps on purging Fatah and other allies of the P.A.. That's okay?


PM Olmert said he doesn't want to be known as the Prime Minister who failed to seize the opportunity for peace. Dr. Aaron Lerner noted his failure to say that he doesn't want to be known as the Prime Minister who failed to preserve Israel's secure borders or who failed to preserve Jewish access to Judaism's holiest sites (IMRA, 11/18).

The concessions Olmert proposes make him the one whose concessions facilitate Arab successes in an inevitable war by fanatics against the Jewish people. He already is known as one of the most corrupt and stupid of Israel's leaders, a like-minded group.


First the government expelled the Jews from Gaza, letting it revert from a nuisance to a strategic terrorist menace. Then it claimed it learned the lesson from the withdrawal,yet proposed massive withdrawal from Judea-Samaria, which would put all of Israel within terrorist range. Olmert only pretended to counter-attack against Hizbullah, waiting until the UNO already had ordered a ceasefire before ordering a massive ground counter-offensive. Olmert denies reality. The regime "already is damaging Israel. From a security standpoint, the government's decisions to release terrorists from prison; grant 'clemency' to wanted terrorists; curtail IDF counter-terror operations and continue to do nothing in Gaza in the interest of the peace process, are endangering the country."

"And then there is the symbolic damage. By announcing a freeze of all Jewish building activity in Judea and Samaria, the government has effectively said that Jews have no right to Judea and Samaria. By agreeing to discuss massive territorial concessions in Jerusalem, the government has effectively provided the Palestinians (Arabs) with veto power over Israeli sovereignty in the city." (IMRA, 11/19 from Caroline Glick.)

Every act that Olmert takes seems calculated to help destroy Israel. If he were alone in his views, rather than part of a leftist ruling elite, one could attribute his views to personal stupidity. The elite's views stem from their ideology, which is a form of collective stupidity and pathology. Their ideology is impervious to reality, as was the Bolshevism it stems from. They are impervious to factual contradictions to all their assumptions and predictions. They also are unwilling to admit big mistakes.

Barry Chamish makes a case for the non-stop disastrous policies being deliberate. He thinks they are guided by hatred for the Jewish state and by threats of blackmail by the State Dept. and by Israel's far-leftist Attorney-General. Indeed, Olmert's regime also promotes many anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist policies, confirming Chamish's interpretation of their foreign policy


The Archbishop of Canterbury condemned the US war on Iraq as done in haste, without nation-building. He claimed that Britain did invest in nation-building (NY Sun, 11/26).

He is mistaken on both counts. The US invests extensively in nation-building. We spend tens of billions of our own dollars on repairing and building infrastructure in Iraq. Although accused of waging the war in to control Iraq's oil, we don't control it.

Britain cobbled Iraq and other colonies together without understanding the various ethnic groups. It never formed a nation in Iraq. The dominant ethnic group imposed its rule on the others. Most British colonies not settled largely by Britons have had years of degeneration and revolution. Here is my travel advisory: don't visit Johannesburg, the murder and robbery rate there is too high.


After a long recall to active duty, an IDF reservist returned, tired out, to his class at Sapir College in southern Israel. The lecturer demanded that he stay out, because he was in uniform and he made plain his disgust for the Army. The lieutenant refused. The lecturer repeatedly insulted the IDF, and would not let the lieutenant say anything.

What dismayed the lieutenant most was the silence of the other students. He is protesting against the lecturer, but not to get the lecturer fired. He wants the lecturer to understand the importance to Israel of the many students who are called in for stints of active duty (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/19).

I think a lecturer who insults reservists should be fired and deported. Sure he understands the importance of reservists to Israeli national defense. That is why he was waging his little jihad. I think the students should have thrown him out of the classroom. However, Israeli Jews are cowed, because the government lets Arabs commit all sorts of crimes and impudence, and harasses Jews who stand up for their rights.

A friend described Israelis as having self-reliance to the point of arrogance. That used to be the case for some. No longer. Now the leftists are arrogant, but only towards fellow Jews who are not ashamed to be Jews. My friend's ignorance was irksome, but I was distracted from setting him straight.


Ashkelon, Israel is under increasing bombardment from Gaza. Its mayor demands that PM Olmert condition the conference on an end to the rocket barrage (Arutz-7, 11/19). That is fair enough, a quid pro quo. Instead, Israel offers dangerous concessions to the jihadists in advance of the conference. That is unfair, cowardly, and foolish.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haimson, November 26, 2007.

This was written by Moshe Arens and it appeared November 21, 2007 in Haaretz

Back in the '50s, it was said that the success of the Japanese automobile industry was in large measure based on a management concept, introduced by Toyota in those years, called "just-in-time." Rather than storing a large inventory of parts that would be needed for the assembly line, they ordered the parts so that they would arrive just in time for the final assembly, thus saving the capital costs of maintaining a large inventory of parts and the cost of interest on this capital investment.

Management principles utilized in the automobile industry are surely not directly applicable to diplomatic processes, but one is, nevertheless, struck by the polar opposite of this concept being pioneered by the Olmert government, as it prepares for the Annapolis meeting and subsequent negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas.

They say that they are preparing to arrive at an agreement with Abbas, which will be put on the shelf. Not to be ready just in time for its implementation, or to be implemented on signing, but rather to lie there on the shelf until such time as the situation is deemed ripe for its implementation.

This innovative concept will no doubt go down in the annals of diplomatic history, and puzzle researchers for years to come. What logic is there in arriving at an agreement that is not based on the facts on the ground at the time the agreement is being signed? Who knows what the situation will be in the future? Why not be sure that the prevailing conditions are such as to justify the agreement, and just what is the shelf-life of such an agreement?

We may not know with certainty just what will be the shelf-life of any agreement reached in the wake of the Annapolis meeting, but one thing is sure -- the life expectancy of the Olmert government and of Mahmoud Abbas' limited influence among the Palestinian population can be counted in months and not in years. This will be no more than a virtual negotiation. So it is really much ado about nothing.

In the meantime, another excuse has been added to the many excuses that have been offered this past year for Israel's not taking military action to move the Qassam rockets and mortar shells fired from Gaza out of range of civilian targets in the Negev.

First the inhabitants of Sderot were told that there is no "magic solution" to the problem. Then we heard repeated endlessly that there is no such thing as "one shot and it's over." Next came the idiotic excuse that said that, even if the Qassam rockets were put out of range, the terrorists would start using longer-range rockets.

Next came the mendacious excuse that we have already tried everything and nothing has stopped the Qassams from hitting Sderot, so why send the IDF into the Strip? Or, alternately, please be patient for a few years until the Qassam interception system has been developed and provides a protective umbrella to Sderot and other towns and villages in the western Negev.

Or worst of all, that the calculation shows that an IDF incursion into Gaza would result in more military casualties than the civilian casualties resulting from the Qassam rocketing of Sderot's civilian population.

And now here comes Annapolis. Now the line is that nothing should be done that might disturb the atmosphere in the period leading up to the Annapolis summit. Isn't this far more important than the peace of mind of the citizens of Sderot?

Mahmoud Abbas is clearly not capable of implementing any agreement. We know it. He knows it. And Condoleezza Rice knows it. To the stupid claim that there is no harm in trying, the answer is that whereas the Annapolis process is in no way injurious to the Palestinian case, it weakens Israel's position when and if we finally sit down with some real, and not virtual, Palestinian representatives to negotiate. Everything will have already been conceded, and another lame excuse will have been added to the list explaining why the government is not fulfilling its duty to protect the citizens of the western Negev.

Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com to receive emails with direct links to articles on Israel that are well-worth reading.

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, November 26, 2007.

Amos Oz's piece in favor of peace talks with Abbas is delusional and detached from reality

Amos Oz in "Try a Little Tenderness" (Interview) Ha'aretz, March 17, 2000 wrote:

The minute we leave south Lebanon we will have to erase the word Hizbullah from our vocabulary, because the whole idea of the State of Israel versus Hizbullah was sheer folly from the outset. It most certainly will no longer be relevant when Israel returns to her internationally recognized northern border.

As the excerpt clearly illustrates, Amos Oz's considerable literary talents do not translate into commensurate political acumen.

However, this is a shortcoming that has in no way deterred him from dispensing his views on matters political; nor has his manifest lack of competence in the field diminished the prominence these views are allotted in the media. This was again underscored by his latest pronouncement on the upcoming Annapolis conference in an Op-Ed piece entitled "Defeating the extremists" posted in this section on November 21.

It is an article so delusional and detached from reality that one cannot help wondering whether Oz's literary successes have left him unable to differentiate fact from fiction. It gives the impression that the distinguished author has not quite made the transition from the imaginary world of the novel to that of everyday reality. He appears blissfully impervious to fact that while in the former, a stroke of pen and the whim of the writer are sufficient to conjure up personalities, invent processes, create events and determine outcomes, in the latter matters are considerably less malleable to wishful thinking. In the real world of politics -- as opposed to the imaginary one in literature -- dangers must be confronted, not written out of the plot.

Thus when Oz declares that the Palestinians "accept the principle of the two-state solution", one can but wonder on what he bases his extraordinary optimism, for this is an assertion that flies in the face of the facts. A total of 90 percent of the Palestinian electorate voted for factions (Hamas -- 56%, and Fatah -- 34%) -- which explicitly advocate the destruction of the "Zionist entity (see Hamas Charter and Fatah Constitution). Indeed if anything the Fatah is even more emphatic in this regard, declaring its aim to be "complete ... eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence (Article 12 of its Constitution).

Moreover, less than a week before the publication of Oz's article, the allegedly "moderate" head of the PA negotiating team, Saeb Erekat, categorically and publicly refused to recognize the Jews' right to a sovereign state, declaring: "The Palestinians won't accept Israel as a Jewish state." Clearly then, even if the Palestinian have accepted the principle of a two state solution, as Oz alleges, they certainly do not see it as a principle involving "two states for two people". So is Oz woefully misinformed...or willfully misleading?

Oz's attempts to dismiss his political opponents by scornfully exposing alleged inconsistencies in their arguments. But it is an attempt that falls flat on its face. He writes: "The hawkish Right in Israel argues that Mahmoud Abbas is too weak and therefore making peace is not worthwhile. This is the same rightist camp that argued that Arafat was too dangerous, and therefore it was not worthwhile making peace with him either."

Oz is of course correct. Could it be that Oz's sanctimonious arrogance blinds him to the fact that the "hawkish Right" was indeed right, while the dovish Left was wrong? For clearly Arafat was too dangerous to make peace with (as even those who initially advocated doing so now admit); and Abbas is too weak to make peace with (as his crushing humiliation by Hamas clearly indicates). So are we missing something here, or is Oz actually castigating his opponents for having their position vindicated?

Insane fanaticism?

If inconsistency is up for discussion, Oz would do better to look at his own faction. For example, first explaining Palestinian terror as an expression by extremists of their frustration at the lack of a "peace" process, but later (once such a process was in fact instigated), as an expression, by the same extremists, of their desire to undermine the peace process, whose previous absence so frustrated them.

Moreover, it was the Left who dismissed pre-Oslo attempts by Israel to negotiate with potential indigenous Palestinian partners, claiming they were weak and lacked the necessary authority. It was the Left that proclaimed Israel cannot choose or cultivate a convenient Palestinian partner who could "deliver the goods." Indeed, this was the very reason they insisted on dealing with the strong and authoritative Arafat.

Now that this approach has failed miserably, we are being told that we should revert to the former policy that they themselves discredited -- of choosing and cultivating a Palestinian partner even though he is, by their own admission, weak and lacking in authority.

Not surprisingly, in his blueprint for "defeating the extremists," Oz envisages Israel withdrawing behind a "border ... similar to the 1967 boundaries." Nothing could underscore the intellectual bankruptcy of Oz's proposal more than this unswerving embrace of the failed and futile idée fixe of territorial retreat. Even more disturbing -- and infuriating -- is his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the disastrous consequences this policy has wrought in the recent past: Retreat in the North brought about the build-up of Hizbullah in Lebanon and the bombardment of the Galilee; retreat in the South brought about the rise of Hamas in Gaza and the ongoing bombardment of the Negev.

Now Oz suggests retreat in the East As recipe for "defeating the extremists"? Yet all he offers as a rationale for the hope that this time it will be different is his unsubstantiated belief that the Palestinians "recognize their duty to settle, through negotiations, the questions of Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, borders, security, and water." How very reassuring.

Oz's obsessive adherence to a doctrine of appeasement brings to mind two quotes from two prominent figures of the previous century -- physicist Albert Einstein and political philosopher George Santayana. It was Einstein who defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"; whereas Santayana characterized "fanaticism" as "redoubling your efforts having forgotten your aim". We are therefore left to wonder whether they would have judged Oz's proposal to be "insane fanaticism"...or "fanatical insanity."

Dr. Martin Sherman is in the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University. He has written extensively on water, including "The Politics of Water in the Middle East," London: Macmillan, 1999. He was a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, and served for seven years in Israel's defense establishment.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, November 26, 2007.

This was written by Bernard Lewis and it appeared today in the Wall Street Journal Online
(http://online.wsj.com/article_email/ SB119604260214503526-lMyQjAxMDE3OTI2NjAyNDYyWj.html). Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow's Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways -- Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement -- Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a willingness to accept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive Israeli contribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions are only furtively expressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them are jailed or worse. These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the leadership.

Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Contact Yuval Zaliouk by email at ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 26, 2007.

This was written by Youssef Ibrahim and it appeared today in the New York Sun

Like the menacing crows in Alfred Hitchcock's classic "The Birds," participants are gathering at Annapolis for the first Middle East mega-conference in 16 years.

After much coyness, it seems that everyone is coming: the princes of corruption, assorted Jihadists and nincompoops, Syrian murderers, hapless Israelis, superfluous Egyptians, and a coterie of Europeans and hangers-on -- all gathered by Secretary of State Rice, whose record of nonexistent accomplishments in almost eight years as national security advisor and head of the State Department shines brightly.

But looming above all at Annapolis this week will be the Saudi royal family and its representative, "Prince" Saud al-Faisal, whose cousins, uncles, and many relatives are now under investigation in America and the European Union for accepting tens of billions of dollars in bribes over the past three decades under the guise of military contracts to buy toys from the West. The pious leaders of so-called moderate Islam, it turns out, have used the uniquely talented friend of President Bush, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, to milk Western weapons makers of billions of dollars -- money destined for the bank accounts of his father the defense minister, his uncle the king, and assorted royal princes -- from Britain's BEA and American military contractors.

Even as the original corruption charges were quashed by Prime Minister Blair of Britain -- for national security reasons, he said they have been picked up by American investigators looking for more of the pocket money that went to the Saudi royals -- widely known in the Arab world as Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. The issue is of some import at Annapolis, since the conference is part of bringing a new age of peace and modernity to the ancient, dysfunctional Middle East. Under these circumstances, Saudis do not seem to shine as examples of leadership and integrity.

Sitting at Annapolis too will be the delegates of the so-called Palestinian Authority. There is Mahmoud Abbas, whose powers stop at the threshold of his villa in Ramallah. He will not be speaking for a kaleidoscopic Palestinian Arab world of Hamas Jihadists, leftist gangs, and plain mafiosos who are the remainder of his constituency. Neither will he represent other Palestinian Arabs in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, who answer to Damascus and Tehran.

As a correspondent in the Middle East, I covered countless peace parleys, starting with the original gathering of owls back on October 30, 1991, in Madrid that brought Israel, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Arabs, the Europeans, and the Soviets. That first great circus act yielded, as we now know, no peace. But it did produce momentum solely because a then-triumphant president, George H.W. Bush, and his secretary of state, James Baker, emerged victorious from the first Gulf war in 1991.

Such is not the case this week at Annapolis. Mr. Bush the son, and his secretary of state Ms. Rice are going into this one as anemic supplicants pleading with a collection of keystone cops for anything that can be dubbed success. A far more attainable success may have been wrung from an Iraq conference seeking to build on what finally seems to be some progress there. Instead, Ms. Rice picked a sure loser -- ending the 50-year conflict of Arabs and Jews in one afternoon photo opportunity.

Equally hard to believe is the coyness of it all. The ever-precious Saudis first said no, then maybe, and then okay. The Egyptians, who were not needed in the first place, said please. The Syrians are doing us the favor of coming.

Yet it remains unclear how the same Saudis, who last week were busy condemning a rape victim to 200 lashes, can contribute to anything called a "civilized" Middle East. Nor how President Assad's killing machine, which for two years has been picking off pro-Western politicians in neighboring Lebanon, will push peace negotiations.

At Annapolis, too, goes a uniquely hapless prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, who almost single-handedly in the summer of 2006 lost a war to Hezbollah. This is negotiating from a position of strength?

Clearly what will happen at Annapolis is that Mr. Bush, the man who promised modernity and democracy for the Middle East, will inaugurate it with a speech that will be quickly forgotten, then leave the grounds for the rest of the world to grumble over the next year about yet another American Middle East failure.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ami Chai USA, November 26, 2007.

This was written by Arieh Eldad.

Four forces operate in the material world in which we live. We are always aware of some of them: an apple falls from the tree to the ground in conformity with the laws of gravity. The plumber's advertisement sticks to the refrigerator because of the electromagnetic force. The other two forces operate on a subatomic level, hidden from view, and concern us only if we are curious about the building blocks of matter or if we are worried about an Iranian bomb.

Physicists have for year been trying to find a common denominator, an overall order that will explain the four basic forces. Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains the laws of gravity. Quantum Mechanics explains the other forces. A unified theory to explain all the phenomena has yet to be discovered. One often-accepted possible explanation is called String Theory. Those who are not mathematicians or physicists find this theory hard to understand because it describes a universe that includes ten dimensions. We mere mortals, who barely manage to handle three spatial dimensions and have no time left for others, find it hard to understand where more dimensions are hiding. Some physicists explain that these dimensions are very small, very dense, and therefore nobody can see them or measure them. A few days ago I read an article by Ofri Ilani in Ha'aretz about Garrett Lisi, an almost unknown physicist in Hawaii, who shocked the world of science by offering a "simple" theory unifying all the natural forces. Lisi's amazing innovation: he proposes no dimension that we cannot see or understand. He accepts the world as it is.

As for myself, I admit that I understand nothing in physics, and I won't even try to guess which of the physicists is correct. But I found myself fascinated by an analogy to the situation Israel is in.

Many forces operate in our region: the national and religious forces of the Arabs who want to destroy Israel, Global Islamic Jihad, the self-destructive self-hatred that threatens to dismantle us from within, the desire for peace, the Eternity of Israel, Zionism, faith, and our one God. Anyone who wants to find a solution for the conflict in our region, an order that will mediate between all these opposing forces, needs to choose a theory.

To our great misfortune, most of our leaders have accepted String Theory. If reality contradicts their hallucinatory peace, they create an alternate reality in which the Arabs do not want to destroy us. According to their approach, the Arabs possess unseen and un-measurable dimensions. Peace with the Palestinians is one such dimension. And if we, mere mortals, fail to perceive or see this dimension, they explain that it is still very small, hidden from view and from any existing measuring device. But they assume that it exists because otherwise their entire theory collapses.

I, however, prefer, at least for the purpose of finding a political solution, those who say that reality cannot be manipulated or new dimensions invented in order explain it. The Arabs who want to destroy Israel are a fact. The others who Olmert and his colleagues on the Israeli left consider their "partners" do not exist at all, or perhaps they are so small and so weak, maybe even not born yet, and therefore they are irrelevant except for purposes of theoretical research. He who seeks a real solution for our problems cannot rely on hallucinations or alternate reality. We are familiar with four dimensions in the world of physics and in the world around Israel. The land of Israel has minute length and width within the thousands of miles of Arab states. The dimension of our depth includes the destruction of the First and Second Temples, the Book of Books, and heaven above us. And the Arab dimension of depth includes oil, Jihad, and hatred for anyone who is not a Moslem. Our dimension of time is four thousand years of the Jewish people's history from Abraham until today. Olmert and his colleagues who have lost their Jewish and Zionist way and cannot find it within the familiar dimensions are creating an alternate reality, dimensions which do not exist, or are not relevant. They are creating "partners" who can not only take our land but can also provide us security, and they rely on these "partners," even as they leave behind the existing and familiar dimensions: Eretz Israel, strategic depth and defensible borders, sources of water, the cradle of the nation, and the future.

In the world of abstract physics, if a theory proves baseless, the real world does not collapse. In the world of geopolitics in which we find ourselves, Israel may find itself destroyed in a big bang because of the irresponsible gamble of these helmsmen of an alternate reality.

Contact Ami Chai USA at their website www.AmiChaiUSA.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 26, 2007.

Caroline Glick versus. Condoleeza Rice -- National Review Online (NRO) Interview
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q= ODY0MTRiMzA3YTBhN2VmZWY0N2IzMmNmNzg0MjRjZDU=

In preparing for the Mideast conference in Annapolis, Maryland, this week, Jerusalem Post columnist and deputy managing editor Caroline Glick took some questions from National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez Monday morning. Glick, a senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy, is author of the upcoming book (March), The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad will be released in March. All Glick clicks are available at www.carolineglick.com.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Is there anything good to come out of Annapolis?

Caroline Glick: It is hard to see any positive outcome from the Annapolis conference. Some have argued that the conference will make clear the distinction between states interested in peace and states uninterested in peace. But it is far from clear why this is the case. Indeed, one of the basic flaws inherent in the Annapolis conference, and indeed in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent frenetic pursuit of Palestinian statehood is the complete absence of moral distinctions between states committed to the ideals of peace, freedom, and fighting terror and those committed to jihad, tyranny, and hatred.

To take just the most obvious example of Rice's moral equivalence, she upholds Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayad as moderates who seek peaceful coexistence with Israel. Yet the fact is that neither Abbas nor Fayad have taken any steps that could be considered conducive to peace. They joined a unity government with Hamas in March and would have remained Hamas's junior partner in that Saudi-brokered governing arrangement had Hamas not decided to oust Fatah forces from Gaza in June. Fayad has continued to pay the salaries of the Iranian-trained Hamas army in Gaza since the terror group's takeover of the area just as he pays the salaries of Fatah terrorists in the West Bank.

In addition to his position as political leader of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas is also the head of the Fatah terror organization. Due to its reputation as a secular terror group, the U.S. State Department upholds Fatah as a credible partner in peace talks with Israel. But this strains credulity. Since the onset of the Palestinian jihad against Israel in September 2000, Fatah has carried out more terror attacks against Israeli targets than either Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Just last week Fatah terrorist murdered 29-year-old Ido Zoldan.

In spite of Fatah's moderate reputation, the fact is that Fatah terror cells in the West Bank are bankrolled by Iran and its Hezbollah proxy. Its operatives are directed by Tehran no less than Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives are.

But in the interests of bringing about the declaration of a sovereign state of Palestine, Rice and her associates are advancing policies that smack of moral dementia. They insist that Israel make security concessions to Fatah, release Fatah terrorists from prison, and arm Fatah militias. They insist that Israel transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to Abbas's bank accounts in the interest of promoting peace in spite of the fact that Abbas and Fayad transfer those funds to Hamas and Fatah terror operatives.

And just as the Bush administration is now treating Palestinian terrorists with deference while treating Israel abusively, so too, it is expending American political capital and prestige to woo oppressive, anti-American, pro-jihadist regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Perversely, rather than thank the Americans for taking Israel to task as they have demanded, the Saudis forced the Bush administration to beg and genuflect to them before agreeing to participate in the conference. And that participation too was conditioned on US willingness to embrace the so-called Saudi plan for Middle East peace from 2002. The Saudi demand and the American willingness to accept it tells the entire tale of the moral and strategic failure of the Annapolis conference. The Saudi plan demands an Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, an Israeli acceptance of millions of hostile foreign Arabs as citizens within its truncated borders and an Israeli renunciation of sovereignty over all of Judaism's sacred sites in Jerusalem. Once Israel implements all of these demands, the Saudi plan states that the Arab world will take steps towards having regular relations with it. That is, the Saudi plan which the U.S. included in the terms of reference for the conference is a plan for Israel's destruction.

In light of all of this, it is hard to foresee anything good coming from Annapolis.

Lopez: Is there any sense in inviting Syria?

Glick: Apologists for the Annapolis conference claimed that the conference would mobilize the Arab world to the U.S.'s side and so build a coalition of Arab states opposed to Iran and its nuclear ambitions. It is hard to see how the invitation of Syria jibes with this assertion. To the contrary, by inviting Syria, the U.S. strengthens Iran and weakens any possibility that the Arab world would organize against the mullahs.

In 2006, Syria signed a formal military alliance with Iran. Iran is bankrolling the Syrian military and secret police. On September 6, the Israeli air force reportedly destroyed a North Korean-built nuclear installation in Syria. Iran was reportedly also involved in the project. The attack occurred two months after Syrian and Iranian forces were killed when the chemical warhead they were attempting to install on a North Korean-built ballistic missile accidentally exploded.

Presently, Iran and Syria are working with Hezbollah to destabilize Lebanon, overthrow the Siniora government and assert full control over the country. To this end they engaged in a systematic campaign of assassinating anti-Syrian parliamentarians over the past year. And to this end they are preventing the Lebanese parliament from electing a new president.

By inviting Syria to Annapolis, the U.S. essentially is sending the message that it sees nothing in Syria's behavior to remove it from the club of responsible nations and legitimate governments. By inviting Syria to Annapolis this week, when Lebanon's future hangs in the balance, the U.S. is rewarding Syria's criminal behavior. Regardless of what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may say about Syrian participation at Annapolis it is hard to imagine that he is upset by it.

Will the U.S. invitation do anything to induce Syria to improve its behavior or accept Israel as its neighbor? Absolutely not.

Lopez: All things being what they are: If there's a single good that can come of this conference, what would you urge the U.S. that it be?

Glick: The only good thing that can come from this conference is that President George W. Bush recognizes the harm that Rice is doing to the U.S.'s national-security interests by undermining the Bush doctrine. From the six-party talks with North Korea to her bizarre and dangerous decision to attempt to appease Iran by holding talks with the millenarian theocracy in Iraq; supporting the EU's failed nuclear diplomacy and authorizing the U.N. Security Council to (mis)handle Iran's nuclear-weapons program; to her seeming obsession with establishing a pro-Iranian, jihadist Palestinian state before the end of the Bush presidency; to her unpardonable neglect of Iraq, Rice has taken a knife to everything Bush has staked his presidency on.

If the failure of Annapolis causes the president to distance himself from Rice and end her foreign-policy supremacy, then in retrospect, the conference may have been worth the effort.

Lopez: What's the Bush legacy in the Mideast likely going to be?

Glick: If Bush reins in his appeasement-mongering secretary of State and returns to the guidelines for U.S. foreign policy that he set out in his first term, then his will be a revolutionary legacy of freedom in the Middle East. The promising situation in Iraq, if allowed to progress will indeed bring about the first Arab democracy. Were the president to liberate the Palestinians from the tyranny of their terror leaders and antagonists in the Arab world, he could set the conditions for true peace between them and Israel. If he were to reignite his call for freedom and empowerment of liberals in the Arab world and if he were to make good on his pledge to support Iranian democracy activists, he would leave the region and the world safer, freer and less threatening than he found them when he assumed office.

If, on the other hand, he continues to empower Rice to undermine all he has fought for his legacy will be one of cowardice, betrayal, and failure.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 26, 2007.

This article was written by Joel Amitai. It is archived at
http://israel-academia-monitor.com/index.php?type= large_advic&advice_id=5852&page_data[id]= 176&cookie_lang=en&the_session_id=4fb1193fc1c1755bf4972610dfd8f1a2

The degree to which Israeli far-Left academics continue to sympathize with the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza is material for the psychologist's office. Clearly, Palestinian Arabs who have not committed crimes have the same rights as all other people. But polls show majorities of them supporting terrorism against Israel and denying Israel's right to exist. It is strange, then, that these academics sustain their tender, unrequited feelings toward Palestinians even in the face of years of the most severe hostility on their part.

Even at the height of the terror war, when massacres of Israeli civilians were a regular occurrence, Israeli academics continued to vilify Israel and endorse Palestinian claims.

For instance, in the spring of 2003 a call went out for an "urgent conference" at Tel Aviv University called "An End to Occupation, A Just Peace in Israel-Palestine: The Role of Academia." The announcement stated: "faced with new and staggering forms of Israeli violence towards Palestinians in the occupied territories, we call on academics worldwide to join in an effort to make a difference." In 2002, 458 Israelis had been killed in Palestinian terror attacks -- a "staggering" total for such a small country; in 2003, the number was brought down to 213, which can only be called a relative improvement.

What made the difference was the stepped-up engagement of the Israel Defense Forces in the territories beginning in April 2002 after the Park Hotel massacre in Netanya. That fully legitimate, anti-terror activity by the army of a democratic state was the main factor saving Israeli lives and eventually bringing the terror down to the more tolerable levels experienced by most parts of Israel (certainly not the Gaza-belt communities) by 2007.

But our academics, at the very moment their own and their loved ones' lives were being saved, only saw fit to slander the defense effort as "Israeli violence." Scheduled to speak at that disloyal conference were, from Tel Aviv University, Eva Jablonka, Anat Biletzki, Rachel Giora, Uri Hadar, Yoav Peled, and the late Tanya Reinhart; from Ben-Gurion University, Oren Yiftachel, Lev Grinberg, and Neve Gordon; from Haifa University, Ilan Pappe; and from the Technion, Jacob Katriel.

Indeed, in 2002 itself when the terror reached its most horrendous levels, a truly "staggering" total of about 300 Israeli academics signed a petition calling on their students to illegally refuse military service in the territories. Also that year a group of Israeli academics signed or expressed support for petitions at U.S. universities calling for divestment from Israel and from U.S. firms selling arms to it. Some of these academics, who seemed to want Israel to face the onslaught without weapons or any ability to defend itself -- to be annihilated? -- included Katriel, Giora, Nomi Shir of Ben-Gurion University, and Emmanuel Farjoun of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

And it was in October of 2002 that Menachem Klein of Bar-Ilan University gave a talk in Washington called "The Origins of Intifada II and Rescuing Peace for Israelis and Palestinians."

"Israel argues," he said, "that the IDF has reoccupied the Palestinian territories to prevent terror. ..." Indeed, if that was merely an "argument," what was the counterargument -- that the IDF reentered the territories to plunder Palestinian villages? "Yet terrorism continues and Israel continues to demand that Arafat stop it, although Israel has said that Arafat is no longer in charge and that the IDF has taken over responsibility for security. This is illogical."

First of all, terrorism was continuing because Israel was still -- even after all the massacres of Israelis -- fighting it with careful, limited means while the whole world, including the U.S. administration, watched and leveled constant criticism at just about every Israeli measure. Second, despite Klein's disdain, this gradual approach did eventual drastically decrease the terror in most parts of Israel. Third, it may indeed have been "illogical," even rhetorically, for Israel to demand any peaceful, constructive measures whatsoever from Arafat at that point.

But Klein's instincts, instead of gratitude to the army for the work it was doing, were to carp, criticize, and condemn. He further asserted: "while Israel claims that it has reoccupied the Palestinian territories to stop terror, Israel's reoccupation has increased it by motivating the Palestinians to expel the Israelis. It is true that the Israeli security services have stopped many terrorist operations, but overall, Israel's reoccupation of the territories has encouraged greater Palestinian terrorism. In the meantime, the reoccupation has placed millions of people under curfews and closure and prevented them from working. Israel's military occupation has largely replaced the Palestinian Authority and prevented the conduct of ordinary life for Palestinians. Yet Israel has accepted no responsibility for meeting the needs of the people by creating an Israeli civil administration to perform the functions formerly carried out by the Palestinian Authority. This is another anomaly."

In other words, for Klein, Israel just couldn't win. If it entered the territories to fight terror, it was just -- so he claimed -- increasing the terror. Yet, at the same time, he was calling on Israel to deepen its presence in the territories by setting up a civil administration.

Basically Klein could not identify with and support his country's armed services no matter how horrific the situation that had finally led to their taking more substantial action.

That strange, indestructible sympathy these academics seem to feel toward the Palestinians may well mask a basic inability to identify with Israel. They could not join ranks with their country even when bombs were going off in buses and cafes, when there were repeated unspeakable scenes of strewn body parts and blood. Instead they called on their countrymen to refuse military service, and for other countries to boycott Israel. If they were free to do all this, we should surely have the freedom to raise the issue of their loyalty.

Israel Academia Monitor is based in Kfar Shmaryahu. Contact it at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 26, 2007.

This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva
(Photos by Arutz-7 Photojournalist Josh Shamsi).

(IsraelNN.com) Thousands of people crowded into Paris Square in Jerusalem, across from the Prime Minister's residence Monday night, in protest over the Israeli participation in -- and expected concessions at -- the Annapolis conference this week. Participants in the demonstration, sponsored by the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea and Samaria (Yesha), included members of the governing coalition from the Kadima, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu parties. The Paris Square protest, held under the slogan "It Will Blow Up in Our Faces," comes on the heels of a mass prayer gathering for the sake of Jerusalem's unity held at the Western Wall in the capital's Old City earlier in the day. The prayer gathering was promoted by leading rabbis of the religious Zionist community in Israel. Four young Land of Israel activists were arrested Monday night when they tried to voice their protest by blocking a road in Jerusalem. Police say one of the activists was carrying a sharp object. The four have been taken in for questioning.

Yesha Council head Danny Dayan spoke with Arutz Sheva during the Paris Square protest: "Tens of thousands came. And as the danger to Jerusalem -- to the Land of Israel grows, the numbers will grow larger. I very much hope that we will not have to gather larger demonstrations, that we will be able to halt this dangerous process, but we can tell Olmert and the People of Israel, 'Be sure of this: if need be, Land of Israel loyalists will volunteer for that effort. And because we have the greater determination, the greater faith, we will win.'"

Coalition MKs Speak Out

Knesset Member Zeev Elkin, a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party, said that the true success of the protest is measured by the presence and participation of coalition members. "What will ultimately determine things is the Israeli political system," Elkin told Arutz Sheva, "that is the true test." ( Gd Help us )

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, November 26, 2007.

This was written by David Eshel and it appeared yesterday in Defense Update

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in Sharm e-Sheikh last Tuesday that one cannot talk about possible failure at Annapolis because its existence is itself an achievement. Indeed, the Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo Friday which agreed to send ministers to Annapolis on behalf of the League's Follow-Up Committee, is in itself an unprecedented gesture. But expectations should be kept within realistic bounds: Saudi foreign minister Saud al Faisal said: "We are not going for handshakes or a display of emotions... We are there only to reach a peace which safeguards Arab interests and safeguards the Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese lands. Put in clear: at best it would signal a more-of-the-same attitude towards Israel -- or better phrased -- let us see what Olmert is willing, or able to deliver. The sober fact is that neither Olmert nor Abu Mazen can deliver ANYTHING -- based on their own political dilemma, which exists on either side. Moreover, all three (including President Bush) are already widely regarded as "wingless lame ducks" in their own entourage.

Based on such unfortunate facts, obviously, the fatuous Annapolis "peace process" will fall apart, as it did before in similar, alas, countless events, since it was never bound to achieve anything anyway. This is what usually happens when delusional ideas confront reality.

But, delusional thinking is very tenacious -- politicians with no valid ideas are loath to abandon even some of the most ridiculous policies, since, having invested so much political capital in its futile effort -- they are adamant that something must come out of this. Unfortunately, Annapolis is already on the path to follow this same fiasco again.

But there may be more to Annapolis, than meets the eye: President George W. Bush needs more from the long-awaited and oft-discussed event than just launching rather hopeless negotiations. He needs this conference to show the Arab world that progress is actually being made on the Israeli-Palestinian track, so that the Arab countries at the summit will coalesce and deal with other, much more pressing problems in the region: Iran, for instance, and the spread of Shi'ite extremism and Ahmadinejad's ambitious Shi'ite Crescent to conquer the Sunni Arab Middle East. Bush's game plan is that signaling real progress will, at last, cement together a coalition of "moderate" Muslim states and harness them behind US backing sanctions against Iran. The Israel-Palestinian issue is just a marginal bi-product, so it seems.

Israeli analysts believe that this trend could solidify, if the Arab delegation will include senior participants. It may well be the start in creating an impressive Sunni Arab opposition axis led by the US and Western alliance against Shi'ite Iran. If Syria should be included, this could be the first significant set-back for Ahmadinejad's Shi'ite crescent. But this would inevitably force him to act in order to derail this process before it is too late.

In fact, the entire Annapolis meeting could have been a rather clever move by President Bush and Condoleezza Rice ( a last minute effort to save the administration dilemma in Iraq's future) to initiate a political comeback into Mid Eastern affairs, after the Iraq fiasco and the bungling democratization process in Egypt and Palestine. If indeed this is the case, then Olmert and Abu Mazen, would have been only pawns in this ruthless game political chess -- the outcome of which is not clear -- as we wait for Tehran for its next challenge in Lebanon and Palestine in order to derail this entire process. Indeed, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being a very shrewd operator, his reaction could no doubt prove surprising and very deadly

Over the last two months various Palestinian spokesmen have warned that failure at Annapolis would lead to yet another round of violence, perhaps a third intifada. Israeli officials, including Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Ashkenazi, however, are skeptical, saying that the Palestinians have been badly weakened by the last seven years, are suffering from deep division and could not wage another terrorist war right now, even if they wanted to. But the Palestinians are not the only players in this game. In fact, as matters stand -- Iran and Syria are the established sponsors of Palestinian violence and will no doubt remain at the hub of such future events.

Iran has two established aces in its hand to play this game: Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these may becoming more and more isolated, but remain still highly dangerous operators. Hezbollah is holding a trump card in the Lebanese elections -- which have already entered into a dangerous cliffhanger situation on Friday Midnight. Barring a miracle, which seldom happens in this unpredictable region, Lebanon could well be on its way into a catastrophic abyss. A civil war in Lebanon, could derail not only any US-backed Sunni effort, but actually chase out the European 1701 UNIFIL contingent, as it did in 1983. Moreover, with the Lebanese national army disintegrating into rival factions again, Hezbollah would regain the Israel border region to restart conflagration, on Tehran's time and will.

To Israel's south -- Hamas is already on its way to create a substantial military force, ready and highly motivated to confront any IDF incursion into the well prepared Gaza Strip defense. Based on experiences gained from last year's Lebanon war, with able assistance from Iranian and Hezbollah experts, Hamas will offer a bloody fight to the Israeli army. Moreover, whatever the outcome of the Annapolis meeting, analysts are convinced that Abu Mazen's inability to implement any concessions to the Israelis, will recreate the deadlock further aggravating discontent in the West Bank, which will only bolster Hamas' influence and power base there. The inevitable result would be that Hamas will eventually exploit PLO weakness and take over the West Bank in the same manner in which it defeated 60,000 Fatah activists and security forces in last June's shocking Gaza fiasco.

BRDM 2 Armored cars donated to the Palestinian security forces were burned by Hamas when it took over the Gaza Strip. Now, Israel plans to award the Palestinians with 50 more... This time. Hamas may be more cautious preserving these vehicles for future use... (Photos: reuters)

Sofar, what prevented this from happening is the presence of the IDF in most of the Palestinian townships, which otherwise would long have joined Hamas. Israeli defense analysts have already warned of allowing any concessions that PM Olmert has in mind, for example, handing over security to Abu Mazen's security forces in dangerous West Bank focal towns. First such concessions, allowing Fatah police into Nablus have already demonstrated their inability to restore even public order against the local warlord domination. Olmert's latest "gift" of 50 Russian BRDM-2 armored cars with 14,5mm turret mounted heavy machine guns, is another of those futile gestures, which could endanger low flying helicopters supporting counter-terror operations in the West bank Hamas hideouts. In Gaza, Hamas took charge of similar cars, provided with US assistance, but within hours, with nearly a shot fired by Fatah security forces -- ten times Hamas strength these became coveted weapons for Hamas. A similar situation could happen in the West Bank -- as all these weapons fall into Hamas hands -- and then what?

Here then are the seeds in what could become Ahmadinejad's move to derail the Sunni Arab anti-Shi'ite axis before it matures into shape: Create total chaos in Lebanon, enhancing the Qassam offensive against southern Israel, with longer range rockets -- against which the IDF still has no technological answer- with aim to draw Israel into an unwanted and costly ground attack. Challenge Abu Mazen's frail government- through elections or physical take-over of its territory - at the same time confronting the IDF with new suicide attacks -- actually a second front. If Qassam rockets will be fired from vantage positions in close-border villages at lucrative strategic installations and heavily populated urban targets, all coming within range in the heart of Israel, this would become a strategic challenge to the IDF. Furthermore, with Hezbollah again deployed along its northern border, Israel would have to mobilize all its military power to fight off a three-frontal war on its rear. By delivering such a clear message, that a full scale Middle East conflict is in the offing, with unpredictable consequences, would be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's challenge to Washington's latest gambit. It is common knowledge that this turbulent region is already filled to the brim with some of the world's most highly sophisticated and lethal weapons which East and West has created. Is this scenario, actually what President George W Bush warned off, hinting on World War Three?

Update: Nov. 25, 2007:
Syria to attend Annapolis conference

Syria accepted today the US invitation to the peace conference in Annapolis; Heading the Syrian deligation will be the deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal al-Mekdad. According to the Reuters news agency, the Syrian statement did not give Syria's reasons for attending or say why it will not be sending its foreign ministers like the other Arab participants. At a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, Friday (Nov. 23, 2007), participating Arab countries agreed to attend the peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. The recent Syrian move could signal Bashar Asad hesitatingly making a first move oward a Sunni axis against Iran's Shi'ite regional ambitions. Although too early to singnify a definite change of direction towards the US initiative, Damascus could have second thoughts, as to its adherence to the Tehran Shi'ia dictate. It remains to be seen, how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will react to Damascus' latest move, which is certainly challenging his strategy towards Syria. Perhaps the tense situation in Beirut, Syria and Iran's strategic interest sphere, will be next on the top agenda.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 26, 2007.

The key to solving American troubles in the ME is Syria, not Israel. You may recall that Saudi Arabia demanded that Syria be invited as the price for gaining its attendance and Syria was invited. There is no solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or should I say the Israel/Arab conflict, until the Arab countries are prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and sign an end of conflict agreement. The former has been rejected and the latter is not even discussed.

America must stop and reverse the growing influence of Iran. The way to do this is to wean Syria away from Iran just as it weaned Egypt away from the USSR after the Yom Kippur War. Syria's ruling clique, the Alawites, above all, seek to perpetuate its regime. To this end, it manufactured an external enemy, Israel. Peace with Israel would threaten its regime. Better to keep them as an "enemy". Who cares about the Golan anyway. But Lebanon is another story. The Alawites would dearly love to have its way with Lebanon and the US would have no trouble with this if they entrenched Syria was entrenched in the US camp.

Syria also needed a patron to support it financially and otherwise and turned to Iran. But Iran is no match for the US in this regard and Syria knows it.

Finally there is the natural affinity of the Syrians to the Arab camp and sooner or later Syria will return to that camp.

Barry Rubin, the author of The Truth about Syria, was interviewed by Michael Totten and said

Syria is not a radical regime because it has been mistreated by the West or Israel but because the regime needs radicalism to survive. It is a minority dictatorship of a small non-Muslim minority and it offers neither freedoms nor material benefit. It needs demagoguery, the scapegoats of America and Israel, massive loot taken from Lebanon, an Iraq which is either destabilized or a satellite, and so on.

Take the simple issue of the Golan Heights. It is commonplace to say that Syria wants back the Golan Heights. But one need merely ask the simple question: what happens if Syria gets it back? If Syria's regime made peace with Israel it has no excuse for having a big military, a dictatorship, and a terrible economy. The day after the deal the Syrian people will start demanding change. The regime knows that.

So the US must find a way to enable the Syrian Alawite regime to survive without radicalism.

As Rubin points out, this is no small matter,

While the Syrian regime poses as being desirous of peace and engagement with the West, in fact its institutions, ideology, propaganda, and activities go in the exact opposite direction. To survive, the minority-dominated, dictatorial, and economically incompetent government needs radicalism, control over Lebanon, regional instability, anti-Americanism, and using Israel as a scapegoat.

So here's the deal. Syria abandons Iran and embrace the US. In other words, become a US ally and beneficiary. In exchange the US could drop all investigations against its leaders for the assassinations in Lebanon and allow Syria to be the controlling power in Lebanon just as it did to end the civil war there in 1989 pursuant to the Taif Agreement. Thus Lebanon would become stable and remain in the US camp. To further strengthen this camp, Syria would have to abandon all rejectionist forces including Hezbollah, Hamas and the others.

As part of this deal, Lebanon and Syria would sign a peace agreement with Israel and Israel would give back the Golan and Sheba Farms. Israel would get a 100 year lease of the Golan and life would go on as it is now. Also Syria and Lebanon would have to agree to give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees in their countries thereby ending their refugee status.

Finally, the US would agree to protect the Alawite Regime just as it protects Mubarak and the House of Saud. Remember that Mubarak has an internal enemy, the Brotherhood and so does Syria. Recall that in 1982 Syria suppressed a Brotherhood uprising by killing 20,000 people at Hama.

So Syria is the key to containing Iran and ending the Israel/Arab conflict. If Syria can be bought off in this way, all else is possible.

See also Can Syrians, Saudis make summit work? by Ron Campeas

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 26, 2007.

I wouldn't say it here. I put out a proper posting. But allow me to quote my mother, who is 89 years old and lives in Sharon MA. "This peace negotiation..." she said by phone this evening. "They want part of Jerusalem, with the holy places, and all of the West Bank?? They should all croak [slang for drop dead]."


So there's no agreement on a joint statement, although reportedly it's still being worked on. And the US is now saying is doesn't matter.

Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a senior Abbas aide, has pronounced us "not ready for peace." If, by 'peace' he means complete capitulation, then he is correct.


Statement of the day: "If there is still someone who is not prepared to shake Israel's hand, I will not shake his hand." This said by Olmert after Saudi Prince Faisal refused to shake his hand at a pre-conference meeting.

Do you think Faisal's refusal to shake Olmert's hand is giving Tzipi Livni a hint about the fact that the Arabs have not come to Annapolis to protect Israeli security?

JINSA (in Report #723) had the best comment on this: "We personally would be relieved not to have to touch the representative of a country that sentenced a 19-year-old gang-rape victim to 200 lashes and six months in jail because she was out at the time of the rape with a man who was not her relative."


The majority of the Hamas people who had been detained by the PA have been released. This is the old revolving door policy, which never seems to change. Not a single Hamas detainee has been put on trial, either. Just this week, as a conciliatory measure towards Hamas -- which is vociferously criticizing Abbas for his participation in Annapolis -- the PA has released three more of their men.

Do you think this policy is giving relevant parties a clue as to how Abbas would act if he were handed control of Judea and Samaria?


Some ten thousand protesters gathered in French Square (that's by the Prima Kings hotel) tonight to protest what Olmert intends to do.

Said MK Zvi Hendel (NRP): "Never before has a prime minister been so dangerous to the people of Israel."

Shaul Goldstein, head of the Gush Etzion settler's council in the West Bank, told Olmert: "The people of Israel did not give you a mandate to give away its property and what belongs to it historically; you have no mandate sir."

MK David Rotem (Yisrael Beitenu) said: "We're all here as one to say to the government of Israel -- do not raise your hand against Jerusalem, do not raise your hand against the settlements in Judea and Samaria.


According to Israel Radio, Michael Eitan (Likud) has asked Attorney General Mazuz to inform the prime minister that if he signs anything at Annapolis he must add a clause that the deal is 'pending Knesset approval.' The issue of Knesset approval (just as the Senate must ratify treaties) is critical. I don't know that Mazuz has the authority to thus instruct Olmert but this goes absolutely in the right direction.


From the IDF spokesman: Since June, on the average, every three hours the Palestinians send a rocket into Israel.

Contemplate that, if you will.


So...the "big" day arrives. My wish is still that it might implode. End in fiasco. Make fools of Rice and Bush for pushing this on us. There is an overwhelming amount of commentary at this point on what will happen. Everything from the ridiculously dire (I got one e-mail that said if we are forced to surrender Judea and Samaria it spells the end of Western civilization) to the ridiculously optimistic (peace within eight months).

Caroline Glick, in an interview with Kathryn Lopez of NRO has the best take on what good might come out of Annapolis:

"The only good thing that can come from this conference is that President George W. Bush recognizes the harm that Rice is doing to the U.S.'s national-security interests by undermining the Bush doctrine...If the failure of Annapolis causes the president to distance himself from Rice and end her foreign-policy supremacy, then in retrospect, the conference may have been worth the effort." We should only be so lucky!

As the conference is now being described, it is not a negotiating session at all, but a prelude that sets a mood, with negotiations to follow.

Myself, I still am convinced that nothing major can come of this because the parties are so far apart and reconciliation is not possible. I am praying that the damage will be limited, that Olmert will not sign anything that binds us. That too many dangerous precedents will not be put in place. That the violence that will ensue will not be too ghastly. (We are on high security alert now because of the conference.)

With all this said, please also pray for us.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2007.


Military news from Iraq is positive, now. However, I have not heard of Democratic Party officials cheering it. Instead, they constantly complain about the war's expense, while they strive to spend almost all we have on new bureaucracies.

Meanwhile, our country is getting more profligate, just when learner countries, such as China and India, are consuming more of the world's resources and underbidding our workers. Politicians should be seeking to expedite American business and tame our governmental over-spending and private waste of resources. Replace janitors' noisy, gasoline-powered leaf blowers with rakes and brooms, for example.


I recommend this movie about military defense from Islamic jihad. It includes arguments from both American sides, perhaps more from the less heard anti-jihad side. It switches among three, related stories: (1) The conflicts within journalists of ideology versus integrity and integrity versus commercialism and their relationship to politicians; (2) A professor trying to bring out the best in talented but unmotivated students; and (3) War, on a human scale. The debates are astonishingly witty, and the characters draw one in.

Although a military offensive is important, as the movie posits, the US needs to combat jihad ideologically and economically, too. It is easier to eradicate enemy troops if fewer Muslims would volunteer, because we have cut off their funding and their Saudi and Iranian indoctrination and recruitment.


Every day, terrorists with popular support in Gaza fire rockets at Israeli civilians and build up an army capable of inflicting greater casualties when confronted by the IDF. The Israeli government restrains its army from sending a big enough force into Gaza to root out the terrorists, lest doing so harm Arab civilians. The Left calls this being ethical. I call it being unethical, to protect enemy civilians in a war zone at the expense of one's own civilians being attacked by war criminals. Israel's action is not required by international law.

Another pretended ethic is to prosecute critics for "insulting" a public official. The public official helped purge Jews from part of their homeland, in an ideology and methodology reminiscent of the Nazi purge of Jews. The analogy was appropriate. The official's action was cruel. He deserved censure. It is unethical to prosecute the whistle blower instead of the violator of Jewish rights and decency.

The Left also wants to punish soccer fans who booed the 12th commemoration of Rabin's assassination, because his policies got thousands of Israelis killed. Dispute, don't punish.


The PLO and its mainstay, Fatah, have declined into impotence. Palestinian nationalism has withered into a façade. Many of the officials at the middle and higher levels have moved their families out of the P.A. and some of them have followed or spend only part of the time in the P.A.. Non-nationalist, Islamic groups have been rising in popularity. The only alternative seen is the re-emergence of foreign Arab governance (IMRA, 11/15 from Danny Rubinstein of Haaretz).

Haaretz refuses to consider Israeli governance with annexation of vacant areas and policies that allow more Arabs to vacate instead of, as at present, subsidizing or otherwise providing the means for the enemy population to stay.

Although the Palestinian nationalist movement has proved non-viable, the US and the Israeli Left continue to espouse sovereignty for the P.A. and at the expense of secure borders for Israel. They would be leaving the Territories to Islamists to take over and expand their jihad, first against Israel, then against other Arabs states and US forces.

Is Sec. Rice pursuing what she mistakenly calls a solution because she is willfully blind, bribed, or engaging in her own jihad against Jewish sovereignty. It works out to be the latter.


According to the P.A., PM Olmert is "considering" letting the Arabs reopen Orient House in the eastern part of Jerusalem. PM Netanyahu initiated its closure, and PM Barak actually had it closed, because Arafat was using it, in violation of Oslo, as an official P.A. government office, thereby staking a claim to Jerusalem. Captured documents proved the P.A. used it as a terrorist office (Arutz-7, 11/17).

This is another example of a trial balloon and Israeli officials "considering" an action, rather than simply acting. Usually, when Olmert considers making a concession, he intends to go through with it unless the protest is too great.


Videos helped an injured Israel identify the man who brutalized him during a protest over the expulsion of nine Jewish families from an outpost. Turns out the man was an Arab who had volunteered for the Army. When he came upon the strife, largely calmed down after the expulsion, he asked a policeman to lend him his club and started belaying right and left. He also threw a youth on his back. The assailant was fined. A Yesha civil rights organization is seeking his dishonorable discharge (Arutz-7, 11/17). Why does the Army have to be importuned? Why doesn't it discharge the brute on its own? Why no criminal charges made against him? Because the government hates settlers.

Leaders of the US and Israel, usually unpopular towards the end of their regimes, are said to be eager to make a name for themselves in hisory. One way would be to resolve the Arab-Israel conflict. The more desperate they are to reach some pact, the more pressure they put on Israel to make sufficient sacrifice to induce the Muslims to sign. So goes a current interpretation.

If that interpretation were correct, what place in history can they expect, from sacrificing Israel to fanatics who soon afterwards would take advantage of having taken the strategic borders away from Israel and make war? I think that interpretation not the whole issue.

I think that the unpopular leaders have much more criminal motives than stupidity.


It is bad enough that the Palestinian Arab Muslims break their peace agreements and wage genocide primarily by war crimes. It is worse that the West does not call them to account over it but instead thinks one of its highest duties to reward them with the sovereignty to conclude their jihad against the Jews and join up with the other Islamist enemies of the West, and deludes itself that this promotes peace. Why don't our media, academicians, and leaders bring this before us? One of the reasons is anti-Semitism. What a self-defeating, high price for anti-Semitism, itself a misguided evil!

Worst is that the West has no unity and Russia is apart from it, has failed openly to identify the enemy and its Left thinks there is no enemy, has no strategy for victory, and talks about winning the minds of masses abroad but no understanding of how to do it. If the West were geared for proper defense, our people would understand the issues and the stakes. However, our leaders do not understand the issues. Some of the Republican candidates express partial understanding of the issues.

Concomitant with girding for defense is gathering and growing the resources for it. Now that our dollar buys so little, better late than never that our candidates, our President, and his critics propose how to restore our purchasing power. Have I missed their proposals?

Same goes for other aspects of national strength. We should promote national unity and culture instead of multiculturalism, that considers barbaric enemy cultures equal in value to ours. We should conserve the energy we pay the enemy to sell us. We must find rationally the means that educate youth to understand the issues and engineer the means of victory, instead of our pouring more money into education without a well-researched plan and "Bloomberging" (falsifying) test results. The GOP's national campaign mostly is about social issues that fall under state jurisdiction if at all. The Democrats' national campaign mostly is about who can spend the most of our money redistributing it to their favorites lobbyists and constituencies and who best can ignore the war that won't go away if we go away. Our candidates seem to be competing over who can best hid their views if they have any, so as to seem the worse fool. They want to mirror our people!


Two Israeli parties, Hadash and the Communists, reject Israel's conference demand that the Arabs recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. They contend that doing so would negate the influx of Arabs (IMRA, 11/17) intended to eradicate the Jewish state.

Rice and Olmert talk about a "two-state solution," but the Arabs continue to favor a "final solution." Concessions to them facilitate their goal.


Israeli officials said that foreign states would referee compliance with the Road Map's requirement that the P.A. eradicate terrorism (IMRA, 11/17).

The US and other foreign governments favor the Arabs. The State Dept. exempts the Arabs or rationalizes that Arab violations comply. Israel commits suicidal folly in putting its fate in gentile hands. A patriotic Israeli government would repudiate the Road Map and reject foreign mediation. In a hostile world, Israel must decide for itself whether the murderous and deceitful P.A. residents have become model citizens.


When PM Olmert considers making concessions to the Muslims, he rarely thinks things through. Although warned to set conditions upon Turkey's request to evaluate the Palestinian Arab claim that Israeli excavations were undermining al Aksa mosque, Olmert set none. Now Turkey has gone far beyond the question, to defame Israel.

It condemned the excavations as: (1) Potentially being expanded to undermine the mosque (not the question asked) and beyond scientific interest (not Turkey's business); (2) Having been done without consulting the Arabs. (Israel did.); (3) Illegal under the laws of occupation (which Israel denies apply to its capture of its ancient capital in a defensive war after which it annexed the area); and (4) Being on a fault line. (The feverish and reckless Muslim building is atop the fault line). The report seems to refer to an Israeli having set fire to the mosque, but it was a deranged Christian Australian.


Sen. Byrd condemned Pres. Bush for warning that a nuclear Iran could start a world war. Sen. Byrd called that fear mongering. To the contrary, Michael Rubin pointed out that Iran fabricated a metal used only for a-bombs and to experimented with polonium, used for detonating such bombs. Some people blame the recent wars for Iran's resort to nuclear development, but that development preceded those wars. Europe "engaged" with Iran, which used the profits to invest in such development. Iran has done nothing to engender ease over its intent, which its officials say is a-war (MEF News, 11/18).

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

To Go To Top

POSTED by American 1627, November 25, 2007.

We were told that the Arabs hate us because of supposedly being biased against Arab "Palestinians"...


Wild Arabist writers/"activists" have been flooding us for years with brainwashing nonsense as if the Arab Muslim world is "enraged" mainly by the "Palestinian" Israeli conflict.

If only... -- this is what they have been selling us for so many years -- if only we'd be on the side of the "palestinian" Arabs, all would be singing kumbaya, the peace loving Arab world would just come rushing to embrace us.


Never mind the blatant daring hypocrisy of that Arab world, that never really cared about the Arab "Palestinian" brothers, on the contrary, it never allowed any improvement in their status, for fear of losing that anti-west card, (shoved at the westerners ever so often) of: "look at the poor 'Palestinians'".

The Arab nations keep the 'Palestinians' and their descendants in squalor. They are denied citizenship rights. They are denied work. They are denied property. They are denied their human rights because they are and always will be a political football in the Arab campaign against Israel. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36412

The same vicious historic crimes, the Arab world leaders have been committing with this group of Arabs who call themselves (recently as) "Palestinians", as in 1948, chasing them out with bragging promises of [ethnic cleansing and genocide] "throwing all the Jews into the sea".

Even Jew haters "aryans-supremacists" have jumped the bashing-Israel wagon, oh no, not that they ever like the Arab BROWN "inferior" people, of course not! they'd like to get "rid" of them... as soon as possible, But for the time being, it can be used against the people they are so bitter jealous and hate so blindly, the Jews.


So the US has already helped in Israel's giving away Gaza to the Arab "Palestinians" [2005], an enormous sacrifice, uprooting entire families, communities, exposing and diminishing the little borderline with an enemy that is bent on eliminating Israel 24/7, when the only thing Israel got back is more support among their mainstream for Hamas type of advocating Genocide, still militants firing rockets into Israeli residential homes, still attempts of 'genocide bombings'.

Where do Arabs stand in its anti-west, as well as in its use of the "Palestinian" propaganda card? Is it the same, better or worse?

So Israel has released hundreds of dangerous "Palestinian" terrorists, out of good will, how do "Palestinians" react? More demands, Qassam missiles aimed at Israeli kindergartens are still on, why not? Where do Arabs stand in its anti-west, as well as in its use of the 'Palestinian' propaganda card? Is it the same, better or worse?

Annapolis 2007: President George W. Bush and Sec. Condoleeza Rice are pushing hard on Israel to give even more to Arabs that never manage to make one iota of investing in peace, not even reducing its media's demon-ization of Israel.

Where do Arabs stand in its anti-west, as well as in its use of the 'Palestinian' propaganda card? Is it the same, better or worse?

IDF Concerned Hamas May Detonate Tunnels to Derail Summit

And what if... Bush succeeds in a big historic push for Arab "Palestinians" sake/favor (a group of people that never wanted to be improved, that has chosen death cult over life at any given opportunity by kind Israelis)? But we were told that the Arabs hate us because of supposedly being biased against Arab "Palestinians"...

Try this:

How many Arabists will welcome any improvement in relations among Arabs & Israel?


But don't bet on Arabists ever to bother using real logical questions, the REAL ISSUES to be brought up, like, Are the Arabs, Muslims ready yet for democracy & free societies, have tnheir mainstream education in mosques & madsassas really strat to change? Is all of their media began to be less hateful of the "other"?

As you won't expect any true points, matters that matter to be discussed, as they don't sit well with their propaganda.

Even though it will answer all above points, plus: Iraq war, Lebanon, and other Arab on Arab, Muslim on Muslim violence.

Contact American by email at american1627@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 25, 2007.

This was written by David Bedein and it appeared November 19, 2007 in Front Page Magazine
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 05C1C31E-1F8B-4096-A41E-4C5F5EB64618).

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

This weekend marked thirty years since the late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, flew to Israel to declare his desire for peace with Israel. This occurred only four years after Sadat had launched a full scale war against the Jewish state, and only thirty five years after Sadat had worked for Nazi intelligence during world war II.

Usually the anniversary of Sadat's visit is a cause for celebration.

This year, however, Israel observes the anniversary of the Sadat visit in an auspicious manner.

Israeli parliamentarian Dr. Yuval Steinitz, a leading member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and chairman of the Knesset Subcommittee on Defense Readiness and Combating Terrorism, has produced evidence that Egypt is the nation that is facilitating large groups of Hamas fighters to train in Iran.

Indeed, the Middle East Newsline has confirmed that Egyptian authorities were enabling soldiers and officers from the new Hamas army in the Gaza Strip to cross into the Sinai Peninsula. From Sinai, the Hamas fighters were given permission by Egypt to fly to Teheran for training by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"A new development that has only begun in the last three months is the organized departure of large groups of operatives from Gaza for military training in Iran,", said Steinitz, in a Nov. 7th letter to the U.S. Senate, in which Steinitz detailed Egypt's help to the Hamas military. Steinitz said that in late September that Egypt allowed 100 Hamas fighters to return from training in Iran, and they were allowed to enter Egypt on their way to the Gaza Strip.

"Egypt permits their transit to Teheran, where they are trained by Iran in a wide array of terrorist activities, such as the production of rockets and road-side bombs, as well as in basic military training," Steinitz said in a letter to Sen. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota.

The US Congress has been mulling legislation that would slash $200 million of U.S. military aid to Egypt unless the regime of President Hosni Mubarak improves security cooperation with Israel. Egypt, which receives $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid, has insisted that it blocks Hamas weapons smuggling and movements along the Sinai-Gaza border.

The Bush administration has opposed the congressional effort against Egypt. Instead, the State Department has sought to increase Egypt's military presence along the Sinai-Gaza border, a move opposed by Israel. So far, at least 750 Egyptian troops patrol the 14-kilometer Sinai-Gaza border.

"Egypt's problem is not the number of soldiers but the lack of motivation," a senior Israeli official told the Middle East NewsLine.

Israeli officials said Egyptian commanders turn a blind eye to massive weapons smuggling that moved through tunnels in the border town of Rafah into the southern Gaza Strip.

Israel has presented evidence of collaboration between Egyptian forces and the Palestinians, which facilitated the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.

In October, Steinitz led a delegation of Israeli parliamentarians in discussions with Senate and House members regarding Iran and Egypt where the members of Congress requested details of the expansion of weapons smuggling from Egypt to the Gaza Strip.

In his letter, Steinitz said Israeli intelligence has concluded that the Gaza Strip was receiving a huge amount of missiles, rockets and rifles from Egypt. He said 20,000 rifles, 6,000 anti-tank missiles -- mainly rocket-propelled grenade systems -- 100 tons of explosives, and "several dozens of Katyusha rockets, as well as shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles" were flowing into the Gaza Strip annually.

Steinitz said Egypt has ignored the flow of weapons smugglers through the eastern Sinai. He said the 14-kilometer Sinai-Gaza border could be easily sealed.

"All they have to do for this purpose is to erect a number of roadblocks along the very few roads that run from mainland Egypt to the Gaza region, in order to intercept heavily loaded trucks carrying hundreds of rifles and missiles from reaching the border," Steinitz said. "Alternatively, they can declare the border area a closed military zone, with a depth of 2-3 miles into the interior of Sinai, and prevent any movement in it. Since the entire length of the Egyptian-Gaza border is less then nine miles, the area affected will be equivalent in size to a military airbase."

The letter contrasted Egyptian efforts to those of Jordan, with whom Israel signed a formal peace treaty in October, 1994, after 27 years of informal cooperation, following Jordan's defeat in the 1967 war.

Steinitz asserted that Jordan has blocked most weapons and other smuggling to Islamic insurgents in Judea and Samaria. He said that Jordanian authorities have also smashed smuggling rings throughout the Hashemite kingdom.

After several years of Israeli and American protests, it seems hard to avoid the following conclusion: as long as Egypt is not required to pay a real price for this behavior, weapons and financial aid will continue to flow into the hands of Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza.

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 25, 2007.

The was written by Rafah and comes from the November 15, 2007 The Economist

(Photo: AP)
SEVEN Gazans died this week when Hamas gunmen fired on Fatah supporters at a rally commemorating Yasser Arafat, the founder of Fatah and the Palestinians' long-time leader. For Gazans, who have enjoyed months of relative calm since Hamas took control of the strip from Fatah-loyalist Palestinian Authority forces in June, it was a jarring reminder of the factional violence that had claimed dozens of lives in the months before.

But while Hamas faces increasing dissent from Fatah and other factions, it -- and Gaza -- are so far fending off the effects of a trade blockade that Israel has imposed, thanks to an explosion in smuggling.

The strip's southern border with Egypt, a no-man's land roamed by tanks until Israel pulled its settlements out in 2005, is now dominated by colourful encampments which cover the entrances to smuggling tunnels, used to ferry goods and people from Egypt into Gaza. Once a secretive and dangerous industry, smuggling has become open, even respectable. As recently as last year, Israeli jets would destroy any sites suspected of housing tunnels, but now the smugglers are working in clear view of Egyptian border posts and Israeli surveillance.

Egypt says that restrictions on the strength of its forces in Sinai prevent it from clamping down on smuggling. The reason for Israel's forbearance is less clear. It has often said that the tunnels are used to import sophisticated weapons into Gaza that threaten its security. If so, they are not lying around in plain view in the border area; but much in evidence are rocks of chalky TNT used in the production of Gaza's home-made rockets.

However, the tunnels are used for much more than munitions. Nasser, a pharmacist in Rafah, says that he receives regular visits from smugglers offering to supply him with medicine bought in Egypt. While he does buy dried milk and drugs, his most popular import is generic Viagra, made in India, which he sells for 75 cents a tablet.

Israel declared Gaza a "hostile entity" last month and promised more restrictions. But as it tightens them and poverty rises, smuggling becomes a more attractive risk. Abu Adnan, a 21-year-old, said he had been working in Rafah's tunnels since he was 14 and can make around $7,000 per shipment. He has smuggled weapons, people and cash, but now the most popular import is cigarettes which Israel has stopped.

The smugglers are almost always private entrepreneurs. They first select a piece of land close to the border wall and then dig a large hole with a mechanical digger. They then enclose an area of dozens of square metres and start digging, filling the first hole with the earth from the tunnel. They can map the length and direction of the tunnel accurately using satellite pictures from Google Earth.

Tunnels are equipped with lighting and telephones. Pumps provide air, and winches drag trains of jerry cans over the smooth surface of the tunnel floor. The cans can be filled with earth, merchandise or people.

Mr Adnan complains that the increase in the number of tunnels is driving down profit margins. So is the heavy taxation imposed by the Hamas police. But there are always new opportunities. Israel has threatened to reduce fuel supplies to Gaza; so Mr Adnan and his friends are already planning a pipe to import subsidised fuel from Egypt.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Delta Vines, November 25, 2007.

[Editor's note. The photo is not part of the original essay. It was taken by Carrie Devorah. Contact her at carried@carrieon.com]

(Annapolis Naval Academy. photo: Carrie Devorah)

From this schedule (see below), it appears that the pressure will be focused on Israel to give, give, give. The first day alone there are three meetings between Cheney and Israeli governmental authorities. The first meeting is between President Bush and Israeli authorities.

Abbas will have a total of three meetings with President Bush and/or others.

Three other meetings with U.S. Officials and Israeli Officials follow over the three day period. That's 3 times as many meetings to pressure Olmert to agree to give as much secured Israeli land to surrounding nations as possible. With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Golan on the table, what would Israel have left except to return to "Auschwitz (indefensible) borders"?

Please pray that Israel will not give up the land G-d has given to the Jews. I pray that someone will push for Jordan (former Palestine) to give land for a Palestinian state. There is so much more at stake here that just land -- democracy and the lives of people are endangered of being handed over as well.


The Schedule of the Annapolis "peace conference"

10:50: Bilateral meeting between President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Livni at White House
1:15 p.m.: Bush, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas meet in Oval Office.
14:20: Bilateral meeting between Vice President Cheney and Prime Minister Olmert at White House
15:20: Bilateral meeting between Vice President Cheney and Defense Minister Barak at White House
17:05: Bilateral meeting between Vice President Cheney and Foreign Minister Livni
18:00: Reception and dinner at State Department
19:00 Bush delivers remarks.

09:30: Arrival at US Naval Academy
09:50: Trilateral meeting between President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas
11:00: Remarks at Memorial Hall lunch Conference begins with remarks by Bush, Olmert, Abbas, Rice, U.N. secretary- general and others. Plenary session follows.
12:45: Meeting with Maryland Gov. O'Malley at location TBD
16:30: Bilateral meeting between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Defense Minister Barak at Pentagon

11 a.m.: Bush meets with Abbas.
13:10: Bilateral meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert

Source: White House, U.S. State Department

Contact Delta Vines by email at delta_vines@sbcglobal.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 25, 2007.
This was written by Abraham Rabinovich and appeared yesterday in The Australian

Jerusalem -- The secret Syrian structure bombed by Israeli planes three months ago was not a nuclear reactor for producing plutonium but a plant for building a bomb using plutonium that Syria apparently already had, an expert says.

Uzi Even told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Syria had been far closer to a nuclear bomb than anyone believed.

"In my estimation," said Professor Even, who had worked as a chemist at Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor, "this (structure) was even more dangerous than a reactor. I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium -- that is, a factory for assembling the bomb."

The scientist made clear he was not privy to any intelligence information concerning the structure or about the reason for the Israeli attack but said he had been able to draw conclusions from satellite photos of the Syrian site taken before and after the September6 attack and published in the West.

Western experts have suggested the structure was a five-megawatt nuclear reactor that would have enabled production of plutonium.

But Professor Even said a reactor required a chimney for the emission of radioactive gases, but none was visible in the photos.

Also missing were other features required by a reactor, such as cooling towers. "A structure without cooling towers cannot be a reactor," he said.

Israel, in its attack on an Iraqi reactor in 1981, had waited until virtually the eve of its becoming operational. So the fact that Israel had attacked the Syrian site when it did, Professor Even said, suggested the danger was close at hand and not years away.

These and other factors had led him to conclude that Syria already had plutonium and was in the process of building a plant for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

The fact that Syrian workmen had attempted to bury the entire site under deep layers of earth shortly after the attack was an additional tip-off about the nature of the facility, Professor Even said. "They did it because of the lethal nature of the material that was in the structure, and that can be plutonium."

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, November 25, 2007.

U.S. Applauds Arab League Attendance at Annapolis

The Arab League, which has systematically opposed and blocked peace efforts for 60 years and is to this moment in a declared state-of-war with Israel, and more recently, proudly and publicly supported the deeds of suicide bombers, is now deemed by the United States Administration to have something significant to contribute regarding the peace with Israel.

One is struck by the fact that most of the 21 Arab states that will be represented by the Arab League in Annapolis are rated and categorized as some of the worst offenders of human rights for which:

"Political rights are absent or virtually nonexistent as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime or severe oppression in combination with civil war. States and territories in this group may also be marked by extreme violence or warlord rule that dominates political power in the absence of an authoritative, functioning central government."[1]

President Bush in a speech given on March 8, 2005 had this to say about freedom and democracy in the world:

"It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors ... it should be clear the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance kindled in free societies."[2] (emphasis added)

In Annapolis, President Bush is ready to surrender his Freedom and Democracy Principle -- endangering the very survival of the Jewish state and advancing Palestinian society's belief that violence pays-off.

Professor, Judge Schwebel, the former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) explains:

"... no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."[3]

Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, can not and should not be rewarded.

The outcome of consistent Arab aggression was best described by Schwebel:

"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbours, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem."[4] (emphasis added)

It is most important for the people of Israel and Jews everywhere not to forget the late Israeli diplomat Abba Eban that in an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel, described Israel's pre-Six-Day War borders as "Auschwitz" lines.

Eban, a lifetime dove, vowed:

"We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history."[5]

Is devastating Israel cheaper than democratizing the members of the Arab League?


1. Freedom House, an NGO founded nearly sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, monitors the degree of freedom accorded citizens of various countries according to various parameters, and classifies countries accordingly. For the full report see: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1.

2. Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, Wednesday, March 9, 2005.

3. Professor, Judge Schwebel. What Weight to Conquest? in Justice in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1994. Opinions quoted in this critiques are not derived from his position as a judge of the ICJ.

4. Ibid

5. Abba Eban: "The June 1967 map represented Israel's 'Auschwitz' borders,"

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 25, 2007.

A group of young Israeli-Arab men recently attacked and raped two intoxicated Jewish teenage girls near the coastal city of Netanya, the Israeli police released for publication on Sunday.

The shocking attack took place two weeks ago, when the six Arab men happened upon the two Jewish girls as they sat drinking late at night in a public square in Netanya. According to Ynet, the girls resisted the men's advances, but were soon after were compelled, either physically or due to their inebriated state, to enter their assailants' vehicle.

The girls were then driven to a nearby beach where one managed to escape or avoid being raped. The second girl was not so lucky, and though nearly unconscious, was beaten, raped and sodomized repeatedly by the young Arabs as they called her a "dirty Jew."

All six men have reportedly been arrested, and at least one has confessed to the attack after being presented with DNA evidence connecting him to the crime.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 25, 2007.

Keep in mind this was written by John R. MacArthur, a critic of Israel. It is archived at
(Originally from The Providence Journal, April 16, 2007)

Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby. Not only have I supported the civil rights of the Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were George W. Ball and Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special relationship with the United States.

Nowadays I ought to be even bolder in my critique, since the silent agreement suppressing candid discussions about Israeli-U.S. relations has recently been shaken by some decidedly mainstream figures. These critics of Israel and its American agents include John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, of the University of Chicago, and Harvard's Kennedy School, respectively; Tony Judt, a historian at New York University; and former President Jimmy Carter.

Somehow, though, I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.

The long and corrupt history of American-Saudi relations centers around the kingdom's vast reserves of easily extractable oil, of course. Ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt met aboard ship in 1945 with King Ibn Saud, the special relationship with the desert kingdom has only grown stronger. The House of Saud is usually happy to sell us oil at a consistent and reasonable price and then increase production if unseemly market forces drive the world price of a barrel too high for U.S. consumers.

In exchange we arm the Saudis to the teeth and turn a blind eye to their medieval approach to crime and punishment.

Even during the Saudi-led oil embargo of 1973-74, an exceedingly hostile action against the United States supposedly justified by Washington's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the Nixon administration treaded very softly. Despite the illegality of the embargo it arguably violated international law as well as a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia the White House and the State Department could hardly have been more diplomatic toward their Bedouin friends.

As the historian J.B. Kelly recounts, the U.S. ambassador to Riyahd, James Akins, did his best to placate King Faisal by urging the Saudi's American-owned oil concessionaire ARAMCO to, in Akin's words, "hammer home" to the White House that the embargo wouldn't be lifted unless "the political struggle [between Israel and the Arabs] is settled in [a] manner satisfactory to [the] Arabs."

In all, as Kelly wrote, "a most peculiar recourse for an ambassador to employ to influence the policy of his own government."

But this was a blip on the screen of harmonious petrol politics. After Iran's Islamic revolution overthrew the trusted shah, in 1979, the thoroughly anti-democratic Saudi oligarchy appeared an island of stability and thus of greater strategic value to Washington. Indeed, in a head-to-head match-up with the Israel lobby in 1981 over the proposed American sale of AWACS planes to the Saudis, the Saudi lobby won a close vote in the Senate. Leading the Arab charge on Capitol Hill was the debonair Prince Bandar, who demonstrated that charm mixed with a lot of money could beat the Israelis, even during the pro-Israel administration of Ronald Reagan.

Bandar was quickly promoted to Saudi ambassador to Washington, where, in 1990, he was assigned the task by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney of, in effect, doling out press passes to the U.S. media before the Gulf War this in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of U.S. troops were swarming into the kingdom to defend it against a perceived invasion threat from Saddam Hussein. When he wasn't entertaining congressmen and spreading good cheer through his highly paid lobbyist, Fred Dutton, Bandar was busy making friends with, at first vice president, and then president, George H.W. Bush, and by extension with Bush's son, the future president. This personal relationship with the Bush family has served Bandar and his family very well, as documented in Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

But the prince and his royal relatives evidently also impressed the Clinton administration. Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000. As with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, there's always talk of the Saudis playing a double game with al-Qaida publicly denouncing it and privately paying it off but you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the Saudis don't have America's best interests at heart.

So it gets worse. Now, according to Seymour Hersh, Bandar has virtually joined the Bush administration as a shadow cabinet member. Hersh's New Yorker article last month described "the redirection" of U.S. foreign policy against Iran and Arab Shi'ite terrorists in collaboration with such Sunni-dominated countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt (this in spite of the fact that Sunni rebels, funded in part by Saudi "private citizens," have killed the bulk of American solidiers who have died in Iraq).

The wise men in this new policy council reportedly include Vice President Cheney, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams (an Iran-Contra convict who is very pro-Israel), the nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, and none other than Bandar, now the Saudi national-security adviser. Such is the cynicism of Bushian, Israeli and Saudi foreign policy that Abrams collaborates with Bandar, whose country does not recognize Israel and whose "charities" give money to the families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up inside the Jewish state.

Lately, King Abdullah has been making anti-American noises, calling the U.S. presence in Iraq an "illegitimate foreign occupation." But like the Saudis' paper-thin devotion to the Palestinian cause, this is just so much realpolitik. In March 1974, the oil embargo was lifted without any conditions concerning Palestinian rights. Today, as the Shi'ism scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb told Mohamad Bazzi, of Newsday, "the Saudis are being more autonomous, but it's a very contrived sense of autonomy" designed "to give [them] more political cover so they can rally Arab support against [Shi'ite] Iran."

If you're naive enough to believe that the Saudi king's rhetoric signifies a genuine break with the United States over Iraq, or anything else, then you might also believe that the Israel lobby is more powerful than the Saudi lobby. And if you think that Israeli security means more to George Bush than Saudi oil, then you might even believe that Bush saw 9/11 coming.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 25, 2007.

This is an excerpt from Arutz Sheva
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124368) in an article entitled "Syria Will Mention Golan at Annapolis" by Hillel Fendel. The article also points out:

Middle East affairs expert Dr. Guy Bechor says that if the Golan is given over to Syria, Syria will immediately begin populating the area with hundreds of thousands of its citizens, "thus forming a type of Gaza on our northern shoulder." As a result, Bechor continues, the Galilee -- the heavily Arab-populated area of northern Israel just beneath the Golan Heights -- will come under Syrian influence, possibly leading to Galilee-originating Arab terror attacks on the rest of Israel.

"For this reason alone," writes Makor Rishon editor Amnon Lord, "the idea of handing over the Golan to the Syrians must removed from the agenda."

Bechor also states that the reason the Arab countries are showing up at Annapolis at all is merely because they are afraid of the rise of Iran and political Islam. "They will have to pay the price of remaining, openly, in one room with Israelis," Bechor writes in his latest commentary piece, adding that they were able to secure a promise that they would not have to shake hands with Israelis or talk directly to them."

Back in 1996, Ben-Aharon told Arutz-7 that during the Yitzchak Shamir-led government, Shimon Peres -- currently the President of Israel -- advised the heads of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, then based in Tunisia, on negotiation strategies with Israel. "This proved to be very damaging to our negotiating efforts with the Palestinian representatives in Madrid," said Ben-Aharon.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 25, 2007.


Muslims recognized Rachel's Tomb as a Jewish site for hundreds of years. The Turkish Empire recognized the Jewish right to it.

The Palestinian Arab Muslims attacked it and those who visited it. The IDF erected barricades and a fence around it, ruining its architectural appearance. They lead convoys of armored vehicles of worshippers to it, although the Oslo Accords recognize the Jewish right to visit and pray at it.

The Muslims have been attacking other Jewish sites in the P.A., too. Recently they fabricated a claim about it being a mosque. This claim flouts their own tradition.

The lesson is not to trust Muslim promises of religious tolerance. Holy sites of other religions must not fall into Muslim hands (IMRA, 11/14). Nor can Israel anticipate peace with such bigots or that they will honor their agreements.


The P.A. is preparing a constitution. Its third draft declares Islam the official religion and Christianity and other monotheistic religions "revered." (IMRA, 11/15).

Islam declares itself superior to those other religions, which are to be humiliated. Humiliation is not reverence nor respect.

This is the usual Muslim way of expressing sentiments so as to deceive the West into thinking all is well, while assuring Muslims that the jihad still is on. Western journalists ought to alert their people to this deceit. Who will alert the journalists?


PM Olmert was asked whether he holds Egypt responsible for the rise of terrorism from Gaza, because it lets arms and trained terrorists into Gaza. He evaded the question and said that Pres. Mubarak would be an honored guest in Israel (IMRA, 11/20).

Mubarak doesn't visit Israel because he considers it the hated infidel enemy, whose legitimacy it would be Islamically dishonorable to recognize with a visit. Olmert acts the fool but plays the traitor.

Israelis are seething over Egypt's war of attrition against Israel by its Gaza proxy. That is, decent Israelis are.

The West as a whole is reluctant to identify the enemy and explain why it is the enemy. That is no way to defeat the jihad against the West.


A P.A. Arab stabbed his Israeli farmer employer repeatedly. The victim is recovering; the attempted murderer is being hunted.

A Bedouin youth attempted to rape a young Israeli woman, then battered her head with a rock (Arutz-7,11/15).

This is not unusual behavior. When will Israelis learn to stop employing Arabs from the P.A.? When will they learn not to allow Arabs to live in Israel? As for the anti-Zionist State Dept., it thinks that Israel's duty is to hire outside Arabs.


Siderot is the Israeli town bombarded by rockets daily. Thousands have fled. Many of the remaining residents suffer from shock, stress, and economic hardship. In this weakened community have flocked Christian missionaries. Some are Jesuits, some are Messianic ex-Jews. They give residents fancy Bibles, whereas in other Israeli towns, they give out plain ones. Implication: the missionaries are targeting this besieged town, sensing that the people would be less resistant (Arutz-7, 11/15).

Those missionaries particularly disgust me, because they don't rely on the strength of their argument nor on the ethics of their behavior. They exploit people in distress. Often they hide their Christian affiliation, taking unfair advantage of the ignorance of immigrants and others.


Sec. Rice and PM Olmert and Pres. Peres (and the NY Times) keep claiming that the people of Israel favor their proposed cession of land to the Arabs. The polls show that the people oppose those cessions by about 2:1. Polls also show that the governments of Israel and the US are unpopular.

(Since the polls are consistent, the pols must be lying deliberately.)

Yes, some polls, deceitfully elicit a positive answer, than misrepresented to indicate popular support for concessions. Such polls ask, if the Arabs really wanted peace, would you support some territorial concession. The concession, by the way, usually is much less than the US demands and the Israeli leaders favor. To claim that the answer indicates support for concessions is duplicitous, because the people do not believe that the Arabs really want peace. Therefore, the people don't want territorial concessions (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/15).


One of your main purposes in founding the NY Sun was to provide a venue for fair and accurate reporting about Israel. Your editorials do support Jewish national rights, and in a reasonable way. The news columns, unfortunately, often come from outside sources that are not objective and even slant towards the Muslim Arabs.

The Associated Press was one such source. The Daily Telegraph is another. For example, on page 9 of the November 20 edition, a paragraph by Tim Butcher reads, "Industrial zones have been tried before several times in the Palestinian Arab territories to try to stimulate employment but they have always failed because of Israeli reaction to threats to its security."

That explanation blames primarily Israel. It implies an Israeli over-reaction, since it is vague about "threats" to Israeli security. It is more than "threats" to Israeli security. Muslim terrorists use the border-adjoining zone's gates to push through to attack Israel. Terrorists also attack the zone, including its workers. At times the P.A. has warned its people not to work in them, under pain of arrest, not a light matter in their culture.

A fairer statement would have explained,"...but they have always failed because Islamist terrorist have attacked the zones and used the zones as gateways for attacking Israelis, until Israel had to shut the gates."

Please either find an accurate source, such as IMRA, or have someone edit the source you use. Let the Daily Telegraph learn fairness from your revisions in their biased wording and tone!


Abbas has failed to reform his corrupt government. It is losing control over the Judea-Samaria part of the P.A. to chaos. His Fatah movement is disintegrating, and Fatah men consider the Abbas regime an enemy. If it weren't for the presence of the IDF, that the US is trying to eliminate, Hamas would take over easily. In Gaza, Hamas is adding to the range of their missiles, so they could fire them at more Israeli cities and from the middle of Gaza. Israel no longer could make short forays to get at them. The Israeli government has waited until Hamas is much more powerful and could inflict much greater casualties.

If Abbas doesn't demand the maximum at the conference, he would face fierce domestic criticism. A vague statement would not satisfy them. If he demands the maximum, the conference probably would fail. To such a regime, statehood and expect peace?

In Lebanon, Hizbullah is receiving advanced weaponry, building better bases, and linking its population with foreign Shiite ones (IMRA, 11/16).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 25, 2007.

I bet all these years you thought the greatest threat to world security was from some irresponsible, third world country getting the bomb.

All this is in keeping, however, with the unofficial motto of the UK's upper class: "Appearances are everything." As long as it appears that there is high level security, it is enough for them. This leads to the intriguing possibility that maybe the bombs themselves are actually a bluff. After all, how would anyone really know? They look like bombs. They are treated like bombs. But really, would even the British be so daft and secure them with nothing more than a bicycle lock?

This report was written by Meirion Jones, Newsnight producer, BBC News. It was seen on Newsnight on 15 November, 2007.

Abridged report: How to arm a bomb

Newsnight has discovered that until the early days of the Blair government the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key.

There was no other security on the Bomb itself.

While American and Russian weapons were protected by tamper-proof combination locks which could only be released if the correct code was transmitted, Britain relied on a simpler technology.

The Dr Strangelove scenario

The British military resisted Whitehall proposals to fit bombs with Permissive Action Links -- or PALs -- which would prevent them being armed unless the right code was sent.

UK nuclear weapons are designed first and foremost to be secure and safe

PALs were introduced in the 1960s in America to prevent a mad General or pilot launching a nuclear war off their own bat -- the Dr Strangelove scenario.

President Kennedy ordered that every American nuclear bomb should be fitted with a PAL.

The correct code had to be transmitted by the US Chiefs of Staff and dialled into the Bomb before it could be armed otherwise it would not detonate.


Crews in missile silos also had a dual key arrangement so one man could not launch Armageddon.

Similar safeguards are in place on Russian nuclear weapons.

They are familiar from numerous Hollywood films such as Broken Arrow with John Travolta, The Peacemaker with Nicole Kidman and various James Bond films.

Under control

Papers at the National Archive show that as early as 1966 an attempt was made to impose PAL security on British nuclear weapons.

The Chief Scientific Adviser Solly Zuckerman formally advised the Defence Secretary Denis Healey that Britain needed to install Permissive Action Links on its nuclear weapons to keep them safe.

"The Government will need to be certain that any weapons deployed are under some form of 'ironclad' control".

The Royal Navy argued that officers of the Royal Navy as the Senior Service could be trusted:

"It would be invidious to suggest... that Senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders".

Neither the Navy nor the RAF installed PAL protection on their nuclear weapons.

The RAF kept their unsafeguarded bombs at airbases until they were withdrawn in 1998.

Bicycle lock key

With the help of Brian Burnell -- a researcher into the history of the British nuclear weapons programme who once designed bomb casings for atom bombs -- Newsnight tracked down a training version of the WE 177 nuclear bomb at the Bristol Aero collection at Kemble.

Tornado and earlier V-bomber crews trained with these, which were identical in every way to the live bombs except for the nuclear warhead.

To arm the weapons you just open a panel held by two captive screws -- like a battery cover on a radio -- using a thumbnail or a coin.

Inside are the arming switch and a series of dials which you can turn with an Allen key to select high yield or low yield, air burst or groundburst and other parameters.

The Bomb is actually armed by inserting a bicycle lock key into the arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the Bomb.

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. Contact him at zelasko@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 25, 2007.

Is the Annapolis Conference a gathering of moderate Arabs? The Arab/Muslim attitude toward Jerusalem provides a documented answer.

According to Dr. Mordechai Kedar, an expert on Islamic and Arab studies at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (Makor Rishon weekly, Nov. 23, 2007):

1. Since the 7th century, Jerusalem has been a tactical means to achieve the strategic goal of Islam: subjugation of, rather than coexistence with, Christianity and Judaism. Islam has embraced Jerusalem, precisely due to Jerusalem's centrality in Judaism, and Islam's attempt to disrobe Judaism of its legitimacy. Islam proclaims that Mohammed ascended to heaven, joined by Abraham, Moses, Aharon and Jesus, who prayed behind him, thus accepting Islam's suzerainty. Hence, the Moslem belief that Mohammed gained legitimacy and prophecy forfeited by Judaism and Christianity; hence the pattern of building mosques on top of synagogues, churches and monasteries, and hence the invalidity of any Jewish claim to Jerusalem.

2. Currently, Jerusalem is a tactical means to achieve the strategic goal of the Palestinian leadership: undermining the legitimacy -- and the eventual destruction -- of the Jewish State, as a prerequisite to the attainment of Palestinian 'national rights.' A sovereign Jewish entity on one hand, and Palestinian rights and Moslem principles on the other hand, constitute a Moslem oxymoron.

3. Jerusalem was never a Muslim capital, not even a regional capital (a title reserved for Ramleh), was never visited by Mohammed, is not mentioned in the Koran and does not serve as the direction for Muslim prayers.

4. Jerusalem has been a political tool, employed by Muslim leaders to excite followers, but then relegated to political marginality. Mohammed used Jerusalem, in order to attract support by the prominent Jewish tribes of Khaybar, and then shifted his focus to Mecca and Medina. The Damascus caliphs adopted Jerusalem as a pilgrimage site during the rivalry with Mecca. Saladin inflamed anti-Crusaders spirit by brandishing the cause of Jerusalem in the 12th century. Currently, the Arabs use Jerusalem as a dagger against the Jewish State.

Will US and Israeli policy-makers ignore the role of Jerusalem in Islam? Will they allow wishful-thinking to triumph -- once again -- over realism, thus jeopardizing the future of Jerusalem, and advancing the strategic goals of Islam and the Palestinians?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 25, 2007.

Hillel Halkin's recent piece on Annapolis in The NY Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/66755) is so essentially sensible in its basic perceptions that I recommend you read it. Annapolis, he says, represents

"the kind of mistaken thinking that has characterized every American or international attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1991 Madrid Conference: Namely, the belief that there is something in the world of diplomacy called 'process' that has an intrinsically positive momentum of its own capable of overcoming deep disagreements on substance between two sides to a dispute.

"Just get these two sides to sit down and start talking, the reasoning goes, and little by little they will find points of agreement that will increase trust between them and lead to an overall settlement.

"This is of course nonsense. There is nothing intrinsically positive about any diplomatic process. Such processes work when potential points of agreement already exist and can be focused on. When they don't exist, all the processes in the world can't conjure them up. On the contrary, they simply create frustration, disappointment, and rancor.

"And in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, such points of agreement do not exist.

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may not be exactly a zero-sum game, but neither is it a potentially win-win situation. If one side wins by achieving its goals, the other side will have lost...

"...A viable Jewish state and a viable Palestinian state west of the Jordan River are not both possible."


And then we have our inherently nonsensical foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who exudes enthusiasm about that process we are soon to be engaged in. When leaving for Annapolis last night she declared that the whole world (the WHOLE world?) now accepts that Annapolis is the starting point for a process that will lead to two states for two people. Israel's security, she says, is now accepted as an inseparable part of the agreement.

Oi vey, is she off base. She imagines, it appears, that the Arab states that have decided to come are doing so to support the process and abide by agreements that protect Israel. What she forgets is that most of the Arab world still seeks the destruction of Israel, and is technically at war with Israel. Has she not heard the Saudi pronouncements about no handshakes? And the Arab statements regarding the fact that they are not ready for normalization with Israel?

But what can we expect from the woman who put our security in the hands of UNIFIL and pronounced their protection of us (which is close to non-existent -- as Hezbollah has rearmed under their watchful eyes) to be a diplomatic success?


Uh oh. Tonight in Washington, Livni is meeting with her PA counterpart in negotiations, Ahmed Qurei, to try to come to an agreement on a statement for the conference. Honestly done, this would be impossible. The gaps are too wide. But joining them will be "push-it-through-at-all-costs-because-I-say-so" Rice.

Then there's the announcement that on Tuesday there will be plenary session called "comprehensive peace" at which the 40 participants will be able to bring up any issue they wish. Like Jerusalem. Or the Golan Heights.


I want to mention just briefly here a matter of great concern to me, and to which I will return with greater focus soon. The Olmert government has declared that the residents of Shalom House in Hebron are there illegally and will be evicted. I say forthrightly that I don't believe the purchase to have been illegal at all. I know the care with which the people there effected the purchase over a period of years. As I read it, no reason was given for the decision that it was not legal -- it was an arbitrary statement. It is not a legal or moral decision, it is a tainted political one, that will be fought hard.

This touches on the right of Jews to live in places of ancient Jewish heritage, and should be viewed with considerable seriousness.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 25, 2007.

Attributed to: "security sources" [Distributed by IDF Spokesperson's Office]
Now released: Wanted Tanzim terror-operative killed during IDF activity in Tulkarm

During an IDF arrest operation in the Tulkarm R.C. an IDF force identified two wanted Palestinians. When the force called on them to stop the men began to run away from the scene. The force fired at them and identified killing one of them, Muhamad Zaki Muhamad Kuzah, and injuring the other.

Muhamad Kuzah, a 20 year old wanted Tanzim terror-operative, was involved in recent months in the planning of a suicide attack on the Israeli home front while also being responsible for a series of bombing and shooting attacks against IDF forces in the region of Tulkarm.

He also built ties with the Hezbollah terror organization as well as other terror organizations in the Gaza Strip in order to carry out terror attacks.

During the operation several wanted Palestinians linked to Muhamad Kuzah were also arrested.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 24, 2007.

Free Speech a la Olmert: Democracy inaction?
Egged cancels ad campaign:
"Olmert escaping from police -- to Annapolis"
Dr. Aaron Lerner
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
25 November 2007
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

Army Radio correspondent Guy Varon reports this morning that the Egged bus company cancelled a protest ad campaign at the last minute of right wing activists against prime minister Ehud Olmert, under the slogan "Olmert escaping from police -- to Annapolis".

Egged claims that the ad is improper because it offend the public consensus.

In the same spirit, Moshe Hanegbi, the legal commentator of Israel Radio, recently said that one of the grounds for criminal charges against the group behind an ad campaign that featured Shimon Peres donning a kafiyeh is that it is against the law to "offend a public servant".

2. In 2004 the following article appeared when the Israeli government released hundreds of imprisoned murderers as a "peace gesture." The result was a wave of new murders. A direct result was also the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in the summer of 2006, triggering the make-pretend "war" that Israel then "fought" against the Hizbollah. Now, as Ehud Olmert prepares to release hundreds of imprisoned murderers, I thought it is timely to re-post this:

I Am Ashamed to Be an Israeli
14 Kislev 5768, 24 November 07 10:51
by Steven Plaut

(IsraelNN.com) I have spent most of the past 12 years being ashamed to be an Israeli. Israeli governments made me ashamed, and they did so by abasing, disgracing and humiliating me as a Jew and as an Israeli.

I have been ashamed for 12 years at being an Israeli, because this was the period in which the governments of Israel abandoned the struggle for Jewish national survival. They stopped trying to defend me and all other Jews. They lectured me that it was my fault that the Arab fascists were attacking Jews, and that it was within my power to stop the carnage, if only I would agree to demean myself sufficiently, to grovel before the terrorists of the Middle East, and to appease the anti-Semites. I could achieve peace if I would agree to place my neck in an Arab noose, but if I refuse to do so, then I would be the impediment to peace and my obstinacy would be to blame for all further carnage.

For 12 years, my government pursued a policy of defending me and my family by abandoning all attempts to defend us. My government decided to pursue peace by pretending that war did not exist. After two millennia of anti-Semitism, my government decided that anti-Semitism does not really exist, and that when people randomly murder Jewish children, it is because they have some legitimate grievances, because they have suffered, and because Jews have shown them insufficient sensitivity.

My government implemented policies based on the presumption that the making of concessions to blood-thirsty terrorists would be rewarded with moderation and goodwill, that importing armed Nazis into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would cause them to seek peace. My government followed policies based on the notion that the Jews were evil, insensitive and selfish. My government decided that if Jews would only "share" their land and resources with those who rule the entire territory from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia, that is, with those who refuse to agree to any "sharing" that allows a Jewish state to exist anywhere in the Middle East, then there would be peace.

My government decided that rewarding terrorists for violence would end violence, and then told me that there was simply no alternative to coddling terrorists and Nazis. My government pursued peace by pretending that war did not exist. My government sought peace through arming and bankrolling terrorists. My government decided that anti-Semitism can only be overcome by redressing the "underlying grievances" that it reflects. My government fought terrorism by not fighting it, and by trying to appease it. My government insisted that I must coddle anti-Semites and terrorists, and must pander to their agenda and desires, for there is no other choice.

My government over the past 12 years preached to me that it was my own pride and my parochial patriotism that was the obstacle to peace. It told me I must seek peace through self-abasement and self-humiliation. My government told me that if I would show willingness to compromise, then so would the Arabs.

My government has been wrong about everything, but refuses to admit it has been wrong about anything.

My government decided that Palestinians are a "nation" and that chunks of my Jewish lands were in fact "Palestinian lands". My government decided that Arabs may freely live any place they wish anywhere in the land of Israel, but I may not live freely where I might choose if it happens to be across the "Green Line". My government instituted discrimination against me and against other Jews in the name of "affirmative action", quotas and preferences for Arabs and directed against me.

My government fought for my survival through cowardice and endless "restraint", turning my other cheek against my will, pursuing endless "goodwill gestures", which only inflamed the violence. It did so despite the fact that I and my fellow Israeli citizens voted repeatedly to revoke the "Oslo approach" and voted in favor of pursuing war against our enemies, not appeasement. My government abandoned all of northern Israel to the mercies of the Hizbollah rockets, now aimed at me in the thousands. My government abandoned the Jewish towns near the Gaza Strip to rocket barrages from the PLO.

I have spent the past 12 years cringing in shame. My government made me feel that way. But I have never felt as ashamed at being an Israeli as I did this week, when my government decided to reward the Hizbollah for murdering three of my fellow citizens in cold blood. My government also abandoned Ron Arad, releasing his kidnapper, rewarding the terrorists who kidnapped him, who "sold" him to Iran and possibly murdered him. My government decided to release nearly 450 murderers with blood on their hands in order to "buy" the release of the carcasses of three of my fellow citizens, who were murdered by the Hizbollah after they had been kidnapped by it.

My government had abandoned southern Lebanon to the Hizbollah and assured me there would be complete tranquility thereafter. After the farcical Israeli "withdrawal" ordered by my government, the Hizbollah has fired almost daily into Israel, has sent in terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians, and snatched the three soldiers (two Jews and one Bedouin Arab) whose bodies were released this week, after murdering them in cold blood.

Last week, the Hizbollah murdered one more army officer working a bulldozer; in response, my government punished some empty Hizbollah buildings. The prisoner "deal" was possible only because my government refuses to execute the murdering savages, the terrorists. My government thinks capital punishment is inhumane, and its absence has made possible the murders of 1,300 of my fellow countrymen. That is like twenty two September 11ths, when measured proportional to population.

The Hizbollah also held as prisoner a man who had entered Lebanon for criminal purposes, possibly a drug deal to pay off his gambling debts. I opposed releasing any terrorists to get him released. I might have considered agreeing to release a handful as payment to the Hizbollah to keep him imprisoned there, if he is indeed a drug smuggler.

My government decided to respond to the murders of the three POWs by rewarding their murderers, not by converting three Hizbollah towns into large parking lots, not by bathing the Hizbollah leaders in napalm. My government signaled to all my fellow citizens that it was unwilling to avenge our deaths. My government let every Israeli soldier know that his life would be worthless if captured by the enemy, because my government would always seek "deals" with those who murder POWs. My government made it known that by grabbing some Israelis as hostages, anyone could obtain any concession they want from my country. My government also let every soldier know that, if captured in war, he would be abandoned to his fate by my government. My government agreed to this "deal" with the Hizbollah, a deal that spit on the family of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad. The man who kidnapped and "sold" Arad has been released by my government as payment for the release of the common criminal.

My government is trying to cover its shame by boasting that it "held out tough" and refused to release the baby-murdering terrorist Samir Kuntar, the man who murdered the members of the Haran family in Nahariya. My same government boasts that it would have released this arch-murderer had the Hizbollah so much as told Israel where Ron Arad (or his grave) is.

So much for "standing tough".

My government is a disgrace. My government practices cowardice and pretends it is courage. My government displays indifference to the Israelis who will now be murdered by those released terrorists and murderers. My government had the gall to pretend it was acting out of compassion and morality when it signed this capitulation, when it placed that smirk on the face of the Hizbollah chief terrorist, boasting of his victory.

To drive home the point that the "deal" proves to the world that the Jews are on the run, the terrorists blew up a bus in Jerusalem, the same Jerusalem they pretend is holy to them, as part of celebrating the stampede of Jewish flight. After all, the Hizbollah was being rewarded for terror, so why should not the Palestinians follow their lead in obtaining Israeli surrender?

The bus atrocity in Jerusalem was carried out by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a PLO terror group under the direct command and control of Yasser Arafat.

My government pretended it was suddenly acting out of Jewish ethical values. My government would not know a Jewish ethical value if it popped up in its face. My government pretends there is a "Part B" to this capitulation, in which information about Ron Arad will be released. I do not believe them. I think my government is lying, to window-dress this act of cowardice.

As I watch the victory smile on the mug of the Hizbollah chief terrorist, my own government makes me cringe. My government makes me ashamed of being an Israeli.

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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, November 24, 2007.

In the meticulously documented book The Secret War Against the Jews, J. Loftus and M. Aarons show how Germany of the 1920s was a cash-starved, weaponless, powerless country, and would have remained so if it had not been for a massive influx of investment capital. Oil companies and Saudi Arabia were the secret source of wealth and influence that helped Hitler to rise onto the world's stage. It was the influence of this Arab money that caused Britain to decide to close its doors on the millions of Jews looking for an escape route out of Nazi-controlled Europe and into British-mandate Palestine. This also is a partial explanation as to why other countries also abandoned the Jews.

I cite the above paragraph from Rabbi Avraham Feld's great work, Mohammed Wept, A Response to Islam; then wonder why a representative of the House of Saud has been invited, and indeed will soon attend a presumed peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland U.S.A between leaders of Israel, the Arab entity that yearns to be a Palestinian state, and the host nation. I also wonder why U.S. President George W. Bush, a Texas oilman and devoted pal and partner of Saudi Arabian royalty, as well as his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a former high powered Chevron oil exec, as well as the two name double game leader of Fatah Abu Mazan Mahmoud Abbas, an unrepentant Holocaust revisionist, will be primary players at that conference, along with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. An objective observer might suggest the cards are blatantly stacked against Israel when the spirits of Big Oil along with Nazi sympathizers secrete their tentacles around a perhaps naïve, certainly desperate Israeli Prime Minister, no doubt demanding he cede all territories annexed to Israel in 1967, albeit justifiably secured based on world precedent in a victorious defensive battle against Arabs intent on annihilating the Jewish homeland, to the so-called Palestinians and likely Syria as well as acquiesce to the right of all so-called Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper. Of course, peace for our time' would be the promised compensation to Israel, a promise with no more validity than when implicitly offered by Hitler to a naïve British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on 9/30/1938. I wonder just what many Israeli citizens and their supporters worldwide are thinking when they ignore history, ignore the motives of those with personal agendas called legacies posing as friends, even ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room Abu Mazan who unabashedly besmirches all Jews and all clear thinking people of all time in a yet to be retracted 1983 thesis asserting Zionists collaborated with Nazis during the Holocaust, gas chambers were likely not used, and far fewer Jews were slaughtered than documented during what was truly the most hideous event of century twenty. I continue Rabbi Feld's analysis, wondering why Israel's Prime Minister so lowers the stature of his office by planning to attend a presumed peace conference even reluctantly attended by a member of The House of Saud, only there due to the groveling of its host.

Greed for oil and Arab investment capital played no small role. Today, the exact same thing is happening. Instead of working towards Hitler's Final Solution Plan, they are working according to "The Plan of phases." The Saudi Arabians etc. are masquerading terrorist groups as a "people." They continue seeking to destroy the Jews but in novel ways. Laurent Murawiec, the brilliant analyst for the Rand corporation, explained that Saudi Arabia is "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent," of western values and interests in the Near East .., Left-Wing analyst M. Steinberg of the publication, the American Prospect, wrote "the desert kingdom leads the way in financing and inciting Muslim Holy warriors the world over."

Much of the world, including Jewish world, has been brainwashed to believe that today's Israel is the big bad aggressor occupying poor Palestinian waifs, when in truth about 80% of the original post-Ottoman territory of Palestine, a land wholly promised to Zionists to be the Jewish homeland in the Balfour Declaration, duly agreed to by both Arabs and Jews as 'just and right', designated to be a Jewish state at the 1919 Paris Peace Convention, was unjustly taken from the Jewish people, reassigned by the British to greedy Arabs as Transjordan, leaving that small remaining fraction of Palestine, today's Israel, for the Jewish people, merely two tenths of one percent as large as all surrounding Muslim Middle East lands, mostly hostile to Jews. Arab fanatics, their scorpion infested deserts drenched in oil, got the upper hand, extorted non-Muslim leaders to back off or else, and the shlamazal state of Israel, homeland of the Jews, became the sacrificial lamb yet again.

History deficient planetary citizens, especially members of the press, including the world class New York Times, continually chastise West Bank' Israeli citizens and the intrepid IDF that protects them, insultingly referring to those citizens as settlers, the State of Israel as an occupying nation, spewing propaganda that eventually filters into the brains of those who should know better, resulting in the sort of conference to be held in Annapolis where Israel will yet again be on the defensive, expected to appease a cadre of Machiavellian Arab leaders, including those despicable Sauds, who in fact will never release Israel from their bonds of torment, using the Jewish homeland as an ever convenient scapegoat to be pelted with criticism that otherwise would be directed at them from their exploited constituents.

Furthermore, the 'big lie' that ceding land as well as capitulating to a Palestinian right of return will bring peace to Israel is bereft of logic when analyzing the Nazi infected culture of Islamic radicals, wielding influence over much of the Middle East, who want nothing more than to destroy the land of Israel for starters, and all Jews if the opportunity ever arises. If Prime Minister Olmert must soon enter into presumed peace talks in America, he should begin deliberations by demanding territorial compensation for losing 80 % of the land that rightfully belongs to Israel due to manipulative agreements foisted on non-Muslim Western leaders by Arab Muslim states, contrary to the principles agreed to by both Arabs and Jews in the Balfour Declaration. Next he should demand a right of return or monetary compensation for all descendants of the 850,000 Jews coerced to exit Arab lands during the period when modern Israel was first declared a sovereign nation. Finally, he should castigate all those movers and shakers in the audience, Arab and non-Arab, for even suggesting that the 'big lie' had any credibility whatsoever, noting Muslim fanatics have no intention of abiding by any agreements signed at this 'silly' conference, direct his entourage to follow him out the door before any participant at the conference has a chance to reply, get on his cell phone, give Bibi Netanyahu the green light to do whatever it takes to stop the shelling of Sderot, declare all lands secured by Israel in 1967 to be part of the Jewish homeland now and forever, and tell all those who might disagree, in no uncertain terms, via Israel's communication network, if they don't like what he has to say then they might consider 'dropping dead in a ditch'. We can only dream!

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 24, 2007.

See the movie about the destruction of Amona and Gush Katif at

The article below is by Tamar Yonah. It's called and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva
(www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/2433). "There's a G-d, and You're Going To Have To Face Him".

"The film that is censored by the media." I would like you all to watch this 10 minute film. We must not forget our brothers and sisters who were dragged out of their homes and whose communities were bulldozed down. Their communities were OUR communities. They are our sisters and brothers. Now, on the precipice of Annapolis, with our present leadership going to bargain away our land, expel Jews from their homes, and divide our capital, I say: "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To view the film, click HERE. You can also download the video to see the movie in a larger size. Just look for the tab under the small window in RED, and click 'download'.

To all those who worked to expel Jews from their homes, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who gave away Jewish cities and Jewish property to the terrorists, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who gave them guns and bullets, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who trained the terrorists in sniping, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who don't put an immediate stop to the Kassam attacks on our southern cities and towns, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who use our tax money to re-enforce roof tops from kassam rockets instead of going in and ridding us of the terrorists, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who twist words calling murdered people 'sacrifices for peace', "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who didn't keep their promise to the Expellees, and have left them without homes, work, or a life, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who let Jonathan Pollard rot in an American prison, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who free convicted terrorists to prop up the popularity of other terrorist leaders, "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who forsake our kidnapped soldiers and leave them in the clucthes of our enemies, " There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him".

To all those who shake hands, hug, kiss or embrace our enemies and call them 'partners for peace' -- shame on you. "There's a G-d, and you're going to have to face Him". In the 10 minute film I mentioned above, this song, by Ariel Zilber, is played. I am giving you the translation in English, but if you can follow the Hebrew, it is so much nicer.

There's judgment and there's a Judge

There's judgment and there's a Judge.
There will be a reckoning.
For those who expelled the Jews from Gaza and Shomron.
They put themselves out
For us, to give security
Now they are going about
Hurt, without a home.

There is judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
They will be held responsible.
A judge, a general, even a plain soldier
You will pay for the obsequiousness, foolishness, and arrogance.

There is a judge, justice will be done
There's no mistake about it.

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
My brothers don't lose hope.
All the youth of the Gush gathered in Amona
They didn't think of running from the trooper on the horse
Then I realized that the youth are determined.

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
Ask anyone on the street, where is the father and where is his son,
Think about it.
Our sages have stated, and it is written in our holy books
There is mercy only for one who regrets his sin and doesn't repeat it.

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
Listen soldiers and policemen, and anyone who wishes to give land to the enemy
The land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) is not mine and not yours
It belongs to the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and He rejoices in the Land.

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
There is one that warned us all.
The same prophet who has lit up our lives for years and years.
He stated that he will personally fight, collect the fee (price),
From anyone who talks to the enemy about giving up one grain of sand.

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
There are plenty of examples.
Arik, Omri, Tzachi, Basie, Katzav and Chalutz
There are more people on the list, they still have a choice
If they stop mocking Eretz Yisrael.

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)
Two years have passed since then, the son indicted, the father worthless
There is One who doesn't forget,
and He does not forgive those that destroyed the blooming region

There is Judgment and there is a Judge. (Yesh Din, v'Yesh Dayan)

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2007.
"Sick and Outrageous"

The continued push towards Annapolis defies logic. I had had reasonable expectation that the conference would, at very least, been postponed once Rice saw that the two sides were miles apart on all of the major issues.

The Israeli and Palestinians cannot even agree on a preliminary joint statement. How, pray tell, will they negotiate "peace"? In addition to which, were Abbas to agree to terms acceptable to Israel (i.e., to compromise, which he hasn't done at all), he isn't strong enough to implement anything. Not only is Hamas breathing down his neck, he has no power within his own Fatah party.


A discontented Palestinian leaked a draft of the proposed agreement to Haaretz because he was dissatisfied that the PA team wasn't demanding enough, e.g., removing the security fence. The document reflects some of the major disagreements that exist:

A defined timetable for ending negotiations. Israel is opposed to this. The Palestinians want some time between eight months and the end of Bush's term.

Differences on when a monitoring committee to oversee implementation of the Road Map would be established and who would have final say on when a requirement of the roadmap had been fulfilled. The US wishes to assume that responsibility; this is a horror as we know how much slack the Americans cut the Palestinians.

The issue of what the "terms of reference" are with regard to negotiations. "Terms of reference" means previous treaties or agreements on which negotiations will be based. This is a big one. For example, the PA wants to include UN resolution 194, which the Palestinians claim (without true legal justification -- if you want more on this, please ask) gives the refugees the right to "return" to Israel.

The Palestinians have rejected some additions that Israel sought: The first, and most significant, refers to two states with "each people in their own territory: Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people and Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people."

This is related, once again, to the issue of refugees. If Palestine is where Palestinians belong, they don't "return" to Israel.

Olmert had made a statement about how there will be no negotiations if the PA won't recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. And yet Olmert is proceeding. This is part of what's sick.

Second, in the phrase in the document that the Palestinians will bring "an end to incitement, extremism and violence," Israel wanted to add "terrorism" and the PA refused. What does this tell us, pray tell?

Israel wanted to put in something about "securing the release of Gilad Shalit" and the PA refused here too.

There are other issues as well: The Palestinians want to include eastern Jerusalem in all statements about the West Bank; this is not the Israeli position. They also want all prisoners released once an agreement is signed.

Then Israel raises the question of how to deal with Gaza. This major sticking point is just one more reason why negotiations at this time are ludicrous. Who does Abbas represent? Is there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians or Israel and only those Palestinians in Judea and Samaria?


So, why are Rice and Bush persisting? Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal the other day, quotes Kissinger, who once observed, "when enough prestige has been invested in a policy it is easier to see it fail than abandon it."

Caroline Glick, in her Friday column, discusses other theories -- all of which we've heard at one time or another. The reason most commonly advanced is that Rice is willing to sacrifice Israel in the hopes of mobilizing a coalition of moderate Sunni states who, pleased with what is being done for the Palestinians, will support the US on Iran. Another supposition is that Rice and Bush hope to garner public support for their efforts. Then there is the notion that Rice and Bush may be trying to secure their legacies as peace makers (Clinton was motivated by this) -- so that even if there is failure they will be remembered as having made the strongest possible effort to bring peace.

Glick debunks all of these reasons. Says she:

"So then there is no good excuse for the Bush administration's decision to embrace the Palestinians at Israel's expense. It all comes down to Bush and Rice not thinking through the consequences of their moves.

"It is a singular tragedy that Israel's elected leaders are too weak to make them understand that by harming Israel they are harming the United States and making fools of themselves."

(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546703899&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).


I am vastly uneasy about a decision by the members of the Arab League on Friday to attend Annapolis. They had had serious reservations and it looked as if they would not attend.

Khaled Abu Toameh has written that these nations will attend, but reluctantly, and with great hesitation as to what will transpire. In fact, some of the Arab nations had been trying to convince the US that this was the wrong time for such a conference. Originally they had said that they would come only if there was a timetable for negotiations and Israel committed to full withdrawal prior to the conference. What worries me the most is what off-the-record promises Olmert may have given, or what effect the major Arab presence will have on Olmert's willingness to concede even more in Annapolis.

Toameh quotes Abdel Bari Atwan, the "savvy editor" of the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi : "All these demands have been dropped, one after the other, in the wake of American pressure on the Arabs...The Arabs are being dragged to this conference with their eyes wide open, because the word 'no' does not exist in their dealings with the US administration."

Well, I wonder about this. That the US has clout, for sure. But we've seen plenty of instances in which the Arab world has flouted express US wishes. Toameh refers to something else that is part of the Arab concern. There are deep divisions within the Arab world, and the Arabs were worried that Bush and Rice were seeking to exploit these to form that anti-Iran coalition. They've decided, therefore, to attend as a bloc, and to respond as a bloc. This seems, then, less a caving to US pressure and more an attempt to defend against that pressure. And it totally defeats any notion that Rice and Bush have about strengthening their position via this conference.

Actually, they're playing with fire. Atwan, cited above, further wrote: "The failure of Annapolis will lead to an all-out explosion in the Arab world, especially if the purpose of the conference is to provide cover-up for US plans to deal a military strike to Iran or Syria or Hamas or Hezbollah."


Hamas has said it will increase "resistance operations" (terrorism) after the conference.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 23, 2007.

"The Arab leadership refused to accept the partition plan in 1947 and opted, instead, for military annihilation of the Jews. Their plan failed and the State of Israel was born, with the Jews carving out a more favorable map for themselves by military means."

This was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared in Arutz Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) In the course of recent negotiations, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asked the head of the Palestinian Authority's negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), to accept Israel as a Jewish state, reminding him that it was accepted as such by UN Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, for the partition of the Land of Israel.

According to Ahmed Tibi, a member of Israel's Knesset who used to be an aide to PLO founder Yasser Arafat, Abu Ala answered: "let us implement [Resolution] 181 first and we shall talk." Tibi recorded the exchange in an article he wrote for Arab newspaper Kul el-Arab.

Amru Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League said late Thursday night that the Arab countries will not offer Israel "normalization for free."

"There is no such thing as normalization for free," Moussa told reporters after a meeting of 11 Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo. The Arab League countries were invited by the U.S. to participate in the Annapolis summit next week. "Arabs are going to participate in the (Annapolis) meeting, to show support for the Palestinians, based on the Arab peace initiative," he explained.

UN Partition Plan, 1947 (Resolution 181).

UN Resolution 181 delineated a two state solution for Jews and Arabs west of the Jordan river. Both states were to be joined by an economic union and share joint currency. The resolution declared that Arabs and Jews would become "citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights" and that Arabs living in the Jewish state could opt, within one year from the date of the resolution's implementation, for citizenship of the Arab state, and Jews living in the Arab state could opt for citizenship of the Jewish state.

Demilitarized Jerusalem Under the UN

The Jewish State was to receive the eastern Galilee from the Hulah Basin and the Sea of Galilee in the northeast to the crest of the Gilboa mountains in the south. The Jewish section of the coastal plain "extends from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza Sub-District and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State." The Jews were also to receive the Negev area, but without the city of Beersheva, and a strip of land along the Dead Sea.

The City of Jerusalem was to be demilitarized and placed under a special international regime, to be administered by the United Nations through a "trusteeship council."

The Arab leadership refused to accept the partition plan in 1947 and opted, instead, for military annihilation of the Jews. Their plan failed and the State of Israel was born, with the Jews carving out a more favorable map for themselves by military means.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Matthew S. Finberg, November 23, 2007.

Darn it folks, follow the money! America's vital security interest is its relatively unimpeded access to oil which will only continue if it cooperates with Saudi Arabia as it has since early in the 20th Century. It was then that Ibn Saud aided by Jack Philby became America's real best friend in the Middle East when they cut deals with Standard Oil New Jersey, Standard Oil California, and Texaco (also known as the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Intelligence Agencies).

The Saudi Plan for Israel in play for several years now calls for exactly what Rice is pushing. The State of Israel has been an insult to Islam and a rock in America's shoe since 1948. Please see the DVD film Farewell Israel and read the book The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus for corroboration. Israel must be prepared to stand alone and trust no nation, for oil is supreme to them; only in G-d should we trust. We are being sold out again just as we were in the 1956 Sinai Operation, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. You cannot help but see that all of the players are behaving logically, consistent with their true agendas, once you drop your filters of political correctness, moral relativity, and fantasy that U.S. foreign policy is pro-Israel. See and accept the true Western and oil producing nations' objectives. Although many Americans support Israel, the Government does not and rarely has. Israel will be at war with the Ishmaelites until we soundly defeat them and declare our sovereignty over all the the Land of Israel on Jewish terms. As long as America remains attachmed to the Saudi oil teat, Uncle Sam will do what is necessary to assure that its national security related to oil dependence will not be compromised. It would be treasonous to do otherwise. Understand this well, accept it as our reality, and let's conduct ourselves accordingly. Shabbat Shalom.

This is called "American folly" and it was written by Caroline Glick. It appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post.

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile."

On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.

The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

As the draft document makes clear, Israel is trying to avoid committing itself to anything at Annapolis. For their part, the Palestinians are trying to force Israel's hand by tying it to diplomatic formulas that presuppose an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called "right of return" or free immigration of foreign Arabs to Israel.

The Palestinians are also trying to take away Israel's right to determine for itself whether to trust the Palestinians and continue making diplomatic and security concessions or not by making it the responsibility of outside parties to decide the pace of the concessions and whether or not the Palestinians should be trusted.

As the leaked draft document shows, the Americans have sided with the Palestinians against Israel. Specifically, the Americans have taken for themselves the sole right to judge whether or not the Palestinians and the Israelis are abiding by their commitments and whether and at what pace the negotiations will proceed.

But the Americans have shown themselves to be unworthy of Israel's trust. By refusing to acknowledge Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party's direct involvement in terrorism and indeed the direct involvement of his official Fatah "security forces" in terrorism, the Americans have shown that their benchmarks for Palestinian compliance with their commitments to Israel are not necessarily based on the reality on the ground. Then too, the US demands for wide-ranging Israeli security concessions to the Palestinians even before the "peace" conference at Annapolis have shown that Israel's security is of little concern to the State Department.

IDF sources blame the shooting murder of Ido Zoldan on Monday night by Fatah terrorists on Israel's decision to bow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's demand to take down 24 security roadblocks in Judea and Samaria. If it hadn't been for US pressure, they say, it is quite possible that the 29-year-old father of two small children would be alive today.

But this is of no concern for Washington. As Rice has made clear repeatedly, the US wants to see "signs of progress." Since the Palestinians are taking no action against terror and doing nothing to lessen their society's jihadist fervor, the only way to achieve "signs of progress" is by forcing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. And so that is exactly what Rice and her associates are doing.

Rice is able to force Israel to accept her demands because she faces the weakest Israeli leaders the country has ever produced. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are all incapable of standing up to the Americans or even arguing with them. Olmert's and Livni's weakness has been apparent since their mishandling of the war with Hizbullah last summer and their negotiations over the cease-ire agreement with Rice. For his part, throughout his brief and disastrous tenure as prime minister, Barak behaved as though he were then president Bill Clinton's employee.

BUT IF Olmert's, Livni's and Barak's willingness to compromise their nation's security is a function of their weakness, what explains Rice's and Bush's behavior? Why are they weakening Israel and pushing for the establishment of yet another Middle Eastern terror state? What US interest do they think they are advancing by acting as they are? Over the past several weeks, a number of theories have been raised to explain their behavior. The most frequent explanation is that Rice and Bush are championing Palestinian statehood at Israel's expense in a bid to mobilize a coalition of Sunni Arab states to cooperate with the US against Iran.

According to this theory, if Annapolis is seen as a success, then the Arab states will be convinced that the US is worth supporting on Iran. This theory has several flaws. First, as the US's treatment of Israel makes clear, success in Annapolis involves weakening Israel whose destruction Iran seeks and empowering the Palestinians whom Iran supports. This means that far from weakening Iran, success at Annapolis advances Iran's interests.

But beyond that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by convening the conference next week, the Bush administration has directly empowered Iran. Today the determination of whether the administration emerges unscathed or humiliated from Annapolis is entirely in Iran's hands. Iran will decide whether the conference opens and closes peacefully or whether it is convened as Lebanon is submerged in civil war by Iran's proxies Syria and Hizbullah.

According to the Lebanese constitution, Saturday is the last day on which a new Lebanese president can be elected. Lebanon's president must be elected by two-thirds of the members of Lebanon's parliament. Through their campaign of assassination, Syria and Hizbullah have taken away the two-thirds majority that anti-Syrian forces won in the 2005 elections. As a result, Hizbullah has veto power over the election. And so far, Iran and Syria have refused to allow Hizbullah to back any candidate. This is the case despite the anti-Syrian majority's willingness to support a pro-Syrian presidential candidate.

Due to the Iranian-Syrian induced impasse, today there are two possible scenarios for what may happen in the next few days in Lebanon. Either Iran and Syria will allow elections to take place and an agent of their regimes and Hizbullah will take over the presidency, or elections will not take place and two governments -- one anti-Syrian under Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and one pro-Syrian -- will be formed. The pro-Syrian government will be supported by Hizbullah and the Lebanese army. The anti-Syrian government will be supported by Christian, Sunni and Druse militias. A civil war will ensue. Syria, Hizbullah and Iran will win.

In a bid to induce the first scenario, Bush has been lobbying every leader he can think of to appeal to Teheran and Damascus to relent and allow elections to go through. To this end, he even asked their primary arms supplier Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene. Olmert's decision to allow Fatah security forces to receive 25 advanced Russian armored personnel carriers in spite of IDF objections was no doubt a consequence of Bush's appeal to Putin for help.

If the Americans believe the key to countering Iran is to build an anti-Iranian Arab coalition, the crisis in Lebanon shows just how futile their efforts are. Just as the Sunni Arab states oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, so they oppose Iranian control over Lebanon. Yet in spite of this, they have done nothing to prevent Iran and its proxies from taking control of the country. To the contrary, the Saudis have encouraged the Siniora government to support pro-Syrian candidates for the presidency.

So if the administration has decided to embrace the Palestinians as a means of weakening Iran, its decision is wrong on three counts. First, given Iran's support for the Palestinians, empowering them against Israel simply advances Iran's interest. Second, the Annapolis conference has become a hostage of Iranian goodwill which is non-existent. And finally, even if it were formed, an anti-Iranian Arab coalition would be powerless to check Iran's power.

EVEN THOUGH the summit at Annapolis weakens the US's position vis-à-vis Iran, it might still make sense for Bush and Rice to support Palestinian statehood if doing so enhanced public support for the administration.. But the opposite is occurring. Bush's and Rice's seeming obsession with Palestinian statehood is being criticized from all sides of the aisle.

Critics on the left like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and former Clinton negotiator and Palestinian apologist Robert Malley have expressed mystification at the administration's insistent advance of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians when there is no chance that those negotiations will bring peace. So too, over the past few weeks, four Republican presidential candidates -- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson -- have criticized Bush's and Rice's Palestinian policies generally and the convening of the conference at Annapolis in particular.

There is also the theory that the pair's primary concern in pushing for Palestinian statehood is their legacies. Rice's stated intention of seeing a Palestinian state declared before Bush leaves office lends weight to this view. But of course, given that the maximum that Israel is willing to concede to the Palestinians is less than the minimum that the Palestinians are willing to accept, and given that the Olmert government will be brought down if Olmert agrees to any major concessions, it is clear that there is no chance that Rice will succeed.

Finally there is the thought that Rice and Bush understand that there is no chance of achieving peace, but that they think that their legacies will be strengthened just for having tried. After all, Bill Clinton is remembered well for his attempts to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians in spite of the fact that his attempts brought war rather than peace. But Clinton's example is no longer applicable because the conditions under which Clinton pursued peace were far different than those that exist today.

Clinton's peace policies caused a war that began only at the end of his presidency. Until then, they seemed like relatively safe and cost-free moves. On the other hand, Bush's presidency has occurred in its entirety against the backdrop of the Palestinian jihad. Every attempt he has made at peacemaking, from the Tenet Plan through the road map and Sharm e-Sheikh and onto Annapolis, has been blown apart through violence before it could get off the ground.

So then there is no good excuse for the Bush administration's decision to embrace the Palestinians at Israel's expense. It all comes down to Bush and Rice not thinking through the consequences of their moves.

It is a singular tragedy that Israel's elected leaders are too weak to make them understand that by harming Israel, they are harming the United States and making fools of themselves.

Contact Matthew Finberg at matt@finberglaw.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 23, 2007.

This was written by Hugh Fitzgerald and it appeared today on Jihad Watch

Egypt is a corrupt country out of control. By permitting successive governments to count on American support, the viciousness and corruption are allowed to continue without any consequences. From 1882 to 1922, the British brought some semblance of efficiency and a reduction of corruption to the Egyptian Civil Service. Even when they left, the experience of their presence, the English presence, and obvious Western power and civilizational superiority, allowed for signs of secularism. Few women, for example, wore a hijab in Egyptian cities in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s. And advanced Egyptians, conscious of being "Egyptian" and not "Arab," sought (vainly) to find a way to "reform" Islam; Abduh and Afghani had not yet been challenged, and overwhelmed by, the Muslim Brotherhood. But the ancien regime of fat Farouk came to an end when Gamal Abdel Nasser and Naguib and the other colonels arrived on the scene. There was the famous rioting against Jews, Copts, and Europeans, in Alexandria. Almost overnight, Greeks, Italians, Jews, and many others who had lived there had their property stolen by the Egyptians, who called it "nationalization." The Egyptian Muslims who ran everything took billions of dollars in property, the fruit in some cases of family entrepreneurial activity that had gone on for a century or more.

Following Nasser was Saint Sadat: the same Sadat imprisoned by the British for his pro-Nazi activities during World War II. He had been a loyalist of the intolerable Nasser, whose pan-Arabism, like all pan-Arabism, has been traditionally presented in the West as an alternative to Islam, hostile to Islam and its goals. It is true that both Nasser, and Saddam Hussein, the two most famous despots with ambitions to be leaders with pan-Arab appeal, were often described, inaccurately, as "secularists" because the opposition that most concerned each was mosque-based: in the case of Nasser, the Muslim Brotherood; in the case of Saddam Hussein, Shi'a mosques of the Shi'a majority opposed to his Sunni despotism. And each dealt with his respective political opponents with wonted ruthlessness. But Pan-Arabism should more accurately be seen as a subset, a limited version with more modest initial goals -- today Arabdom, tomorrow the world. And since Islam is a vehicle for Arab imperialism, pan-Arabism means, necessarily, promotion of Islam, and vice-versa. The goal of a unified Arab state, the goal that Nasser was said to embody, was merely a way-station on the path -- fi sabil Allah -- to spreading Islam until it, and therefore the Arabs (the "best of peoples") would everywhere dominate. Pan-Arabism was not, as so many wrong-headed analysts would have it, a movement hostile to Islam or to what is often called, misleadingly, "pan-Islamism" (which is merely the geopolitical dimension of mainstream Islam).

Jimmy Carter rewarded Saint Sadat for deigning to accept all of the Sinai -- territory that morally Egypt had no right to receive back yet again. Egypt, after all, had lost in a war of aggression started when Nasser demanded that U Thant pull out the U.N. peacekeepers, and then proceeded to block the Straits of Tiran in May 1967. Yet Carter rewarded Sadat and Egypt with nearly $2 billion a year in American foreign aid -- which foreign aid became automatic, a tribute never to be interrupted, in other words, Jizyah. After Saint Sadat died, possibly in his dubious honor, the American government continued to give Egypt huge amounts of aid.

This was essentially a bribe to get the Egyptians to pretend, minimally, to be living up to the Camp David Accords, imposed by Carter and Brzezinksi on the hapless Begin and his equally hapless associates. There was no need to bribe Egypt. It was getting quite enough with Israel's scrupulous handover, in three closely-timed tranches, of the entire Sinai, which Egypt did not deserve, and which Israel had been under no obligation to hand back. "Defensible and secure borders" under Resolution 242 -- itself a doubtful matter -- would certainly have included a large part of the Sinai, perhaps the same large part that only became part of Egypt, remember, in the 1920s.

But the Americans, Americans such as Carter, have for a half-century at the State Department mismanaged America's relations with Muslim Arab countries, and above all with the sinister Al-Saud who claim ownership of Saudi Arabia. They have failed completely to have understood Islam as any Western scholar of Islam, in the days before the Great Inhibition, would have understood it, or as John Wesley, John Quincy Adams, Alexis De Tocqueville, Winston Churchill, and a great many other important figures in the Western world grasped the nature of Islam. These men of the West grasped the nature and menace of Islam. Some (Churchill) had seen Muslim society though they never lived in Dar al-Islam, because they were very learned and very intelligent, and had wide experience of men and events. And others, who grew up within Dar al-Islam but managed to escape to the West, and in the free West were able to develop their thoughts more clearly, to compare the West with what they had known, and further, to express their thoughts even though murderous attempts are made to frighten and silence them. We know their names, added to every day: Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and so many other articulate defectors from the Army of Islam.

Long-suffering American taxpayers have given Egypt, a country that is not "our friend" and not "our ally" and because of Islam never can be "our friend" or "our ally," more than $60 billion. For that we have received nothing in return. Egypt remains a despotism. Egypt is one of the most anti-American and anti-Western countries in the world today. Egypt remains a world center of antisemitism, and all of those solemn commitments made by the Egyptian government about improving relations with Israel, about ceasing hostile propaganda toward Israel, and so on, have never, not in the slightest way, been honored. The agreement has always been a fraud and a farce, and yet neither the government of Israel nor the government of the United States has dared to call it that.

If there is an absence of open warfare between Egypt and Israel, that is only because there is the same absence of open warfare between Israel and Saudi Arabia, or Israel and Iraq. That is, the peace, narrowly defined, is kept only because of the perceived power of the IDF, and not for any other reason.

Time to end the disguised Jizyah of aid to malevolent Egypt, which behind the scenes is also running interference for the government in Khartoum, and to force Egypt to ask the rich Arabs for money. They can afford it. They are getting billions of dollars every single day, without lifting a finger. They can spare just a day's revenues, can't they, for Egypt, and those Egyptian members of the Umma?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2007.


Minorities are challenging national sovereignty, destabilizing many countries and promoting revolution. (Weakened states can't stop terrorists from setting up bases.)

The new movement is neither patriotic nor domestic, like the American civil rights movement. It is prompted by foreign interests such as S. Arabia and the UAE.

The Muslims demand special privileges. They attempt to set up independent states within their countries (when there are enough of them to take a formidable stand.)

What is the logical response to the Islamic challenge? Governments should enforce the law against individual miscreants and their movements. They also should try to turn responsible members of the minority against the seditious movement among them.

What countries pursued the logical response? Australia. The others attempted to appease the Islamists. That is like throwing fuel on the fire.

Britain appointed Islamists to advise on counter-revolutionary measures. The US taught FBI agents "sensitivity." France asked foreign Islamists for permission to ban certain Islamic dress in France. Holland expelled an anti-Islamist parliamentarian born in Indonesia. Each government criticizes any defensive measures by the others. Europe criticized the US's Patriot Act. The US criticized France's proposed ban on the hijab in schools. The US calls for Muslim-only states, in Kosovo and the P.A., at the expense of states targeted by jihadists. The US would insist, however, that Israel retain its million Muslims, although the example of Islamists having won sovereignty in the P.A. would further radicalize them. Kosovo is criminal and jihadist and destroyed 150 churches; Serbia has become democratic and tolerant (IMRA, 11/13 from Caroline Glick).


Former US officials set up this task force (IMRA, 11/13).

I bet they ignore the likely genocide against Israel from further abandonment of Jewish territory to the Muslims and the decades of Muslim Arab and now Iranian calls for genocide against the Jews.


Min. of Culture Majadle, Israel's first Muslim Cabinet minister, condones the destruction of Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount. He admits he signed an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel, but says that his primary allegiance is to Islam, and that Islam has sovereignty over the Temple Mount, not Israel (IMRA, 11/14). So much for attempts to integrate Muslim Arabs into Israel! Enough of that foolishness!


A Hizbullah sympathizer from Lebanon admitted that she faked a marriage to an American, in order to gain US citizenship. She became an FBI agent and a CIA analyst. She illicitly trolled government files and leaked intelligence to Hizbullah.

Prosecutors are asking that she be sentenced to 16 years. Let us see how her actual sentence for aiding an enemy of the US compares with Jonathan Pollard's life-without-parole sentence for aiding an ally of the US (Arutz-7, 11/14).

The FBI harasses Jewish employees and the government rejects expert Jewish translators of Arabic, but hires Muslims, some of whom have betrayed the government.


Google will not censor websites that defame ethnic groups, unless governments order it to. Google believes in freedom of the press (Arutz-7, 11/14).

So do I. One flaw in Google's standard, if I recall, is that some governments order it to repress websites that oppose their dictatorships. China is a major example. (If it weren't Google, then it was another internet service provider.)

Another flaw is not really Google's but the Western governments' failure to declare a war against Islamist ideology and identify all the websites that support that ideology. All should be banned, because they help indoctrinate, leading to recruitment and fundraising. Same goes for Islamist TV. Other sites engage directly in terrorist training and planning.


At Haifa U., Arab students were demanding national (i.e., Arab) "rights" in Israel. A mob of them attacked Jewish students who were flying an Israeli flag (Areutz-7, 11/14).

What is Israel doing, educating its enemies, and by "affirmative action," no less?


An Arab clan was forced out of its village in the P.A. for criminal activity. IT sneaked into Jerusalem and squatted on a Jew's property, 15 years ago. He sued to evict. First police demanded payment to evict. Knesset overrode that demand. Then police found other excuses. Then the Arabs' lawyer found excuses. Now the owner is demanding that the clan be prosecuted for illegal entry (Arutz-7, 11/14).

It's easier to be an enemy of Israel in Israel than to be a loyal Jew.


The US is asking Israel, and only Israel, for sacrificial concessions, in actuality or in principle, before the conference that is supposed only to discuss the issues. It really is the State Department's way of babying Israel along to destruction by pressuring it to make a commitment, and pressuring it to keep the commitment, however suicidal and however repudiated by the Israeli public. And the US talks about democratic rule? It imposes its own views upon Israel, not leaving it to the Israeli people. The State Dept. expects the government of Israel not to allow democratic rule. Israel meets those expectations.

Bad enough to ask Israel for concessions for a peace contract or treaty. But it is improper to ask for concessions before mere discussions. It also is ridiculous to ask the victor to make concessions to the aggressors.

Why does the US do it? There must be several reasons. The State Dept. always was anti-Zionist. The type of Evangelical religion of Rice and Bush is anti-Zionist. US officials seem to think they can appease the Muslims by sacrificing Israel. Their hope for success from appeasement never seems to dim from its constant failure. The price of that failure has been as high as world war, but the US does not learn the lesson.


The West still deals with the East as if it were the West. Diplomats and journalists still discuss the Arab-Israel negotiations as if the objective were to come to terms and as if that settles issues. Since the Muslims are obdurate, the West pressures Israel to make concessions. That entrenches Islamic obduracy.

Rice, who wants to sacrifice Israel, does not ask, are the terms fair, the Muslims likely to honor them, and the issues likely to be solved. (No, no, no.) Shouldn't journalists ask?


I've relayed reports of half a dozen ways by which Mayor Bloomberg and his Chancellor have skewed statistics in order to claim major advances in education. They were crowned recently when a national test showed that New York City students have made no significant advances since Bloomberg took office.

When the State, which has an interest in finding advances, made up the tests, and the City was in charge of the tests, some of the statistics rose suspiciously, but they rose. Most reporters accepted them without smelling the stink behind them. The national test, however, is standardized for all states. That test did not show New York State gaining.

Much of Bloomberg's national reputation rests on his false claims in education. We must remain skeptical of politicians citing statistics.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 23, 2007.

This was written by Natan Sharansky and it appeared today in Ha'aretz
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927233.html). Mr. Sharensky is head of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center.

One of the high points at which the drama could have turned into a farce within seconds occurred nine years ago at the Wye Plantation summit. After exhausting and debilitating efforts, we received from Yasser Arafat a promise (even if half-hearted and unwilling) to delete from the Palestinian Charter the sections calling for the destruction of Israel.

Upon leaving the conference room, we saw one of the closest advisers of President Bill Clinton and proudly told him about our achievement.

"Are you out of your minds?" he shouted. "He's going to be killed because of that. He is too weak for dramatic steps like that. First he has to be strengthened!"

I recalled this tragicomic story a few days ago as I was talking with a player from the international elements engaged in building up the destroyed Palestinian economy. When I asked him why they weren't making aid to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) contingent on stopping the anti-Israeli incitement on the official television channel and in the Palestinian education system, he replied, "Abu Mazen is so weak, and this is not a popular step. First of all, it is necessary to strengthen him and afterward it will be possible to demand something of him."

I have never understood this strange reasoning: First strengthen the weak leader, by giving legitimization to anti-Israeli actions that he allows (or encourages, and sometimes even operates) and then, once the anti-Israeli positions have made him popular, expect that he will suddenly change his spots and lead his people determinedly toward the desired peace.

This distorted approach has become a kind of sacred cow. "We must strengthen Abu Mazen," say Israel's leaders as a kind of mantra. It is of no importance that along the way they are educating another generation of Palestinians to hatred, violence and the aspiration to destroy Israel. It is of no importance that the way to the strengthening is the diametric opposite of peace and dialogue. The main thing is that we are strengthening Abu Mazen.

The old argument of President Shimon Peres and Meretz MK Yossi Beilin and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on "with whom to make peace, a strong leader or a weak leader" is no longer relevant. A look back over the years since the Oslo Accords shows clearly that the direction in which Palestinian society has marched is not the direction of peace. It was all in all just a hudna (truce) before another intifada. And when the society is becoming more extreme, what difference is it to us if the leader is strong or weak?

It is true that to carry out courageous reforms and educate the people to peace, a strong and bold leader is needed. Leaders like that, who understand the need for education toward peace and reforms, do exist -- but not in the Muqata in Ramallah. These are people who are not afraid to challenge the tyranny of the weak leader and who believe in building a civil society as a necessary foundation for any progress on the road to peace.

As chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies, I meet them quite frequently. It is true that they are weak, but for one reason only: We ourselves are weakening them by giving unreserved support to "moderate" tyrants. The justification that support for these troublemakers weakens the only element that is capable of stopping Hamas doesn't hold water: It is precisely the strengthening of an antidemocratic regime and the absence of an alternative that are pushing the public into the arms of fundamentalists, into the arms of Hamas. Annapolis is doomed to failure not because we or the Palestinians have not made enough concessions -- it is doomed to failure because it is built on distorted reasoning to the effect that it is possible to move ahead and make a deal with some leader and totally ignore what is really happening in Palestinian society. In this, to our regret, Annapolis has become another tragifarcical Middle Eastern scene.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 23, 2007.

Any Jew (American) or Israeli (Jew) who bows to Arab demands without raising a counter-demand such as: all Arabs must return to where they were, in, let's say, 1930, is a damfool. No, worse, he or she is too stupid a fool to be spared public humiliation and a well-justified flogging. The more Israel bows to Condi's demands, the more both the US and Israel appear to be unprincipled, corrupt, and too weak to stand up to the greedy, whining Saudis.

Tell Olmert to strap on his balls. He should be parroting Islamic propaganda and shoving it back in their fat-nosed faces instead of furrowing his brow and weeping. If he cannot stand up to Condi and if he crumbles without insisting upon the Arab invaders meeting Israel's demands (not for peace, but for large chunks of land, preferable located on the Arabian Peninsula) you will know he is what people refer to as the "fleeing Jew"-- the stereotype of the Jew who runs away with a few coins sewed in his hem.

We are the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion. We are not poisoned by "political correctness".

We believe that Condi Rice, who is aligned with Aramco, is deliberately "pc" because the Saudis make it worth her while. We believe Condi thinks she's so winsome that people will forget her Arabist affiliations. But we don't, and we won't. Because we are not politically correct; because we don't take handouts from the Saudis; or any other oily state. We stand by our nation, the USA, and we strongly support the Patriots of Israel who arej battling against Islamic imperialism. It is our opinion that Americans who take gifts, spiffs, flattery, and

praise from the Saudis are not loyal to our nation. It's as simple as that. And it is our opinion that Jimmy Carter has been and is disloyal to our nation by reason of his taking Saudi and UAE handouts. He is the first X-POTUS to eat $millions from the Saudi dog-bowl and shouldn't be trusted.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 23, 2007.

You have your choice as to who plays the "pimp" and who is the "dolly".

It has been reported that Saudi Arabia has accepted Condoleezza Rice's invitation to be present as a witness at the Israeli execution.

To hear it from the Media pundits, this is already the historical heritage legacy of Bush and Rice in their exit strategy. Either the Media have gone brain dead or they are so wedded to the "Let's Bash Israel" crowd that they cannot speak even one truth.

They all have the list of attendees which is like a meeting of the Mafia godfathers and their thugs. Not one would have shown up unless the whining, sniveling leader of Israel had not been properly whipped into place by Rice to cave in on all the issues. We have watched the Pimp of Peace, Ehud Olmert grovel and wet his pants on command.

He has just ordered the release of 441 convicted Terrorists, without even asking for the return of Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the body of Ron Arad and the release of Jonathan Pollard. [As Shabbat approaches, we don't know if they have been actually released to jump-start the retreat he plans at Annapolis, or not.]

It's hard to find an expression sufficiently low which describes a leader who sells out Israel at every opportunity.

Do you think Saudi Arabia, the Arab League, Syria would bother to show up without the total collapse of Olmert with an insidious betrayal of his nation? Will that keep Olmert out of jail for all the investigations into his criminal activities now under investigation?

There is not one nation invited to this Kangaroo Court proceeding who does not either virtually hate the Jewish State or feels they must genuflect to the Muslim/Arab oil-producing nations. It is as ugly a gang-bang as Bush and Rice could possible arrange. Trusting these two, with their respective backgrounds to Big Oil is like sleeping with rattlesnakes, trusting they will not bite.

This is a shameful display of Presidential Administration and State Department arrogance when it come to believing in America's truthfulness. Note! I do not refer to the great American people and the Congress who have long been friends of and supportive to the only democratic ally America has in the Middle East. No, I refer only to the oil cabal, the Administration, the Arabist State Department who Americans allow to skulk around Washington like a "Shadow Government", cutting deals too shameful to mention.

The Left Liberal Media has been artfully avoiding describing the pedigree of the Rice invitees. They are a scurrilous bunch of nations for the most part, who can be gathered only out of the garbage can of the U.N., the E.U., the Arab League -- to include most countries who line up as nation prostitutes for Big Oil.

The Media refuse to make these countries' rap sheets public, hoping, like the participants that the sacrifice of Israel will clear the blotter. Somehow, nations like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, all of the Arab League, and Yes, even Iran will all go straight after the Rice sacrifice to the blood god Molech, otherwise known as Allah.

I fear that America will pay a terrible price for the perfidy and betrayal by Rice and Bush at this upcoming Lynching of Israel.

But, regrettably the people of Israel and the Jews around the world will pay an even greater price for allowing this Quisling Olmert to remain in office. He and his supporters are as are as ugly a group of bandits as have every gathered to savage their own people. There will be a lot of sniveling about "Why didn't we tear him from his throne when we had the chance?"

The Knesset could have put Olmert out of his (our) misery by closing down the government but, their paychecks and perks were too much to give up. Hopefully, it will not be the Israeli people under the rain of missiles coming from Syria, Fatah, Hamas, Hezb'Allah but rather those who brought it upon the nation.

Israel is being tested by G-d. If Israelis want sovereignty in their own State, they will throw Olmert onto the garbage dump of Israel along with Rice and Bush. If not, they will be thrown from the Land G-d gave the Jews in perpetuity (G-d forbid), into another final Diaspora. Once again they will intone "Next Year in Jerusalem" but, I doubt if G-d will give them the privilege or the miracle again which they have ignored in our return to our ancient homeland.

I feel certain that the Muslims who pretend to be the friends of Bush and Rice will make their hatred felt in American cities. Only then will the sluggards of the Media suddenly discover that the Arab Muslims and their Koranic ideology mean to either enslave us all to Sharia (strict Islamic) Law or simply to kill as many Americans as they can. Will the Americans -- like the President -- say: "We should have known!"?

The hanging tree in years to come will be known as "Annapolis" bringing shame and dishonor to the U.S. Naval Academy.

I end with the comment by the longshoreman philosopher, Eric Hoffer who said in 1968: "We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely upon us....I have a premonition that will not leave me: as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us." (1)


1. "Israel's Peculiar Position" by Eric Hoffer L.A. Time May 26, 1968

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, November 23, 2007.

One of the great myths that pervades theories about the future of Israel is the "demographic demon", so described by Benjamin Netanyahu in A Place Among The Nations (1993). Armed with spurious "facts" and dubious predictions, both right-wing and left-wing advocates have issued many predictions: Arabs will soon outnumber Jews "from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean"; the "one state solution" will eradicate the Jewish State; West Bank Arabs must be transferred to maintain the Jewish majority; Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in Israel; Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in Jerusalem; etc.

Regardless of actual demographic facts, dangerous scenarios are being scripted which have devastating consequences for Israel. A perfect example of Jews swallowing anti-Zionist demographic (and political) propaganda is Prime Minister Olmert's comments in the run-up to the ill-advised Annapolis conference: "[Yesterday] Olmert said that Israel needed to take advantage of such an opportunity [Annapolis] to create a Palestinian state in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel and 'avoid ending up like South Africa.'" (Jerusalem Post, Nov. 13)

Netanyahu's book (written before his tenure as prime minister) is brilliant, in unfortunate contrast to his performance as Israel's top statesman. In his chapter "The Demographic Demon", Netanyahu detailed the population statistics about the Zionist endeavor in Palestine. In 1896, at the start of modern Zionism, the ratio of Arabs to Jews in Palestine was ten to one. By the 1920s, the ratio was reduced to six to one. In 1947, when the Jews accepted the UN Partition Plan (and the Arabs rejected it and went to war), the ratio stood at two to one. In the period after the Six Day War of 1967, the ratio in Israel was two to one in favor of the Jews. As of 2006, Jews outnumbered Arabs by nearly four to one in Israel and have grown 900% in 100 years.

Besides a period of unequaled immigration of Jews and emigration of Palestinian Arabs, the Jewish birthrate has been increasing while the Arab birthrate has decreased. When Netanyahu's book came out, the Jewish birthrate had been 2.7 children per family (cpf) for a number of years. But in recent years, the figure has climbed to 2.9 cpf. This is by far the highest birthrate among Western nations.

The Arabs in Israel exhibit a different trend from the Jews. Christian Arabs, a small minority who are decreasing yearly due to Muslim pressure, already have a cpf less than Israeli Jews. The Muslim cpf has declined from 4.7 to 4 in this decade. A similar decline in cpf has occurred in the West Bank -- 5.0 to 4.2, and in Gaza -- 6.5 to 5.6. (Israel Bureau of Statistics)

What accounts for the rising Jewish fertility rate and the declining Muslim one? Jewish Israelis obviously have an optimistic outlook, more so (by this measure, at least) than any other prosperous, developed country. While the fertility rate is high partly because of very large ultra-Orthodox families, the typical Jewish family has three children. Will these trends continue?

Netanyahu addresses the unreliability of forecasting the future from current demographic trends. In 1967, Dr. Yehuda Dan predicted an equalization of population in Israel-Palestine within 14 years. In 1974, Israeli demographers Friedlander and Goldscheider predicted that Jews would be in the minority by 2000. In 1978, demographer Zvi Eisenbach agreed, reducing the time period to "soon". In 1987, the dean of Israeli demographers, Sergio Della Pergola, basically agreed with the certainty of an inevitable Jewish minority, announcing that there would be no major wave of Jewish immigration (three years before the surge from the Soviet Union!). Controversial professor Arnon Sofer, quoted by me in my article "200 Years War", agreed with Della Pergola, terming a large aliyah [immigration] of up to 170,000 people an unexpected miracle. (A million Soviets came in the first half of the 1990s.)

Netanyahu thinks that demographers treat people something like rubber balls, predicting the future from the present trajectories, assuming that what happened yesterday will continue tomorrow. But Netanyahu sees the possibility of change in human behavior, citing Theodor Herzl, who predicted the rebirth of the state of Israel with a large Jewish population within 50 years, despite the fact that Jews were vastly outnumbered in Palestine.

The ever-optimistic Shimon Peres expressed a similar thought in 1968, in response to dire predictions from the Labor Party, of which he was then a member. "Are we certain that by 1998 no Arab will leave Israel and that the Jews will not increase their rate of natural growth? ... Will Russia [Soviet Union] remain as it is? Will American Jewry remain as it is? The Jews of France, England, South America -- everything will remain the same with no change? Is this the Zionist dream?"

Since 1967 the demographic situation has remained significantly unchanged: Jews are 67% of Israeli and West Bank populations combined. If Gaza is included, the percentage of Jews is 59%. (www.pademographics.com) We must remember that the Palestinians have everything to gain from padding their population, since they continue to segregate a large percentage of their people in UN-sponsored refugee camps. Not only do "refugees" receive donations on a per capita basis, but the entire Palestinian enterprise is a charity case, existing on handouts from the UN and from donor countries, which include Israel and the United States.

The CIA World Fact Book lists the West Bank with 2.5 million inhabitants and Gaza with 1.5 million. Some prominent demographers, Israeli and non-Israeli, dispute the "official" figures, which are derived from Palestinian sources. In The Million Person Gap: A Critical Look at Palestinian Demography, Bennett Zimmerman, Roberta Seid and Michael L. Wise (American-Israel Demographic Research Group) conclude that "the Palestinian predictions were never adjusted for actual reported births, deaths and emigration each year, but were instead released as official reports and accepted without question." They estimate the actual Palestinian population to be closer to 2.4 million than to 4 million. (www.pademographics.com)

Obviously, over-blown population figures emphasize the "Palestinian womb" as the best weapon to overcome Israel. When we fail to recognize bogus figures (and other propaganda) publicized by the anti-Zionists, we allow the Arabs to define and control the debate. Thus, the "peace at any price" camp offers to dismantle Israeli settlements, to transfer 80,000-100,000 Israeli citizens from their homes in the West Bank, to exchange parts of Israeli territory for the locations of the major settlements, and to agree to help establish a racist, terrorist Palestinian state -- Jew-free by definition.

The true demographic data indicates that time is not necessarily on the Arabs' side. While we know that current trends can't be guaranteed, Israel is prospering and most of its citizens are optimistic enough to want to have large families. Palestinian women, whether inside or outside of Israel, are becoming more educated and less likely to saddle themselves with huge families. It might be that the optimism of Theodor Herzl was well-founded. If Israel's leaders, and Jews in general, hang tough and effectively challenge Arab propaganda about demography, refugees, and Middle Eastern history, Israel will gain the respect of the Arabs and the West. Then we won't fear the status quo and won't need to succumb to pressure to midwife a Palestinian state.

This appeared November 15, 2007 in the Jewish Times of South Jersey
(www.jewishtimes-sj.com). Contact Steve Kramer at sjk1@jhu.edu

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 22, 2007.

This was written by Boris Volodarsky and appeared in the Wall Street Journal Online
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119578738). Mr. Volodarsky, an independent intelligence analyst who lives in London, is a former GRU (Soviet military intelligence) special operations officer.

A year ago today, my friend Alexander Litvinenko died in a London hospital, leaving behind a wife and young son. Sasha was poisoned by a tiny nuclear device containing polonium-210 -- which, the British Crown Prosecution Service concluded, was planted on him by Russian secret agents. In its way, his murder was an act of state-sponsored terrorism.

This is nothing new for Russia. The KGB has long used terrorist tactics and worked closely with organizations like Yasser Arafat's PLO. The year before, in July 2005, Sasha wrote in a confidential report prepared for a special commission of the Italian Parliament investigating KGB activities in Italy that, "Until recently the KGB had been in charge of all international terrorism." The manner of his death suggests that Russia today, under the leadership of former KGB lieutenant colonel Vladimir Putin, is up to its old tricks.

* * *

The KGB's forerunner, the Cheka (later NKVD), was created by Lenin and Felix Dzerzhinsky expressly to eliminate Russia's aristocracy, intellectuals and dissidents -- anyone who threatened the Soviet state from the inside. Under Stalin, the NKVD started to murder its opponents abroad: Ignatz Reiss near Lausanne in 1937, Yevhen Konovalets in Amsterdam in 1938, Leon Trotsky in Mexico in 1940. In 1953, the Soviet secret service tried to kill Marshal Tito in Belgrade.

Stalin's death didn't dampen the Kremlin's appetite for international terror. After the Litvinenko murder, the Russian foreign intelligence service claimed that Russia had not taken part in any assassinations abroad since 1959. That is not true. An Afghan leader, Hafizullah Amin, was first poisoned and then shot by a KGB special squad in Kabul in 1979. A former Chechen president, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, was blown up by Russian agents in Qatar in 2004.

In 1964, the KGB station in Mexico City set up a sabotage and intelligence group led by Manuel Andara y Ubeda, a Nicaraguan KGB agent. He led a group of Sandinistas to scope out the U.S. border with Mexico for possible targets, such as oil pipelines, for KGB sabotage teams. Its codename was Iskra, or "spark," inspired by the title of Lenin's revolutionary newspaper. The KGB also trained and financed the Sandinistas who seized the National Palace in Managua and dozens of hostages in 1978. They briefed a senior KGB official on the plan on the eve of the raid.

In the Mideast, one of the KGB's star recruits was Wadi Haddad, the deputy leader and head of foreign operations of the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In 1970, the KGB made him an agent, according to files delivered to British intelligence by Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB archivist who defected to the U.K. in 1992. The most dramatic terrorist strike organized by Haddad was the Sept. 6, 1970 attack on four airliners bound for New York. The hijacking attempt on an El Al Boeing 707 departing from Tel Aviv failed after one of the two terrorists was shot by an air marshal. The other three airlines were successfully diverted to other landing strips by the hijackers. The passengers and crew of a Pan Am Boeing 747 were evacuated and the plane was blown up; in the other two cases, the terrorists negotiated prisoner swaps. (Those were more innocent pre-9/11 times.) Thanks to the Mitrokhin files, we know that the KGB provided arms to Haddad, and it is a fair assumption that his handlers were aware of his plans.

A KGB officer, Vasili Fyodorovich Samoilenko, cultivated Arafat for a long time. A 1974 photograph shows them together at a wreath-laying ceremony in Moscow; during this visit, the Soviets called the PLO "the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine," a controversial stance for that era that sealed their close alliance. From then on, the KGB trained PLO guerrillas at its Balashikha special-operations training school east of Moscow and provided most of the weapons used in its attacks on Israeli targets. PLO intelligence officers also attended one-year courses at the KGB's Andropov Institute; some of them ended up being recruited by the KGB.

Soviet satellites did their share. During the late 1960s Arafat had also been courted by the Cairo station chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence service (DIE), Constantin Munteanu, who brought him to Bucharest. Arafat and Nicolai Ceausescu became good friends. Late in 1972 Romanian intelligence formed an alliance with the PLO, according to former KGB Colonel Oleg Gordievsky, who said the Romanians "suppl[ied] it with blank passports, electronic surveillance equipment, and weapons for its operations." Ceausescu told acting head of the DIE (and future defector) Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa: "Moscow is helping the PLO build up its muscles. I am feeding its brains." According to Mr. Pacepa's 1987 book, "Red Horizons": "Arafat and his KGB handlers were preparing a PLO commando team headed by Arafat's top deputy, Abu Jihad, to take American diplomats hostage in Khartoum, Sudan."

According to various sources, Ilyich Ram.res S.nchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal, the most notorious terrorist in the 1970s and early 1980s, was among those who attended Soviet and Cuban training camps. He lived for a time in East Germany.

* * *

The murder of Sasha Litvinenko should be called what it really was: a terror attack on British soil. Countless people were endangered by radiation, traces of which were found on British Airways planes, in London hotels and restaurants. In the meantime, the suspected murderer, Andrei Lugovoi, is a candidate for the Russian parliament in next month's elections, and openly mocks British attempts to have him extradited to face trial.

Sasha was right. Post-Soviet Russia is a breeding ground for terrorism just like the Soviet Union was.

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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 22, 2007.

Torah law, through Moses' teaching at G-d's behest, first provided three "Cities of Refuge" to which a man who killed another by accident could flee. Later another three were designated by Joshua. In these "Cities of Refuge", he was protected from blood revenge by relatives, friends of the dead man. Only when the High Priest died were these people released so they could return home. However, a guilty man, even holding the horns of the Holy Altar, can be taken and executed.

Those six "Cities of Refuge" were: 3 on the East of the Jordan River as proclaimed by Moshe: Bezer, given to the tribe of Reuven; Ramoth given to the tribe of Gad; Golan, called Bashan, on the Golan Heights given to the tribe of Menasseh. Before Moshe died, he designated Joshua as leader of the Israelites. Joshua led them into the West side of the Jordan where they conquered Canaan. Joshua named the following 3 cities as "Cities of Refuge" on the West side of the Jordan River: Shechem (now called Nablus) given to the tribe of Ephraim; Kiriath-Arba (next to Hebron -- also today) given to the tribe of Judah and Kadesh in the north given to Naphtali. (1)

Accidental death meant there was no pre-meditation. If, for example, a man was chopping wood and his axe head flew off the handle and killed someone, that was considered an accident. But, even then, he had to flee for his life from those who might seek blood revenge.

The Question is asked: What if there was some degree of pre-meditation? For example, a neighbor hates his neighbor and finally kills him, claiming self-defense. The Court must decide, requiring 2 witnesses. If found guilty, he was stoned to death or hanged. But, if there were insufficient evidence or witnesses, the killer could flee to one of the 6 cities of refuge.


Suppose there is a leader of his people who makes deliberate decisions that put his people in jeopardy for their lives and many are killed as a result. The matter of sufficient eye witnesses is mute, give the fact that there are literally hundreds, thousands to millions who were witnesses to the orders given by the leader which resulted in the deaths of the people he pledged to protect.

Is he then a murderer, with the dead as prima facie evidence? Can he flee to a "City of Refuge" or, in these modern times, could he still be hunted by those seeking blood revenge?

Consider the matter of collusion by more than the one who issued orders, knowing it would result in numerous deaths. The collaborators considered these many deaths "worthwhile to them" since they wanted and/or needed a "show of force" to preserve their positions in the government.

The Question: Is the retention of political office a mitigating reason to send soldiers into battle, with poor equipment, faulty battle plans, knowing there may be high casualties, merely to create the illusion of victory because the conditions they had established insured that the casualty would be very high -- and their own military experts told them so ahead of time?

Is expending the lives of soldiers or civilians for no other purpose than their leaders desire for power to be considered "pre-meditated murder"? (2)


As I was drafting this piece, I received information that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had ordered the release of another 441 convicted Terrorists which some would consider an irresponsible act of pre-meditated murder, given the evidence that a majority of released Terrorist prisoners return to their former occupations, having received improved training from others while in prison. Therefore, we know that they intend for more Jews to die in hideous Terror attacks. (3)

But, to where shall Olmert and his cabal whose actions cause pre-meditated murder flee? Five of the six "Cities of Refuge" have been either abandoned under the Oslo Accords or are already in Jordan, which is 80% of the original British Mandate for Palestine.

Let us examine the 6 lost "Cities of Refuge". Three are now in Jordan, east of the Jordan River. One is in the Golan Heights which Olmert is today negotiating away under the Rice Mandate to present to Syria -- just so Syria will come to Annapolis and that will create the Bush/Rice victory.

Of course, they'll be out of office by the time Syria again begins raining down missiles on the Israeli Jews in the fields and cities below the Heights. The Syrians are vicious Terrorists. When they captured Israelis, they cut off their testicles and stuffed them in the dying soldiers' mouths as their final insult. C. Rice pleaded with the Syrians to attend Annapolis while Baker is, no doubt, popping Champagne corks.

Tell us, Mr. Olmert, would you risk your testicles by fleeing to Bashan as a "City of Refuge" once you abandoned it to Syria? Surely you, Peres and Barak, must trust your jewels with the Syrians sufficiently, in order to turn the Golan Heights over to them.

You could try Shechem (Nablus) but you plan to retreat from Nablus and Ram'Allah as the first of the cities on the West Bank to be abandoned to Muslim Arab Palestinian control under your plan for "Peace in Our Time". Surely, Fatah under Abbas will accept you. Oh, you think not? You're probably correct. Besides Hamas plans to take over all of Judea and Samaria as soon as Israel is so weakened by your subsequent retreats.

No Muslim will accept a Jew living among them -- even if you don't want to be a Jew anymore.

What about Kiriath-Arba (next to Hebron). Oh, I forgot. Bibi Netanyahu gave away 80% of Hebron to Yassir Arafat at the Wye Conference. Why? I don't know. It wasn't logical. Besides your main supporters on the Left are trying to drive out the Jews from Hebron and the site of the Machpelah Cave, the burial cave of Abraham and Sarah, Yitzhak and Rebecca, Yaco'ov and Leah, our matriarchs and patriarchs. Shucks! I guess you will just have to go to the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas to shovel manure out of the horse stalls to earn your refuge which your betrayal necessitated.

Whatever you do, don't seek shelter in Yael's tent. She has a tent peg that she hasn't used yet.

Should there be no place of refuge for all of those participating in such pointless murders?

Should they not meet their Biblical fate and judgement equal to being stoned to death in the city square?

Perhaps you have noted my frequent appeals to G-d to absolutely curse those who would destroy the Jewish nation. While I usually write about the practical side of war, terror, weapons and geo-politics, I know very well that we Jews are small in number and survive only as a remnant at the pleasure of G-d. How else could a nation of 6 million Jews survive in a veritable sea of Jew hating Muslim Arabs? It is said that there are approximately over a billion Muslim Arabs world-wide. Add to that number the Europeans and Russians whose record of murdering Jews can be compared to no others. For these and other reasons, I ask G-d for retribution and have for some time. Although I am sure G-d needs no suggestions from me as to methods, nevertheless, I offer my suggestions as a human being every day.

I ask G-d to curse those Left Liberal so-called Jews of Israel and America who act like they hate their own Judaism. They treat with contempt, even hatred, those Jews who follow His Laws and love the Land G-d gave us. I pray they will either be struck down by the Hand of G-d or, if that is too grisly, to live long in terrible pain, along with those persons who support them. Let them suffer as Ariel Sharon, who lives in a vegetative state for what he has done to the Jewish people -- especially those who loved him. It would be preferable that Olmert, Peres, Barak, Livni and all those who seem so anxious to betray the Jewish nation should be similarly struck down by G-d's Hand so they could do no more damage. Let no Jew lift his hand against these accursed people lest they contaminate themselves!

Perhaps it is enough they end up in "Kafa Kela" ** where they will spend eternity in what Jews would term "Nowhere". "Nowhere" is worse than what we humans call hell.

[** "Kafa Kela" is hard to define. Christians might call it "permanent purgatory".]

As for the corrupt nations and their leaders who join the Muslim Arabs in the quest for Israel's destruction, I pray even harder for their destruction. I would be pleased to see these immoral leaders struck down by the Hand of G-d. Let no man lift his hand, be he a Jew or Gentile, against these people so anxious to once again commit or contribute to a Genocide of the Jewish people.

Let the skies close up and burn the land so life-sustaining crops will not grow.

Let terrible winds bring floods that will also drown out the crops so famine stalks the land.

May incurable diseases spread across these nations.

We have already seen the ramping up of life-destroying deadly plagues, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, volcanoes erupting -- sending their ash around the world. Regrettably, good people will suffer with the bad.

Before Sharon had his first stroke, I prayed for either his death at the Hand of G-d -- or that he lie on his bed, staring at the ceiling, knowing what he had done to his Jewish people. Arik was my friend but I knew he had turned his face to evil. May he live on as he is and when his last breaths come, let him be buried in unhallowed ground.

Does prayer reach the ears of G-d? I am sure it does. Take the time and think about Olmert and his assembly of Jew-hating Jews. Think about Condoleezza Rice and the family of George W. Bush, the James Baker family and all those nations who have gathered together in a murderous cabal to destroy the Jews and overrun the holy Land with pagan Muslim Arabs. Rice issued invitations to 46 nations and organizations -- not one of which is a staunch friend of the Jewish nation. Israel does have true friends like the American people and the Christian Zionists but they will not be invited to speak for the Jews.

Again, ask G-d to raise his Hand -- not yours!

Let the Rabbaim gather to intone the Cabalistic prayers for the evil ones and leave it up to G-d. Here again let it be G-d's Hand, not yours!

Evil on earth has reached a pinnacle (or deep abyss) and it surely is time for it to be stamped out!

The Jews of Israel have fought valiantly (except for some) but, now they again need the Biblical miracles G-d promised Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and those Jews who fought for the Land of Israel in our time. The dead who fought so heroically against impossible odds to preserve the Jewish State must be turning over in their graves at Olmert's perfidious betrayal.

Let G-d unleash His terrible swift sword, slashing right and left, so the nations drown in their own blood.

In any case, those are my prayers, my thoughts -- knowing G-d has His own solutions.

For the Jews who will search for a "City of Refuge", there will be none for today's betrayers, since they've already given them away. I doubt that the nations who inspired some Jews to betray their own nation and their own people, will give them refuge. They have already closed their gates.

To where will the assassins of their own people escape now?!


** "Kafa Kela" is hard to define. Christians might call it "permanent purgatory".

1. "Stone Edition of the CHUMASH" Art Scroll series edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman & Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz Mesorah Foundation New York 1993

2. "Winograd Likely to Pin 33 Deaths on Olmert" by Hillel Fendel Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com November 18, 2007

3. "Cabinet Okays Release of 441 Prisoners" by The Jerusalem Post Nov. 19, 2007
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127538174 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

4.DEBKAfile Reports: Overriding IDF and Shin Bet objections, Olmert approves arming Palestinian West Bank forces with 50 Russian APCs, 1000 rifles and 2 million bullets November 21, 2007

5. Israel's army chief confirms Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah responsible for murder of an Israeli man on West Bank, reports 24 roadblocks dismantled -- November 20, 2007, 9:03 PM


With your patience, the following is some pertinent news of the day pre- Annapolis:

This just in from DEBKAfile: November 21, 2007 & November 20, 2007

DEBKAfile Reports: Overriding IDF and Shin Bet objections, Olmert approves arming Palestinian West Bank forces with 50 Russian APCs, 1000 rifles and 2 million bullets November 21, 2007, 9:38 PM

DEBKAfile's military sources report that the armored personnel carriers which can carry 10 fighters were promised Mahmoud Abbas by Russian president Vladimir Putin. Whichever of the models supplied -- the BTR-60PB, BTR-70 or BTR-80 -- these combat vehicles are armed with turret heavy machine gun mounts designed to hit ground and low-flying air targets. The 14.5-mm large caliber KPVT machine guns and coaxial 7.62-mm PKT machine gun, with a traverse of 360 degrees, mounted on each turret, make this APC a highly mobile anti-air unit for attacking low-flying targets at a range of up to 2,000 meters.

DEBKAfile reports the IDF and security service fear their presence will seriously hamper Israel's regular counter-terror activities with helicopter support, which have kept the country relatively secure in recent years by thwarting Palestinian suicide incursions and attacks.

Furthermore, there are grounds to expect the APCs will end up in terrorist hands, considering that Mahmoud Abbas' own Fatah adherents continue to engage in terror against Israelis together with the radical Palestinian groups. Israelis living on the West Bank will now require anti-tank weapons for protection against enhanced Palestinian weaponry, as will the police contingents securing Israeli border areas.

Our military sources add that the Russian APCs have devices to protect its personnel from blast effects, nuclear radiation, bacteriologic agents and toxic chemicals. An OU-3GA3M searchlight provides illumination for night firing and six 3D6 smoke grenade launchers produce smoke screens for camouflage.

Even if one or two of its wheels are disabled, the BTR vehicle can keep going with the help of a centralized tire air control system. And even after being hit by an anti-tank mine, the vehicle can carry on fighting and travel for another 300 km before it stops.

DEBKAfile's Moscow sources report that since his October interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has invested time and effort in this relationship with a view to contributing to greater US-Russian understanding. The objects are to draw Putin onto the side of a tough US stance on Iran's nuclear program and enlist his influence for extricating Damascus from its pact with Tehran. This stratagem has failed. The Russian president is sticking to an independent policy on Iran, as he has with the Palestinians, both Abbas and the radical Hamas. He is therefore following through on his promise of 50 APCs to the Fatah leader.

Israel's army chief confirms Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah responsible for murder of an Israeli man on West Bank, reports 24 roadblocks dismantled November 20, 2007, 9:03 PM

Ido Zoldan, 29, of Shavei Shomron, was killed at the wheel of his car in a drive-by shooting in N. West Bank Monday night, Nov. 19, claimed by Fatah-Al Aqsa Brigades. At his briefing Tuesday to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee,

Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi confirmed Fatah were the perpetrators. The attack took place hours after Abbas met with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and assured him his organization could and would combat Palestinian terror. Israeli military and security forces have been placed on high alert for Palestinian terrorist attacks sparked by the forthcoming Middle East conference at Annapolis.

In Gaza, an IDF Golani unit spotted three armed Palestinians using a ladder to climb over the border fence for an attack on the Netiv Ha'asara village to the north. They lobbed grenades at the unit which stopped them; two terrorists were killed and the third escaped. Further south, two Palestinian gunmen managed to cross the border near Khan Younes, were heading for a night attack in Kibbutz Nirim when they were intercepted and shot dead by Israeli troops.

Monday, Palestinians from Gaza fired 4 Qassam missiles, 20 mortar rounds from Gaza at Israeli targets, including southern Ashkelon.

DEBKAfile's military sources reported earlier that Hamas has begun using its new, extended range weapons, which bring large Israeli towns within range. Hamas and Jihad Islami leaders have threatened to escalate their attacks on Israeli civilian locations with the approach of the Middle East conference at Annapolis, Maryland. The two terrorist groups have been joined by the radical Palestinian Fronts in setting up a joint command on the West Bank called "Guardians of the Walls" for expanding their missile and other terrorist operations against central Israel. Fatah's al Aqsa Brigades are proactive in all Palestinian terrorist incidents on the West Bank and Gaza Strip alike, despite the partial immunity from pursuit Abbas persuaded Olmert to extend its gunmen some weeks ago.

Also Monday, the Israeli cabinet approved the release of 421 Palestinians, most of them Fatah members jailed for terrorist attacks, as a goodwill gesture for the Palestinian leader Abbas. Chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi objected.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 22, 2007.

The article below is by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., and was published November 20, 2007. This was taken from the Townhall blogsite
(www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2007/11/20/staticidal_zealotry). Gaffney is a deeply experienced commentator on the vagaries of Foggy Bottom (the U.S. State Department) and a host of presidential administrations who fumbled their way through America!s foreign policy. The Rice/Bush Administration may prove to be the worst. After 9/11 the Bush Doctrine was to confront Global Terror but now, he has reverted to building Terrorist nation/states, encouraged by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The New York Times news service on November 22, 2007 had a front-page story "Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S.: Saudi Arabia & Libya; Officials say raid yields portrait of small part of the insurgency" by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. (1)

The Chicago Tribune printed a 3 paragraph 2"x4" squib on their p. 22 of this revealing article.(2)

This article stated that Saudi Arabia and Libya were the source of 60% of the foreign fighters who were killing Americans and Allies in Iraq.

Remember that of the 19 hijacking suicide bombers of 9/11, there were 15 Saudis and 4 Egyptians.

Naturally, Rice invited the Saudis to the Annapolis Inquisitorial Court to destroy Israel. I have been looking for even one article in which the national media singles out the Arab Muslim "Jihadists" as dangerous to Israel (as well as America).

Rice speaks of "elusive peace" even as Mahmoud Abbas speaks of continuing war.

The Associated Press has printed the list of 46 countries and organizations whom Rice invited to Annapolis.

See End Of Article For List Of Invitees To Annapolis

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is behaving like a zealot. In her ever-more-rash pursuit of a Palestinian state, she is exhibiting the syndrome defined by the philosopher George Santana, as one who redoubles her efforts upon losing sight of the objective.

Let's recall: The objective laid out by President Bush, when he decided in June 2002 to support the creation of a homeland for the Palestinian people, was to provide a stable, secure neighbor for Israel, committed to leaving peaceably with the Jewish State.

Mr. Bush explicitly preconditioned such support on: an end to Palestinian terror; a Palestinian leadership that was not tainted by ties to terrorism; and the elimination of the infrastructure in Palestinian areas that enables such behavior. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States was in the business of eliminating terrorist-sponsoring regimes, not creating them.

Now, however, it is crystal clear that the only outcome from Condi Rice's idíe fixe -- namely, that she will convene a Middle East peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy for the purpose of extracting from Israel the territorial concessions needed rapidly to establish a Palestinian state -- has nothing to do with the original Bush vision. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the best that can be hoped for from such a meeting is failure. For success will result in a new safe-haven for terror that is a mortal threat not only for Israel, but for the United States, as well.

Unfortunately, even the failure of Condi's Folly at Annapolis is likely to be a very bad outcome. To the extent that her actions are raising unwarranted expectations on the part of Palestinians and their Arab friends, past practice suggests it will translate into a pretext for new violence against Israel. That will be especially true if, as is also predictable, the Israelis are blamed for the outcome for not being sufficiently willing -- in the face of Palestinian intractability -- to make what are euphemistically called "painful" moves for peace. Another way to describe such moves are as reckless concessions that are certain to jeopardize Israel's security, and quite possibly ours.

After all, it is only reasonable to expect the West Bank to follow the trajectory of the Gaza Strip and, before it, southern Lebanon -- both of which Israel abandoned to her foes, only to have those territories become staging grounds for attacks on Israel and secure incubators for terror against us. Among those operating from such areas are Islamofascist terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the newest addition to the State Department's list of such entities.

Condi Rice is nonetheless demanding that Israel now relinquish the West Bank and East Jerusalem to yet another terrorist organization: Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah. To be sure, the Secretary of State would have us believe that Fatah is no such thing. In fact, the entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Abbas' mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace and effective counterweight to Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion. Treating Fatah as the cornerstone of American diplomacy and demands on Israel is nothing less than perilous and irresponsible. Consider the following sampler of recent counter-indicators:

* Last August, five Fatah operatives assigned to Abbas' security detail conspired to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a visit by the latter to meet the Palestinian "president" in the West Bank city of Jericho. After their arrest on information from Israel's internal intelligence agency, Shin Bet, several of these individuals were released by the Palestinian Authority.

* This is in keeping with past practice. By some estimates, Fatah and its Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have claimed responsibility for the murder of roughly as many Israelis as has Hamas. In those rare instances when the perpetrators are actually arrested by Palestinian police, they are generally set free in short order. How could Israel possibly entrust physical control of the West Bank -- from which virtually the entirety of the Jewish State's population can be subjected to rocket or even mortar fire -- to people with such a record?

* Speaking of the Jewish State, in the run-up to the Annapolis meeting, Abbas and his subordinates have lately become quite brazen in denouncing Israel's right to exist as such. Their statements not only speak volumes about the degree to which Condi Rice's desperate bid for a "legacy" is now being clearly read as bullies always do: as evidence of contemptible and exploitable weakness. They also make a mockery of the premise that Abbas and Company are preferable to Hamas because, unlike the latter, they are truly willing to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors.

* In fact, only the most willfully blind could maintain such a pretense in light of the incessant propagandizing and indoctrination about killing Jews and destroying Israel that passes for official or at least officially sanctioned broadcasts, sermons and speeches emanating from Abbas' rump Palestinian Authority.

The only Palestinian state that can possibly come from Condoleezza Rice's zealotry is one that will be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel and a new safe-haven for terror aimed at the United States and other Western nations. Even if a corrupt and politically unrepresentative Olmert government in Israel is prepared to play along, Americans who understand the stakes for the Jewish State as well as our own, must reject her desperate and unacceptable bid to launch a Palestinian one at Annapolis.


1. "Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S.: Saudi Arabia & Libya; Officials say raid yields portrait of small part of the insurgency" by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. New York Times November 22, 2007

2. "Data Shed Light On Foreign Fighters" NYT News Service Chicago Tribune November 22, 2007 p. 22

3. "U.S. Aims for Mideast Pact by '09: Rice says 2 sides want deal before end of Bush's term" by Matthew Lee & Anne Gearan AP Chicago Tribune November 22, 2007

List of Invitees to the Mideast peace conference, in addition to the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians:

International diplomatic "quartet" on the Middle East: United Nations, European Union, Russia and the quartet's special representative, Tony Blair

The Arab League and member states: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

Other permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, China, France

Other members of Group of Eight industrialized nations: Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan

Other members of the Islamic Conference: Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal, Turkey

Other nations: Brazil, Greece, India, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden Financial institutions as observers: International Monetary Fund, World Bank

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dore Gold, November 22, 2007.
  • After being sworn into office in 2001, the Bush administration informed the Israeli government that the Clinton proposals "were off the table." The Bush Letter of April 14, 2004, received by Israel as a quid pro quo for the Gaza Disengagement, introduced new elements into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that completely superseded the Clinton proposals.

  • Prime Minister Sharon explained the significance of the Bush Letter to the Knesset on April 22, 2004: "There is American recognition that in any permanent status arrangement, there will be no return to the '67 borders. This recognition is to be expressed in two ways: understanding that the facts that have been established in the large settlement blocs are such that they do not permit a withdrawal to the '67 borders and implementation of the term 'defensible borders.'"

  • There is a serious question about the exact standing of the Bush Letter on the eve of Annapolis. Secretary of State Rice stated on November 13, 2007: "I believe that most Israelis are ready to leave most of the -- nearly all of the West Bank, just as they were ready to leave Gaza for the sake of peace." Yet all serious public opinion polls actually show strong Israeli support for retaining strategic areas of the West Bank, like the Jordan Valley.

  • It has been frequently stated, particularly in Washington, that, "We all know what the final outcome of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement will look like," an assertion usually followed by some reference to the Clinton proposals and the talks at Taba. Such statements try to introduce inevitability into the expected parameters of a peace settlement, even though they are based on a whole series of failed negotiating attempts seven years ago that cannot possibly bind the State of Israel, and completely ignore the fact of opposition by the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces to the Clinton proposals as endangering Israel's security.

  • It is critical for Israeli diplomacy to protect the Bush Letter against those who seek to undercut and replace it with a new set of Israeli-Palestinian documents. Israelis have learned from their experience with Gaza what can happen to their most vital security interests if they are not safeguarded at the same time that far-reaching territorial concessions are made.

The Changing Purpose of the Annapolis Meeting

It still needs to be explained why the Bush administration decided to launch the Annapolis Peace Conference when so many seasoned observers doubt that it is possible to make any real diplomatic progress between Israel and the Palestinians at this time. The question is even more compelling when the risks of diplomatic failure are measured against the chances of real diplomatic success.

President Bush originally planted the seeds of the Annapolis Conference on July 16, 2007, when he announced that he was calling for convening "an international meeting" that would "review the progress that has been made toward building Palestinian institutions." The meeting was supposed to deal with Palestinian political reform. Finally, Bush proposed that the planned Middle Eastern meeting would "provide diplomatic support for the parties in their bilateral discussions and negotiations."[1] The idea was that the international community would assist the Palestinians in multiple areas to help advance the creation of a Palestinian state.

Since that time, however, the whole idea of the Annapolis meeting changed completely. The focus of diplomacy shifted to the issuance of an agreed Joint Statement by Israel and the Palestinians that would begin to outline, in greater detail than before, the contours of a future Palestinian state by detailing aspects of its borders, the nature of a solution to the Jerusalem issue, and the future of Palestinian refugees. Perhaps it was thought that dramatic Israeli concessions in the Joint Statement would induce pro-Western Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, to attend the planned peace conference even at the level of foreign minister. What would follow the peace conference would be intense, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians based on the Joint Statement so that the foundations of a Palestinian state could be established within a little over a year.

This newer and more ambitious agenda for Annapolis has run into serious problems on the eve of the meeting. First, from drafts of the Joint Statement that were leaked to Ha'aretz, it is clear that the Palestinians are only willing to talk about "the two-state solution," but refuse to adopt proposed Israeli language that would add that Israel is the "homeland for the Jewish people and Palestine is the homeland for the Palestinian people." Second, it also appears that the idea of detailing the parameters of a peace settlement by touching on the most contentious "core issues" of Jerusalem, borders, security, and refugees has been dropped entirely. Clearly, the diplomatic gaps between the parties on these critical issues were unbridgeable at this time.

The Bush Letter vs. the Clinton Proposals

Given these difficulties, one of the options for the U.S. has been to put down its own paper about what would constitute a fair peace settlement in lieu of the Joint Statement. President Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing in January 2001, when his efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement failed. After being sworn into office, the Bush administration informed the newly formed Israeli government of Ariel Sharon that the Clinton proposals "were off the table." Moreover, the Bush administration introduced new elements into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that completely superseded the Clinton proposals.

On April 14, 2004, Prime Minister Sharon presented his Gaza Disengagement plan to President Bush and received as a quid pro quo a presidential letter with a set of U.S. guarantees about the shape of a future Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. Sharon appeared before the Knesset on April 22, 2004, and explained the significance of the Bush Letter:

There is American recognition that in any permanent status arrangement, there will be no return to the '67 borders. This recognition is to be expressed in two ways: understanding that the facts that have been established in the large settlement blocs are such that they do not permit a withdrawal to the '67 borders and implementation of the term "defensible borders."

The Bush administration did not specifically insist that any additional territory added to Israel would require a land swap whereby Israel forfeits its own previous territory in order to obtain defensible borders. A year later, Sharon detailed his concept of "defensible borders" to Ha'aretz on April 24, 2005, emphasizing that the Jordan Valley was of supreme military importance.

The Bush Letter did not intend to impose the outlines of a peace settlement in lieu of future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. However, it laid out an updated vision of the U.S. position on a final peace settlement if the U.S. were actually asked to provide these details by the parties, especially if negotiations stalemated. The Bush Letter, moreover, did not represent a sharp break with past U.S. policy; it was fully consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242. Former President Ronald Reagan used the language of "defensible borders" in September 1982 and it was adopted by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher in January 1997 in his letter of assurances to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There is a serious question about the exact standing of the Bush Letter on the eve of Annapolis. Buried in the address by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Nashville on November 13, 2007, was a surprising sentence: "I believe that most Israelis are ready to leave most of the -- nearly all of the West Bank, just as they were ready to leave Gaza for the sake of peace."[2] It is doubtful that Rice was reflecting on the results of any serious Israeli public opinion poll, which actually show strong Israeli support for retaining strategic areas of the West Bank, like the Jordan Valley. And given Israel's bitter experience from unilaterally leaving the Gaza Strip, it is difficult to draw analogies from Israeli positions on Gaza prior to the August 2005 disengagement and Israeli positions, at present, toward withdrawal from the West Bank. It is likely that she carefully chose her language as a trial balloon, couching a new possible U.S. position on borders as a general statement about Israeli public opinion.

Having decided to convene the Annapolis meeting, the Bush administration is under enormous pressure to make sure it succeeds. The situation that has been created provides the Arab states with enormous leverage over Washington to revise its positions on the core issues in order to obtain their attendance at a high enough level. Even if the U.S. does not issue its own statement in lieu of the Joint Statement, a revised U.S. position could come in the form of a presidential address or even private communications from Washington to Arab capitals that erode the Bush Letter and empty it of much of its original content.

Do We All Really Know What a Final Peace Settlement Will Look Like?

There have been other pressures on the Bush administration to abandon the Bush Letter, as well, from many parts of the foreign policy community. In the last few years, it has been frequently stated in high-level academic conferences as well as by pundits that, "We all know what the final outcome of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement will look like," and this assertion is usually followed by some reference to the Clinton proposals and the follow-up talks at Taba.[3] The power of this idea cannot be overstated, particularly within the confines of the Capitol Beltway in Washington.

Such statements try to introduce inevitability into the expected parameters of a peace settlement, even though they are based on a whole series of failed negotiating attempts seven years ago that cannot possibly bind the State of Israel. Moreover, those taking this position completely ignore the fact that the Clinton proposals were viewed by the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces in 2000 as too far reaching and endangering Israel's security, and their position was presented, at the time, by Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz.[4] Moreover, among the Palestinians, the current head of the negotiating team, Abu Ala, stated back in 2001 that even after further Israeli concessions at Taba, beyond the Clinton proposals, the extent of Israeli flexibility was inadequate and that never before had there been "a clearer gap between the two sides."

Nonetheless, this theme that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be easily solved seems to have permeated some of the elites who have responsibility for the peace process at present. Speaking at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem on November 4, 2007, the Quartet Envoy, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, revealed a similar view to those who believe the outcome of negotiations is already known, when he said:

Truthfully, if you took any group of well-educated Israelis or Palestinians and said to them, describe on two sheets of paper the rough solution to the core final status issues -- territory, right of return, Jerusalem -- they could probably do it roughly along the same contours of a solution.[5]

The Bush administration recognizes that even if after Annapolis, Israel and the Palestinians reach the outlines of a permanent status government, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, is too weak to implement it. For that reason, many in Israel call a document of this sort "a shelf agreement," that can only be taken down and used when conditions permit. But how can Israel commit itself to any future borders when the situation in the entire region is so uncertain in the years ahead, since no one can predict what will be the situation in Iraq and whether an empowered Iran will emerge that is armed with nuclear weapons.

At present, it is critical for Israeli diplomacy to protect the Bush Letter and provide countervailing arguments against those who seek to undercut and replace it with a new set of Israeli-Palestinian documents. Israelis have learned from their experience with Gaza what can happen to their most vital security interests if they are not safeguarded at the same time that far-reaching territorial concessions are made. The Philadelphi Corridor, between Palestinian Gaza and Egyptian Sinai, has become an open thoroughfare for smuggling massive amounts of weapons and trained terrorist operatives. An Israeli pullout from the Jordan Valley separating the West Bank from Jordan, would yield similar results, but on a much larger scale and undermine Jordanian stability, as well.


1. "President Bush Discusses the Middle East," The White House, President George W. Bush, July 2007,

2. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "Address to Delegates at the United Jewish Communities (UJC) General Assembly," U.S. Department of State, November 13, 2007,

3. "U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East," Council on Foreign Relations, June 5, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication/6046/ us_grand_strategy_in_the_middle_east.html; Jackson Diehl, "The Deal on the Table," Washington Post, October 22, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/ AR2007102101370.html; Bernard Avishai and Sam Bahour, "Making the Inevitable Happen," Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2007,

4. Yediot Ahronot, December 29, 2006.

5. "Keynote Address by Quartet Representative Tony Blair," Saban Forum 2007, Brookings Institution, November 4, 2007, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2007/ 1103_middle_east/1104_blair_keynote.pdf

Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's Ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007).

This article was published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (http://www.jcpa.org) as a Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 22 on 23 November 2007.

To Go To Top

Posted by Carl in Jerusalem, November 22, 2007.

Someone over at LGF asked what it would take to remove Ehud K. Olmert as Prime Minister. I'm sure a lot of you are wondering, so I decided to cross-post to here what I posted in the comments there.

It's probably three months minimum.

There are three ways it can happen:

  1. Knesset votes no confidence in Ehud K. Olmert and agrees to appoint someone else Prime Minister. At least 61 MK's must vote in favor. Then Olmert would be replaced but the Knesset would remain intact. The odds of 61 MK's agreeing on someone other than Olmert are not good. And at this point Olmert's Kadima Achora party is so unpopular that it's not in their interest to keep the current Knesset composition intact.

  2. A bill to dissolve the Knesset passes three readings including being reported out by committee. This is a long and painful process and if any of the readings fail to pass with a majority, the bill cannot be reintroduced for six months. De facto what will usually happen is that if the government sees that it cannot win all three of these votes, they will cut a deal to schedule elections. If the bill passes three readings, elections are on the first Tuesday falling more than ninety days from the date of the third reading.

  3. Olmert resigns due to the scandals surrounding him (either he finds a conscience somewhere or he is indicted and the Attorney General forces him to resign or suspend himself). The only time that has ever happened was when Rabin resigned in 1977 (over far less of a scandal than any of the things of which Olmert is accused). The odds are that we would then go to elections within ninety days with a caretaker government led by Tzipi Feigele Livni. But there are no guarantees that Livni would not attempt to stay in power. When Rabin was assassinated, Peres stayed in power for three months before calling elections for three months later. In Peres' case that turned out to be a mistake. The best chance of this happening is when the Winograd interim report comes out (with or without a transcript of Olmert's testimony) which is scheduled to happen within two weeks.

As you can see, there are no simple answers to the question...

View Carl's website at http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com; this articale is archived at
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-it-would-take-to-remove-olmert-as.html This article was published April 8, 2007.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 21, 2007.

Every time America's Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her underhanded propaganda mechanics leaked misleading information about the Annapolis Lynching. I tried to cut through the lies. First Rice floated the idea that the "reformed Terrorist" Mahmoud Abbas was finally there as an "honest partner" for Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to deal with. While she yapped about the "inevitable peace", she offered up the "division of Jerusalem" so Israel's opposition would focus on that primarily, while she colluded with Saudi Arabia, Syria and the PLO's Fatah to divide Israel's heartland, Judea and Samaria, from the rest of Israel as her first, main target.

Many of us saw through that ploy.

All the while Rice whipped and tugged on her trembling poodle, PM Olmert, to obey or have his nose pushed into his own dirt. He trembled and obeyed despite knowing he was not only selling out the Jewish nation but also the inevitable dead and wounded to follow.

Then Rice floated the idea that Bush himself was starting to go against her idea of bring every enemy Israel and the Jews had into one big Conference Room. That proved to be a lie, no doubt, on the advice of James Baker III, Papa Bush's Secretary of State, whose past meets the qualification of a Grand Inquisitor for the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.

The Queen "B" floats the idea that the Annapolis Lynching may be postponed for a year. That was so blatant that even the Jews and Christians of wishful thinkers knew they were being suckered. They knew that her intention was to give us all false hope and call off the opposition to dicing Israel into edible pieces for the Terrorists and satisfy Saudi Arabia.

Now you know that the lies piled upon lies was a carefully calculated plan by Rice, the Arabist State Department, James Baker -- all with the approval of Bush himself.

The Annapolis Butchery is now scheduled to take place, first with a dinner in Washington on November 26th and then the whole day of November 27th at the Annapolis Naval Academy as "manipulated" by C. Rice. It's supposed to be safely and secretly hidden at Annapolis, Maryland -- far away from the multitudes of opposition protesters and media who might have made a difference in the survival and sovereignty of the State of Israel and the lives of the 6 ½ million Israelis.

All the promises to eviscerate Israel's heartland have been on-going non-stop, despite the leaks that Saudi Arabia or Syria (hopefully) will not attend.

The Rice Perfidy was plain for all to see and now the Queen "B" swings the cleaver. Once again the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is on the butcher block as happened at Wannsee under Heydrich and Eichmann.

Israel and her Jews are intended (by this bunch of UN-holy ghouls) to meet the fate of extinction IF C. Rice and the rest of the world have their way with them.

Even as the Islamists of the Arab world promise on their Korans to not only kill off Israel and America as well, the Quislings of American governance join them, ignoring their own peril.

As I have said for years, hopefully G-d's patience has worn thin and will take retribution upon the nations and their leaders for trying to destroy His handiwork and his people.


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), November 21, 2007.

Lots of post factum Western make-up of the history of the '40s, have often clouded the following facts with hypocritical declarations of love for Israel, which, time after time, have been nothing but deception for gullible Jews.

This was written by Ovadyah Avrahimi (Bibrev@pixie.co.za).

In responding to a forum recently, I had to check up and refresh on certain facts. I recalled a book that I had read in the late 60's, after the 1967 Miracle War. In now re-reading sections of this book on the facts that we are all well acquainted with, I was struck renewedly, in the shadows of the looming Annapolis Conference, by the similarities in our confrontation by the nations. Do our so-called leaders in government never learn from the lessons that history has so painfully trying to teach us, I wondered?

"Countdown in the Holy Land" by Lester Velie, was written at the time of the 1967 War by an editor of Readers Digest. It is brimful with some of the astonishing facts regarding the Impossibility of the Jewish Return at the time, due to the antagonism of the nations, even though Judah was down on the floor, at the time.

Written in 1969, shortly after the War, and reviewing the Birth of Israel after the Holocaust, the author states: "Ironically,the USA and G. Britain did their best to prevent the birth (of Israel). The Soviet Union fought for it. Had it not been for the Soviet Union, there might not have been an Israel today."

"What was best for the Soviet after WW2, was to get G.Britain, then the dominant power in the M.East, out of the area."

In 1946, just after the War, and before the birth of israel (1948), "Some million survivors of Hitler's 'final solution' wandered homeless or remained caged in German and Polish concentration camps. They couldn't go where they wanted. The USA virtually shut them out with stringent immigration quotas. Poland was no more hospitable. Christian Poles, reluctant to yield Jewish property seized during the War, met returning Jewish Poles with murderous pogroms. As for Germany,few Jewish Germans wanted to set foot in the land of the horror camps again.Only burning rage against a callous and indifferent world sustained the homeless Jews in their isolation.. That, and the hope for many, that they could somehow reach Palestine."

"The British, governing Palestine under a 1922 League of Nations Mandate, barred all but a trickle of Jewish immigrants -- 1500 a year. ... The immigration bar, instigated by Arab pressure, had come at a cruel time, 1939, when the Hitler night was closing down on the Jews. Its rigid enforcement slammed shut a chief escape hatch and condemned hundreds of thousands to death"

"Now in 1946, the best brains in the British military intelligence, were deployed in Mediterranean ports to ferret out news of refugee ships bound for Palestine. Royal Air Force planes hunted these ships at sea and the Royal British Navy blockaded the Palestine Coast, intercepted the ships and dragged their wretched human cargoes to concentration camps in Cyprus."

Soviet Russia at the time, was the only country who supported the Jewish Return and mass moved Jews in trains on their way out and back to Palestine (Israel, of course).

"Britain's foreign minister Ernest Bevin, emerged as a Pharaoh who would not let the Jewish People go."

When subsequently, Jews and Arabs warred in the Land, it was Russia who took the lead in the UN to create a Jewish State.

The man to whom the Kremlin entrusted the Jewish Cause, was Andrei Gromyko. At some stage he appealed passionately in the UN to the conscience of mankind: "During the last war, the Jewish people underwent indescribable sorrow and suffering. No Western Europe State was able to help the Jewish people defend their rights and very existence. Now thousands are still behind barbed wire ... the time has come to help these people."

After declaring a Jewish State in May 1948, and immediately facing the attack of the surrounding Arabs states, the British barred the accumulation of weapons by the Jews. The West would not sell them arms either because of a UN embargo.

So what has changed? Today the USA (who so many deluded Israelis regard as our 'protector and friend'), backed by all the nations are hell bent on stopping Israel from expanding the Land which the US and Britain could not stop Jews from inhabiting and rebuilding. Annapolis is about freezing (and diminishing) settlement of our Divine heritage, Eretz Yisrael. And Divine heritage, by Divine Oath, specifically includes Jerusalem, Shomron and ALL the territories which the world is trying to stop us from possessing and which our government is so willing to disenfranchise Jews from and hand it over to our enemies.

In fact, what has changed since Pharaoh prevented Israel from inhabiting the Promised land? Probably only the fact that now our own government is selling us out! Even Aliyah by orthodox Jews is becoming a target for our lawmakers who wish to limit these numbers by new restrictive laws of immigration.

Yet, today, the State of Israel stands -- though shaky!

Will it continue to stand? You bet!

Has Judah achieved and overcome the impossible? No doubt!

If Judah could repossess the Land against all the obstacles after WW2 and build it to where it stands proudly amongst the nations today as one of the greatest achievers, then surely, the rest of the Divine Promises will also come true? And His Jewish Kingdom shall be established in Jerusalem!

Let us go forward in Courage, trusting the Shomer of Israel!


Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 21, 2007.

Condoleeza Rice A Failure in History... plays her game on Israel's back helping the destruction of the Jewish State, condemning Israel to play again the Canary in the coal mine .... SHAME onto YOU

This is NOT Selma Alabama Ms. Rice....... this is the making of the final establishment of A Legal Terrorist State.

The blood will be on Your Administrations hands.

The essay below is by Sultan Knish. This article is archived at

Also. Watch this video and judge by yourself how our peace partners deal with their own people. Then let others know.
To see it, click here.

The list of invitations to what is being billed as the Annapolis Peace Conference reads like the attendance at a lynching. From Saudi Arabia to Syria, from the Arab League to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, from Javier Solana to Kadaffi's Libyan representative, every faction and country that wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth already has an invitation to the conference at which the Palestinians are expected to mumble something vague about their commitment to peace while Israel carves itself up and hands out pieces of itself to the enemy like some ghastly banquet treat.

In the upside down universe of international diplomacy, the only way to thwart Hamas and Ahmadinejad is not on the battlefield, but by "empowering the moderates" by making endless territorial concessions to them.

It's as if this was 1942 and the United States decided the best way to end the war was by "discrediting" the extremist Nazis in Germany by forcing England to attend a peace conference with the "moderate" fascists in Italy and Spain and turn over Wales and parts of England proper to them.

In preparation for the conference, Olmert has begun handing out terrorist party favors releasing Fatah terrorists and allowing Russia to supply them with 25 armored cars and a 1000 rifles and 2 million rounds of ammunition. The first death of that bloody harvest came with the shooting of Ido Zoldan as terrorists celebrated the upcoming peace conference in the the traditional way by murdering Israelis. Of course since Ido Zoldan was an opponent of Olmert's corrupt government, that could only have been a cause for celebration in the Prime Minister's Office.

If the first half of Olmert's reign was notorious for his brutality, incompetence and corruption; his second half is now a sham in which Peres in the President's office wields more actual power than the Prime Minister, setting the agenda for the state. Every insane policy from the Rabin \ Peres era has been dusted off, from releasing terrorists to arming them, to holding peace conferences with Fatah which has broken every promise of peace it has ever made. Olmert may be going to Annapolis, but it is Peres who is now setting the agenda as Olmert trudges behind him hoping to salvage a way to stay in office.

Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice continues to lever pressure on Israel, as America and Europe remain delusionally convinced that Abbas is an American ally, that Fatah is friendly and that the only way to salvage his failing government is to force Israel to make massive concessions to him.

This is supposed to win him the confidence of Palestinian Arabs and the Middle East, but why in the world would any Arab have confidence in a failed leader who has to be coddled and armed by America and Israel? That's the problem with puppet regimes, they never have much credibility.

In the aftermath of Arafat's death, Fatah has been exposed for what it is, a bunch of cowardly armed gangs with no ability to run anything except their protection and payoff rackets.

Hamas has been exposed as a bunch of fanatical Islamic thugs looking to create their own Taliban state. Given that America and Israel have repeatedly shown that they will not remove Hamas and since Hamas has shown that it can and will win any confrontation with Fatah, why in the world would anyone besides foreign diplomats back Fatah?

Condoleeza Rice can squeeze as many giveaways out of Israel as she likes, but leaders don't get credibility at the negotiating table, but from their ability to control their own territory.

It's why the Afghani government has credibility and the Iraqi government does not. Right now Abbas has to be wearing diapers because he knows that the likeliest time for a coup is when the leader is out of the country.

When Israel accepted Oslo, it turned over Gaza and the West Bank to a coalition of armed gangs represented by a handful of men in suits with foreign educations who could plausibly mimic a government well enough to fool the diplomats. The gangs are going their own way, leaving only the men in their expensive suits to accept Israel's surrender on behalf of a phony nation whose representatives are busy stockpiling aid money in its foreign bank accounts for when the hammer comes down.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Delta Vines, November 21, 2007.

Dear Friends and Family:

Below is an article by Stan Goodenough called "America, I Fear For You". Goodenough is a Christian Zionist, who lives in Jerusalem with his wife and children. Contact him at http://www.stangoodenough.com/

My response is this:

I fear for us. Truly tremble in fear for us. I love the U.S. and am thankful to live here.

Our nation's rebellion against G-d is expanding and showing. This is not only because of the Annapolis meetings; but because of the compromises against the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation.

It's not a lack of faith that G-d has all under His watchful eye that makes me fear. It's the fact that He DOES see that which is ongoing that causes me cry out in my prayers for mercy. That which our leaders are doing TO the U.S. as a result of what they are doing TO Israel is nothing short of ignoring the very G-d many of them profess to serve.

I beg forgiveness and mercy on behalf of our country and on behalf of Israel because of the rebellion of our leaders.

May G-d step in, and may He preserve the land of Israel as He has declared her borders to be. May He remember His eternal promises to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob and their decendants to permanently settle them in His land Israel. May He, for His Namesake, silence the praises of the false gods of greed, oil, and power. May He, for His Namesake, silence those who say He is not as powerful as the entity called "allah". May He, for His Namesake, no longer allow another god to be praised on HIS Holy Hill in the city He has placed His Name for eternity. As the Psalmist said: "Let G-d arise, and let His enemies be scattered!"

Let the people of all the earth exalt His Name in praise! Let all those who believe in Him begin to let their voice be heard in prayer in their homes, churches, and synagogues. Let those who believe in G-d speak out to their governmental officials that we want to be a nation that is not ashamed to worship the One True G-d! Let us stand up for the poor, the disabled, the homeless. Let us stand up for the rights of the unborn. Let us stand up and say adultery, fornication, homosexuality, gossip, lying, worshipping other gods (idolatry), and declaration of what is wrong and right is a SIN. Let us repent of our fear of those who threaten us with lawsuits and jailtime for our beliefs. Let us press our lawmakers for changes in the law that gives the Christian and the Jew THEIR rights in the U.S. to be a the nation it was originially intended to be.


My American readers

Most of you will not see this before the weekend is out, so you may well miss it altogether. Yet I feel to write it now; to get it down.

When you wake up today, starting seven hours or so after we do here in Israel, you will celebrate Thanksgiving, marking 386 years after that first special gathering to thank and praise the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for taking care of the pilgrims He had planted in the "new promised land."

It is a day when you will express your appreciation "for the many signal favors of Almighty God" bestowed upon your country.

As a nation, you do have much to give thanks for. You have been blessed with an enormous, breathtakingly beautiful and extremely prosperous land.

There is ample room for you and your 300 million fellow citizens to live in, share and benefit from. The US is the wealthiest, most powerful and most influential country on the planet. For nearly one hundred years you have been the world's uncontested "Number One Superpower."

Thanksgiving will kick off the four-day long weekend that marks the two heaviest annual travel days in the United States as families, often from diverse places all across the country, make a special effort to come together in one place.

And as the majority of you do every year, you will carve up your turkeys, tuck into sumptuous feasts, and take turns talking about things you are thankful for and experiences during the past year which have left you feeling grateful. Untold numbers of you will be filled anew with gratitude that you are Americans.

I want to wish you, with all my heart, a Happy Thanksgiving indeed.

But I wonder how many of you, as you sit down to enjoy your national holiday, will be aware of the fact that a number of your countrymen will be otherwise occupied over this weekend? State Department and other administration officials will be burning the candle at both ends trying to get things lined up for the big event that is to be convened the day after you all return to work.

While you are thanking God for your land and His bountiful provision in it, your elected leaders will be brainstorming for the most effective way to take another nation's land away from them.

And as you while away your weekend, relaxing, visiting, having fun, government officials and other leaders from as many as 40 countries will be boarding the planes that will bring them to your shores in time for Tuesday, when they will come together to determine how best to commit this crime -- this massive historic injustice.

That's right. The International Conference for the Creation of Palestine on Israel's biblical land is set to convene in Annapolis, Maryland, on November 27 -- this coming Tuesday.

And what a day to choose.

On the Jewish calendar, November 27, 2007 is 17 Kislev, 5768. It was on 17 Kislev 5708 in Jerusalem (evening time) -- exactly 60 years ago -- that the United Nations voted to split the Land of Israel in two, and out of it carve a Jewish and an Arab state.

Back then the decision was greeted with joy. for even though it deprived the Jews of a large part of the land promised them for a homeland, it did provide the foothold from which their ongoing restoration could unfold. A majority of the nations -- perhaps moved with at least some compassion following the Holocaust -- voted in favor. And on the strength of that vote David Ben Gurion six months later read out Israel's Declaration of Independence.

What will happen on Tuesday though, is that the majority of the nations represented at Annapolis -- all of them in fact -- will give a massive push to the relentless effort to try and turn back the clock and enforce to the realization of the partition decision.

And the US will be leading the charge -- a charge against the will and purpose of the same God who established your country, and who is working to re-establish His country for His people -- Israel.

On this Thanksgiving Day, I am praying for you, America.

For I fear for you.

Contact Delta Vines by email at delta_vines@sbcglobal.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 21, 2007.

This article was written by Matthew Wagner. It appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546699252&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The research was conducted by Eliyahu Sapir based on the Israeli Democracy Institute's democracy index, overseen by Professor Asher Arian. 1,016 people, representative of the adult Jewish population in Israel, participated.

Only fifth of the populace says it does not observe religious traditions

Jewish observance in Israeli society can be classified as traditional and this traditionalism has held steady over the past three decades, according to findings of a survey published by the Israel Democracy Institute on Thursday.

A bar mitzva celebration at the Western Wall

An examination of the data shows that the percentage of secular respondents ranges from 20% to 41% (and between 1976 and 2005, from 23% to 34%), with an average of 27%. The percentage of religious respondents varies between 19% and 36%, averaging 28%. The percentage of traditional respondents ranges from 38% to 50%, with an average of 44%. A moderate rise was recorded in the percentage of religiously observant Jews, alongside a gradual erosion over the years in the percentage of secular Jews.

A moderate increase was also noted in the percentage of traditional Jews since the start of the 1990s: their numbers have climbed by an average of 12% in comparison with the first two decades analyzed. As of 2007, one fifth of the Israeli Jewish public defines itself as secular, one half as traditional, and one third as religious. In total, some 80% of interviewees reported some connection with religious observance. The findings also indicate that the highest rate of religious observance is found among the Sephardim, and the lowest, among the Ashkenazim.

A total of 56% of Sephardim surveyed reported being religious, as opposed to 17% of Ashkenazim. By contrast, 37% of the Ashkenazim defined themselves as secular, as opposed to 7% of the Sephardim. Cumulatively, 93% of the Sephardim reported some connection to religious tradition as opposed to only 64% of the Ashkenazim. Among native-born Israelis, roughly one half of the respondents define themselves as traditional, while the percentage identifying themselves as religious is 2.4 times that of the secular. Some 85% of the Israeli-born group reported some connection with religious tradition.

An examination of the data reveals a connection between age and level of religious observance among respondents who reported some connection with tradition. 39% of the young people identified themselves as religious, in contrast with 20% of the seniors and 32% of the middle-aged. Of the respondents who reported some connection to tradition, 47% of the young people classified themselves as religious, as opposed to 41% of the middle-aged and 26% of the seniors. By contrast, 44% of the young people surveyed defined themselves as traditional, as opposed to 46% of the middle-aged and 57% of the seniors. Only one fifth or less of the respondents in all age groups reported being secular.

Cumulatively, 83% of the young people report some connection to tradition, compared with 77% of both the middle-aged group and the seniors, respectively. Among native-born Israelis, roughly one half of the respondents define themselves as traditional, while the percentage identifying themselves as religious is 2.4 times that of the secular. The findings further show that the proportion of religiously observant Jews is highest in the two groups with lower levels of education, and lowest in the group with post-secondary education: 41% of the group who did not complete high school reported being religious, compared with 37% from the group with a high school education and only 24% of those with a post-secondary education. By contrast, 26% of those with a post-secondary education identified themselves as secular, as opposed to 20% of the group that did not complete high school.

A correlation was recorded between religious observance and political identification with the Right. And conversely, there was a correlation between non-observance of tradition and political identification with the Left. Among the adult Jewish population in Israel, 18% of respondents reported that they identify with the political Left, 27% with the Center, and 55% with the Right. Examination of the data when broken down by religious observance reveals that 71% of religious respondents identify with the Right, as opposed to 49% of the traditional group, and 43% of the secular. By contrast, only 8% of the religious respondents r eported identifying with the Left as compared with 21% of the traditional group and 27% of the secular.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 21, 2007.
This was written by Abdullah Shihri, AP writer, and it appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia's Justice Ministry said a girl who it sentenced to jail time and flogging after being gang raped by seven men was an adulteress who invited the attack because at the time she was partially dressed in a parked car with her lover.

The statement from the ministry, carried by the Saudi Press Agency late Saturday, defended the court's decision to sentence the girl to six months in prison and 200 lashes for violating the country's strict sex segregation laws.

It also sought to ease international outrage over the case by discrediting the woman who had told reporters earlier that she was meeting a friend from high school when the attack occurred.

"The Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about the media reports over the role of the women in this case which put out false information and wrongly defended her," the statement said. "The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to having an affair with the man she was caught with."

Known only as the "Girl from Qatif," the 19-year-old rape victim said she was a newlywed who was meeting a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him when the attack occurred in the eastern city of Qatif. While in a car with him, two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area where others waited, and then she and her companion were both raped.

The ministry's latest account of the incident alleges that the woman and her lover met in his car for a tryst "in a dark place where they stayed for a while."

"Then they were spotted by the other defendants as the woman was in an indecent condition as she had tossed away her clothes, then the assault occurred on her and the man," the statement added.

It said the sentence of prison and lashes, handed down last week following an appeal, was legal and followed the "the book of God and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad," noting that she had "confessed to doing what God has forbidden."

The woman and her husband were "convinced of the verdict and agreed to it," it said.

The girl was initially sentenced to prison and 90 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her. When her lawyer, Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, appealed the sentence, he was removed from the case, his license was suspended and the penalty was doubled to 200 lashes.

The increase in sentence received heavy coverage in the international media and prompted expressions of astonishment from the U.S. government. Canada called it "barbaric."

Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives. Also, women in Saudi Arabia are often sentenced to flogging and even death for adultery and other crimes.

The seven men convicted of gang raping the woman were given prison sentences of two to nine years. The initial sentences for the men ranged from 10 months to five years in prison.

The case has sparked rare domestic debate about Saudi Arabia's legal system, which gives judges wide discretion in sentencing criminals, rules of evidence are shaky and sometimes no lawyers are present.

Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts and judges appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council. Those courts and judges have complete discretion to set sentences, except in cases where Sharia outlines a punishment, such as capital crimes.

That means that no two judges would likely hand down the same verdict for similar crimes. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light or no sentence to death, depending on the judge's discretion.

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. Contact him at zelasko@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 21, 2007.

This is by Haim Misgav and it appeared today as an opinion piece in Ynet news
(www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3474152,00.html). Dr. Misgav is an attorney and a lecturer at the Netanya Academic College as well as at Bar Ilan University.

Left has stuck to false agenda for many years; new rightist party aims to counter flawed policy

I wanted to write a few words in support of the establishment of "HaTikva" (the hope), a Zionist national party, and respond to all the critics who argue against another apparent split in the "National Camp." There is no such thing. Forget about these mantras.

Leftists have an agenda. An erroneous, false, and deceptive one. But they have been pursuing it for many years. At first they were marginal, and only very few of them dared as much as mention the phrase "Palestinian state." However, today, unfortunately or regrettably, they managed to bequeath their theory to American government institutions as well.

The National Camp, as it is being referred to erroneously, lacks the determination of the leftist public. All we see there are a bunch of pompous, egotistical politicians overcome by baseless self-importance and lacking any clear ideology. They have already proved that a government seat means more than anything to them.

This is how Benjamin Netanyahu and Limor Livnat and Silvan Shalom conducted themselves when Ariel Sharon led the process of expulsion from Gush Katif and northern Samaria, and this is how the members of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's court conducted themselves. Today, this is how Israel Our Home leader Avigdor Lieberman conducts himself.

Therefore, when something bad is threatening the Jewish people's national home, we must speak out with full force, without thinking about all sorts of considerations -- and serve as a mouthpiece to the hundreds of thousands of secular Israelis residing in large cities who did not hit the polls in the last elections, or to those who expressed their disgust with the corruption that has taken over the Likud Central Committee by voting for the Pensioners' Party, for example.

David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel, which was defined as a Jewish state (a phrase that appears several times in the Declaration of Independence) almost 60 years ago. When we heard Shimon Peres, his loyal and trusted student, delivering a speech in his memory at his gravesite, it was difficult not to feel that something fundamental, irreversible, went wrong with us.

Perhaps this is not a complete or cohesive explanation, but this is the reason why many members of the National Camp feel "homeless." They do not hear the politicians raising an outcry and heading to the town square in order to tear their clothes in mourning. They also remember how Benjamin Netanyahu, the current head of opposition, conducted himself when he was prime minister. Indeed, Ehud Olmert can calmly travel to a God forsaken town on the Eastern Coast of the US and trade in Israeli land.

Nobody believes in land-for-peace formula

It's apparently difficult to draw the masses sitting in their bubbles and feeling secure, with Qassam rockets only landing in Sderot and the outskirts of Ashkelon, for the time being. Yet the big explosion shall come. The residents of Kfar Saba, for example, should imagine what will happen in their town once the West Bank town of Qalqiliya is handed over to the Palestinians, or what will happen to airplanes at Ben Gurion International Airport after the hills to the east of it will be populated by rocket launchers.

After all, nobody really believes that handing over additional "territories" would bring the long-awaited peace.

I, a native of Tel Aviv, a secular Israeli scared of what's to come, am offering my support to the establishment of the new party in order to try and wake up the people and convey the anxiety that I'm feeling at this time.

The Oslo agreements were put into action, and we know how that ended. I cried out against Yasser Arafat's arrival to the Gaza Strip, and I failed. I sought to prevent the escape from southern Lebanon, and failed there too. I cried out against the "disengagement" -- and again nobody listened. How long will we keep on being right? Until there is no longer a way back?

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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, November 21, 2007.
This was sritten by Sheera Clair Frenkel and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post.
www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546693451&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A new bill that would establish a plan to release jailed spy Jonathan Pollard was voted down in the Knesset Wednesday. [See J4JP correction #1 below].

The bill would have set up a three-pronged effort, including the appointment of a special minister to head the release effort and public relations campaign in Israel and America. The government opposed the bill in its first reading, allowing it to fall in a vote of 43 against and 32 in favor.

"Kadima and Olmert are not interested in endangering the security of Israel, but also that of Jonathan Pollard," said MK Gilad Erdan (Likud), who initiated the bill. "Olmert is unable to do what it takes and issue a strong request to return [Pollard]."

This week marked the 22nd anniversary of Pollard's conviction in the United States on charges of spying for Israel. [See J4JP correction #2 below].

In 1986, Pollard pleaded guilty, waiving his right to a trial in return for restrictions on sentencing. Israel publicly denied that Pollard was an Israeli spy until 1998, when he was granted Israeli citizenship. [See J4JP correction #3 and 4 below].

Earlier this week, MK Zevulen Orlev (NU-NRP) requested that State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss investigate the Pollard case and consider intervening on Pollard's behalf. Orlev said that the State Comptroller Committee, which he heads, would vote on an official resolution asking Lindenstrauss to prepare a report on why Israel has not managed to secure Pollard's release.

MK Estherina Tartman (Israel Beiteinu) also raised the issue of Pollard's release earlier this week [See http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/112207.htm ], arguing that instead of releasing Palestinian prisoners, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert should consider focusing his efforts on Israeli citizens.

Justice4JP Corrections:

1) Referring to Jonathan as a "jailed spy" instead of what he really is, an Israeli agent in captivity, or an Israeli agent in prison, is demeaning to Israel, whose agent Jonathan is. It shows a lack of national pride, as well as a lack of understanding about the case.

2) November 21, 2007 is not the anniversary of Jonathan's conviction. Rather, it marks the completion of his 22 nd year in prison. On this date twenty-two years ago, November 21st 1985, Jonathan Pollard was thrown out of the Israeli Embassy in Washington and into the waiting arms of the FBI. He has been in prison ever since, serving a life sentence for his service to the security of the State of Israel.

3) A violated plea agreement is not the same as "restrictions on sentencing" as reported above. Jonathan Pollard gave up his right to a trial as part of a plea agreement, which spared both governments (US and Israel) a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial. Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution. Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled -- in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.

4) Jonathan Pollard received official recognition as an Israeli agent in 1998, not Israeli citizenship. He sued for this recognition. He received Israeli Citizenship in 1995, and a ceremony was held in 1996. He also had to sue to force the government to give him citizenship.

For all of the facts see http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 21, 2007.


A Knesset chairman explained to the US Senate that Jordan prevents smuggling of terrorists and arms into Israel, by preventing them from entering Jordan. Egypt could, too, if it wanted to. Egypt claims it concentrates efforts on finding smuggling tunnels (which it does little of). The chairman called that ridiculous, since it would be more effective to block the narrow access to the Gaza border.

So long as Egypt suffers no penalty for allowing smuggling, it will. This defeats US peace efforts (IMRA, 11/12) and strengthens jihad.


The new relations between France and the US are positive, but are outweighed by the protection China and Russia give to Iranian nuclear development. In that development, the concept of "international community" has proved hollow.

Zvi Bar-El of Haaretz thinks, however, that "important voices" in Iran want to negotiate, so why not offer Iran the same deal as offered N. Korea (IMRA, 11/12)?

The concept "international community" is cited when scapegoating Israel or the US or when reassuring Israel. Otherwise, it does nothing. This reminds me of the Jews' anticipation that the "world" would intervene with Nazi Germany to halt the Holocaust. The world hadn't the slightest effort to do so, except as a byproduct of ending the war.

N. Korea has not stood down but violated its previous, similar deals. Rogue states don't have reasonable goals we can live with. Iran doesn't. "Important voices" in Iran don't include the main rulers. Iran has tricked the US before, as in Iran-Contra, when the US thought it could work with part of the government.


Turkey professes the need for greater defense from potential nuclear missiles fired from Iran. It is negotiating to buy a spy satellite and a missile defense system from Israel (IMRA, 11/12)


Israel released 86 members of Fatah, "in honor of" Ramadan. It plans to release several hundred more before the Annapolis conference, as a goodwill gesture (Arutz-7, 11/12).

Why does the Jewish state honor a Muslim holiday, one during which the Muslims traditionally ramp up their wars? Why does Israel seek goodwill from fanatical genocidal terrorists, an impossible task? What evidence has it that such measures win goodwill?


First Israel required Fatah prisoners to sign an agreement not to engage in terrorism, before it would release them, claiming that such a release boosts the Abbas regime. Then it released many without signatures. Some of those have gotten more weapons and have renewed terrorism (Arutz-7, 11/12).

The silly rationale for the releases has many flaws. One I didn't state before is the assumption that if Fatah is strengthened, so is Abbas. But Fatah no longer listens much to Abbas.


The IAEA criticized Israel's reputed attack on Syrian nuclear facilities. The basis for the criticism was that Israel should have reported its suspicions about Syria to it.

The criticism assumes that the IAEA could and would do something about it. The IAEA, however, has no authority to investigate in a country that doesn't want it to or that hasn't registered its nuclear facilities. Neither condition fits Syria. Neither has the IAEA been successful in discovering or terminating nuclear facilities in several countries. It took independent action to do so (IMRA, 11/13).

The IAEA is an excuse for inaction, like the UNO, in general.


Arutz-7 reports that the Palestinian Arab birth rate has fallen and the Jewish birth rate has risen. Indeed, the population in the P.A. has fallen! Arutz-7 concludes that this refutes the government's contention that the Arabs pose a demographic threat to Israel (11/13).

It certainly reduces the threat but doesn't refute it. The Arabs till have a birth rate almost double that of the Jews. Many Arabs sneak into Israel.

The answer is not to relinquish the territories but to annex vacant parts of it, make conditions inhospitable for Muslim Arabs in the territories and in Israel, and expel illegal Arab aliens. Perhaps the excess of abortion on demand should be considered. A serious need for abortion is one thing, but the "me-too" generation's flight from responsibility is another thing.


Egypt now publicizes each arms smuggling tunnel it finds. It claims to have found 60, this year, and to have confiscated 20,000 tons of explosives. IMRA scoffs at that figure (IMRA, 11/13). There is no evidence backing the claim. Nor is 60 many.


Israel has published a list of wanted terrorists and arranged with some an amnesty that requires a probationary period of good behavior. When the wanted men approach a taxi, café, or eligible female, they are shunned. People flee, lest the IDF descend upon the terrorists, killing bystanders if the terrorists cause a firefight (IMRA, 11/13).

Apparently there was no need to have offered amnesty. Wanted terrorists have lost their glory. Israel should keep up the raids on them. It acts as a deterrent effect more than has been publicized.


Two more relatives of anti-government, religious Jewish activists were killed in fiery vehicle accidents, in Judea-Samaria. Barry Chamish adds them to the string of similar, suspicious incidents. All fiery, fatal loss of control and explosion, not the typical car accident. (He claims finding sabotage after his own car went out of control, but he survived. He thinks it was staged by the same rogue secret service unit that played other dirty tricks against the Jewish opposition.). He sees a pattern in recent deaths (11/13).

I would like to see the overall statistics. I would compare fatal accidents by type and group, in proportion to that group's percentage of drivers. Israel does have a traffic accident problem. I tend to believe Mr. Chamish.

People have been informing Chamish that PM Olmert likes young women to the point of abusing them and raping or attempting to rape them, and then relying upon his position to silence them. However, the Bush-Rice regime may be blackmailing him to surrender Israel to the jihadists.

Olmert's bestiality is what Chamish supposes turned Olmert's family so dysfunctional or deviant. His daughter is a Lesbian. One son is a homosexual. The other organizes military desertion. Both have abandoned Israel and their father. The wife lauds Israel's worse enemies. Olmert constantly steals money.

IMRA reports Sec. Rice's speech in which she gave the US credit for declaring Israel's right to defend itself, but omitted the US debit for declaring Israel's means of self-defense impermissible. She noted that chaos is spreading in the Mideast, especially as Iran assassinates people (and fights against the US in Iraq). Nevertheless, she calls the titular head of the chaotic P.A., Abbas, as a democratic leader, and cites Olmert's affirmation of Abbas as a "partner for peace." Her prescription is for Israel to abandon Judea-Samaria, the way it abandoned Gaza to him and it turned from chaos into a center for jihad against Israel. That is how she proposes peace (11/13).

If the world were rational, it would perceive that Rice is not.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, November 21, 2007.

Great News!!

Haven't you heard? The international public protests were successful!

Here's proof that the world has a heart. The campaign to save Anne Frank's tree, the one she saw from the window of her hideout, is a success!

It reminds me of the hysteria of the idealistic Left in Israel after they discovered that some of the Jews, who had been forcibly evicted from their homes in Gush Katif and Northern Shomron, due to the Left-supported Disengagement, had "cruelly and irresponsibly abandoned their pet dogs." Of course those very same "humanists" didn't think it cruel that the government had evicted, exiled those same innocent Jews from their homes, destroyed their businesses, farms, trees and gardens. Minor details, like the dog owners' being homeless, most temporarily housed in small no animals allowed hotel rooms didn't excuse them.

* There were beautiful trees and gardens in the communities Olmert/Sharon and the cheering world destroyed in the name of Disengagement.

* There were excellent schools in the communities that Olmert/Sharon and the cheering world destroyed in the name of Disengagement.

* There were successful businesses in the communities Olmert/Sharon and the cheering world destroyed in the name of Disengagement.

Where were the international protests?

And now, Israeli politicians and media and the world's moral standard bearers are going blithely ahead with their plans to exile, G-d forbid! more innocent Jews, well over 100,000, from their homes totally disengaged from the dangers they will be putting the entire State of Israel.

Instead of defending and strengthening our State of Israel, they are at the forefront of the international movement to establish an Arab terror state in our historic Homeland, in the heartland, an easy rocket-launch away from all Israeli cities.

Why doesn't anyone care? The world protested about the possible destruction of a diseased tree in Holland, once admired by an "imprisoned" Jew. Why doesn't anyone care about preserving our country? An Arab terror state which unabashedly proclaims its aim to destroy the Jewish State is bad news for the entire world. Why doesn't anyone care? Where are the protests?

Why does that tree mean more to people than all the vibrant Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria? Why do people ignore the dangers to the State of Israel?

Why do people prefer to donate to Holocaust Memorials than the needs of live Jews? Why did they unite for Anne Frank's tree rather than to protest the uprooting of mine?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 21, 2007.

This was written by Cale Hahn, an American Gentile living in Texas. He worked as a journalist in Jerusalem in the late 1990s. His articles have appeared in several Israeli, US and international media publications. It appeared in Arutz Sheva

Someday, in the near future, after the imminent wars are concluded, the dead buried, the flames extinguished and the cities rebuilt, a future people will gaze with utter perplexity upon this age, in wonder how such a sad state came to be. They may well name this era the Age of Madness, when the world lost its collective soul and mind. The universe cannot long suffer the flipping of Earth's moral magnetic poles.

Today's script characterizes the bloodthirsty as peaceful, victims as aggressors and aggressors as victims, destroyers as allies, cowards as courageous, and the vile as virtuous.

The universe cannot long suffer the flipping of Earth's moral magnetic poles. Tomorrow, the curtain of deception will be removed and the semantics of today's charlatans no longer the tool behind which the savage maneuver.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in her speech to the United Jewish Communities, stridently called for the birth of a Palestinian state as the overarching goal of US policy in the Middle East.

That Rice would fail to mention the existing Palestinian state in Gaza is understandable. Gaza was to be the embryonic test case to prove to the world the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel and that they are capable of self-governance. Having received their new state, the Palestinians promptly elected representatives from Hamas, an organization whose depth of Jew-hatred has yet to be fully plumbed. Nor will the daily rocket barrages on Israel originating therein bolster Rice's delusional "Palestinians - partners in peace"mantra, either.

Everyone knows what the Palestinians and the rest of the Islamic world desire in regards to Israel. It's not as if their actions cannot be seen, their sermons heard nor their textbooks read. They demand the complete eradication of Jews from the land. Not from part of it, but from all of it. Witness what happens to some unfortunate Jew who accidentally stumbles into a Palestinian area.

The world has seen enough. Of Israel, that is. It would appear easier, after all, to remove six million Jews from a sliver of land than change a billion Muslim's minds about the Jews' right to exist.

Israel finds herself internationally isolated. Worse, she has given herself to be shepherded by an enemy she regards as her ally.

America's Middle East foreign policy is part and parcel anti-Semitic. Were it not so, the Bush Administration would as America does throughout the rest of the world.

It is in Israel, and only in Israel, where Islamic terrorism is not only tolerated by America, but determinedly and actively encouraged to expand and thrive with American money, training and arms. Furthermore, American diplomatic pressure shields these terrorists from significant Israeli retaliation in the aftermath of their strikes against Jewish targets.

Additionally, America is the fulcrum by which these terror groups gain concession after concession from the Israelis. It is through America that Islamic terrorists grow stronger. And it is through America that Israel is forced into an increasingly precarious security and strategic positioning.

America's "land-for-peace"formula for achieving peace is also fundamentally anti-Semitic. Reduced to its essence, anti-Semitism is the conviction that whatever the problem or circumstance, it is always the Jews' fault. The world has seen enough. Of Israel, that is.

Land-for-peace posits that the Jewish presence in the land is the primary cause for creating, and propagating, Islamic aggression. Accordingly, Jewish-Muslim warfare is primarily created by the presence of Jews. Remove the Jews from the land, the thinking goes, and the catalyst for producing conflict will be removed as well.

Therefore, land-for-peace contains at its core, the strong implication the Jews are responsible for attacks against them.

That Gaza disproves the land-for-peace theory is apparently irrelevant today.

This approach does not even consider the possibility that Islam is the cause in creating, nurturing, and propagating this utter fanaticism about annihilating another people. This, despite the Koran, the hadiths, the imams and the terrorists themselves declaring that Islam requires jihad against the Jews until they are killed, converted or enslaved.

The Bush Administration studiously ignores across-the-board Palestinian violations of previous agreements, as well as continued attacks against the Jews. Instead, his administration calls on Israelis to make continued "difficult and painful sacrifices." Lack of progress in achieving peace is not the result of Islamic fanaticism, but the Jews' presence in the land. It's the Jews' fault.

Where is America's insistence upon the repudiation of Islam's calls to annihilate the Jews from the land? Where is America's demands for the Palestinians to bring the murderers within their midst to justice? Where is America's outrage at Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people and their continued rocketing of Israeli population centers?

And where is America's apology to Israel for its role in creating a process responsible for thousands of Jewish dead and tens of thousands wounded?

Instead, Rice has the audacity to conjure out of thin air that "almost all" Israelis want to unilaterally withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and likens Israelis to slaveholders. Can you imagine saying such a thing after Gaza? It's the Jews' fault.

Precipitous times are at hand. Today, we may be witnessing the fulfillment of Zekharyah 12:3, where all the nations of the world plot against Jerusalem to destroy it.

It is God Himself who has returned the Jews to their land after thousands of years in exile, as He foretold in His Word. Those who attempt to reverse the rebirth of Israel are fighting against God Himself.

If the Annapolis conference occurs and America attempts to force Israel to return Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, Judea and Samaria, then I shudder in fear for my nation when I consider that God is a God of justice and terrible wrath (Bereshit 12:3).

The implementation of Annapolis would indeed represent "Auschwitz borders" for Israel. That America's own borders are completely open to anyone and anything entering has not gone unnoticed, either.

Everything America will have hoped to preserve by sacrificing Israel will be lost: its economy will be destroyed, its currency will crumble, its oil will be cut off and it will be given over to its enemies. Everything America was leading Israel towards may instead come upon itself.

In the drive to secure its peace, it will instead receive global war, much of it unleashed within its shores and upon its cities by these same Islamic hordes it hoped to appease with Israel's sacrifice. The same will be true of all nations that come against Israel to destroy her.

May God have mercy on us and turn us around before it is too late.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoni the Blogger, November 21, 2007.

More than 40 nations invited to Annapolis

White House issues formal invitations to peace conference despite admitting it likely won't result in steadfast results

The United States issued formal invitations to some 40 nations and organizations on Tuesday ahead of the upcoming Annapolis peace conference. Officials in Jerusalem and Ramallah confirmed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had received their invites.

The list of confirmed invitees also includes the Arab League and Arab countries such as Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Mauritania, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Members of the international diplomatic quartet have also been given invitations. These include the UN, The EU, Russia, and Mideast envoy Tony Blair.

Other countries who may attend the conference are France, Germany, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy, China, Norway, Turkey, Vatican, Brazil and Australia.

The US State Department confirmed the invitations had been sent out for next week's conference, though no agenda has been set and no schedule has been released for the meetings, which the US hope will kick-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said US ambassadors around the world had received a detailed list of instructions for issuing the invitations, which were extended to countries involved in the peace process, Arab nations and organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

White House: We recognize there won't be any instant results

The White House has said President George W. Bush will attend at least part of the event.

"He'd like to see these two parties come together to talk about the substantial and core issues surrounding the peace process so that we can begin negotiations toward that end," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday.

"We recognize that at the Annapolis conference we are not going to have instant results. What you are going to have, however, we hope, is a discussion of the core issues, the substantive issues that can get the Palestinians and the Israelis to a place where they can have negotiations to get to the two-state solution that they say that they both want to get to," she said.

"There's a lot of difficult issues that come with that. There's a lot of history, and there's a lot of tension. But I think that the motivations on all sides have been genuine, and we are hopeful that we have a good conference. And I look forward to giving you more information about the President's participation as soon as I can."

Majority of Palestinians want negotiations

A majority of Palestinians want their president to negotiate a peace deal with Israel, but do not believe there will be progress at next week's session, a poll showed.

There has been a slight drop in skepticism about the conference in the past two months, according to the survey by the independent polling company Near East Consulting.

In November, 57% of 1,200 respondents said they did not believe the conference will lead to progress in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, compared with 61% in September, according to the poll, which had an error margin of 3 percentage points.

The study noted a 5-point drop in respondents who said they wanted Abbas to attend the conference, the figure now stands at 71% compared to 76% in October.

Forty nations have been invited to the Annapolis peace conference, but who represents the Jews?

The Jewish people will have no representative to safe guard our rights at the "peace" talks.

Even the Israeli representatives want to give away our land, so who will come to the rescue of the Jewish people and the Land that G-D gave us.

Olmert leaves White House (photo: Carrie Devorah)

Abbas enters the White House Carrie Devorah)

Jews should make Shas and Israel Beitanu pay a price for their staying in the government. A Torah loving Jew should never vote for either of these parties ever again unless they leave the government before Olmert leaves for the USA.

Contact Yoni at yonitidi@msn.com This essay is archived at

The photos are not part of the original essay. They were taken by Carrie Devorah. Contact her at carried@carrieon.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Stephen Gill, November 20, 2007.

I am a democrat and believes firmly in the rule of the law. I begin to think when people discuss the state of emergency and suspension of the constitution in Pakistan from November 3rd. There are articles and press releases in support of lawyers and judges in Pakistan and to force General Musharraf to reinstate the constitution.

The question is which constitution of Pakistan they refer to. Was there democracy before this emergency? Let us talk about the blasphemy laws of Pakistan that put the minorities under the state-sponsored terrorism. For decades, the minorities, not more than three percent of the population, have been tortured, beaten outside and inside of the jails and if released could not enjoy the freedom that was given to them by a court. Either they died in jails or outside by crowds. The lucky ones who were freed by courts had to seek refuge abroad.

When Ms. Bhutto was prime minister, she said that there cannot be blasphemy laws in a country where a person can buy false witnesses for even twenty rupees that is less then half of a dollar. She also said she was in the office as prime minister without any power. General Musharraf tried to make these laws harder for every citizen to misuse them so easily to grab the lands of others, or to take revenge But the forces of anarchy stood against him and he had to withdraw his move.

In addition to these discriminatory laws, there are other laws that clearly discriminate between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. For example, a non-Muslim cannot be the head of the armed forces and prime minister of the country. There are discriminatory examinations for the students. The witness of two women equal to one Muslim male in court.

It will take pages to write about atrocities on the minorities. It happened under the reign of General Musharraf and it had happened even before. These atrocities will continue happening, may be even more, after him.

Discriminatory laws have been imposed through non-democratic means. Lawyers and judges of Pakistan from the majority group never spoke against these and other discriminatory laws, because these laws affected only minorities. The state of emergency affects all, particularly the majority. That is why a segment of judiciary is crying. This segment of lawyers of Pakistan threw stones at police during their demonstrations, knowing well that no citizen has the right to take the law in his or her own hands. The press release and articles do not condemn that part.

Now, when people are killing innocent people, even children; bombing the religious places of minorities, including churches; and when terrorists are everywhere, what can be expected from General Musharraf who himself has been targeted several times.

There is a long list to prove that Pakistan did not have democracy even before this state of emergency and its laws are not based on democratic principles. Moreover, there are at least three constitutions produced at different times. Situation under General Musharraf deteriorated in certain areas because he has been more liberal and democrat than his predecessors had been. The blasphemy laws of Pakistan is a kind of martial law on the minorities since the days of Zia-ul-Haq. These laws are divisive that have been introduced by a dictator who was not elected democratically. Zia used to say that the constitution consists of a few pages that he could tear any time.

The seeds of the deterioration of the law and order situations have been sown by Zia-ul-Haq in the early eighties. Pakistan is now reaping that crop. General Musharraf gave freedom of expression more than any other president or dictator of Pakistan has ever given. The press and citizens misused that freedom openly. There is freedom to condemn a religion of minority groups. Go to any shop in Pakistan and you can buy several forms of anti-Christian literature based on hatred. This type of freedom is divisive and poisonous for a nation. Moreover, corruption is common in almost every area. Can anyone say that Pakistan had a democracy or a rule of law before this state of emergency?

This is the time to reflect over the real reasons that compelled General Musharraf to impose this state of emergency. It is also the time to remember why and how he came to power. Which are those forces that made him to come to power? It is also the time to reflect and do something to destroy the divisive and undemocratic seeds that have been sown in the land of peace. Just to say that General Musharaf should go or lift the state of emergency is not going to solve the deep-rooted ailments. One ailment is fanaticism that is giving birth to terrorism. The blasphemy laws and other discriminatory laws are responsible for spreading the poison of hatred that are responsible for terrorism. As long as the divisive laws are there in the books of Pakistan, there will always be insecurity, dangers and other impediments to the prosperity in the land that is blessed with nearly every type of wealth.


Please let me know if you would like to have a copy of my widely-published paper on the blasphemy laws of Pakistan and other articles

Contact Dr. Stephen Gill by email at stephengill@cogeco.ca. His website address is www.stephengill.ca Ansted Poet Laureate

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 20, 2007.

Bolton, as usual, gets it right....in both articles (see below).

In my opinion, the answer to his last question is: "it is important for Bush and Rice to make the appearance of trying"...trying their best...against all odds...against Israeli intransigence...in order to keep the Saudis happy.

"The Annapolis Fiasco"
Bret Stephens (bstephens@wsj.com)
November 20, 2007
Wall Street Journal Online

Henry Kissinger once observed that "when enough prestige has been invested in a policy it is easier to see it fail than abandon it." At the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., next week, the current secretary of state will illustrate her predecessor's point.

"Annapolis," as it is spoken of in diplomatic circles, was conceived earlier this year by the Bush administration as a landmark conference that would revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and lead to a final settlement by January 2009. It was to be modeled on the Madrid conference of 1991, which brought Israeli leaders face-to-face with their Arab counterparts and, as it seemed at the time, created a new paradigm in the affairs of the Middle East. Back then, the idea was that the Iron Wall between the Jewish state and its neighbors could be brought down just as the Berlin Wall had. Today, the operative theory is that Israel's neighbors, fearful of Iran's growing regional clout, have a newfound interest in putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to rest.

Nice theory -- if only the locals would get with the concept. The Egyptians are openly skeptical about the conference, which they say lacks "an endgame." The Saudis, supposedly among the beleaguered and newly pliable Sunni powers, can hardly be bothered with Annapolis; even now it's unclear whether their foreign minister will attend. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has told the Saudis he would rather resign than attend a conference that achieves nothing. He fears Palestinians would "turn to Hamas after they see that Annapolis did not give them anything," according to an unnamed Palestinian official quoted in the Jerusalem Post.

Then there are the Israelis, who have even better reasons than the Sunnis to fear Iran. Yossi Beilin, architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords and a political dove, predicts not only that Annapolis will fail, but that its failure will "weaken the Palestinian camp, strengthen Hamas and cause violence." His political opposite, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, calls Annapolis "dangerous" and warns that Israel risks giving away everything for nothing in return. Few Israelis take seriously the view that the creation of a Palestinian state offers a solution to their concerns about Iran. On the contrary, they fear that such a state would become yet another finger of the Islamic Revolution, just as Hezbollahstan is to their north in Lebanon, and Hamastan is to their south in Gaza.

No wonder, then, that as skepticism about Annapolis grows its perceived significance shrinks. What was originally billed as a conference is now being described by the State Department as a "meeting." What was originally envisaged as a three-day event has become a one-day event. There is, as of this writing, no firm list of participants. And there are whispers the date of the meeting may be pushed back, perhaps to December..

As for the agenda, there isn't one. Substantive discussions have been ruled out. There was some hope that Israelis and Palestinians would agree to a joint "declaration of principles," but they could not come up with a common text. Now there's talk of issuing separate declarations, or doing without declarations altogether.

Among the principles sharply in dispute is whether Israel is a Jewish state. "We will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state," says Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, adding that "there is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined." Counters Mr. Olmert: "We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me."

One would have thought the question of Israel's Jewishness was settled 60 years ago by a U.N. partition plan that speaks of a "Jewish state" some 30 times. (One would have thought, too, that Mr. Erekat would be mindful of his government's membership in the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.) But the question hasn't been settled because Palestinians will not concede the "right" of their "refugees" -- currently numbering in the millions -- to return to their ancestral homes and farms in present-day Israel.

Despite nearly 20 years of trying, there is simply no finessing these differences. If Israel is not a Jewish state, it may as well be called Palestine. If the existential issues of 1948 cannot be resolved, there is little point in addressing the territorial issues of 1967, which are themselves almost impossible to address. Matters are not helped by the unusual political weakness of the key participants. In the last year, Mr. Abbas has lost half his kingdom. He will swiftly lose what remains of it the moment "Palestine" comes into being and the Israeli army isn't around to suppress Hamas as an effective fighting force.

Mr. Olmert's governing coalition depends on two parties -- the ultraorthodox Shas and ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu -- which are opposed to any substantive concessions. The prime minister faces potential criminal indictments in multiple probes connected to his previous tenure as minister of trade and industry. A forthcoming official inquiry on last year's war in Lebanon will reportedly hold him accountable for the deaths of 33 soldiers. Ariel Sharon is still in a coma, but it's his successor who's really on life support.

Why, then, hold a conference at all? The short answer is that Condoleezza Rice demands one, and she has spent countless hours over eight mostly fruitless trips to the region this year trying to arrange it. But this hardly addresses the deeper mystery of why this administration has gotten itself caught in the Venus flytrap of the Arab-Israeli conflict, after vowing not to do so, and why it has done so with a degree of ineptitude that recalls the dimmer moments of the Carter administration. Maybe it's a matter of bureaucratic inertia. Or maybe it's about being seen to try. Or maybe it's the kind of fourth-quarter, fourth down Hail Mary pass that appeals to a secretary of state with a mania for football and a thin record of accomplishment. Then again, maybe it doesn't really matter.

But look on the bright side: Annapolis may yet serve us well as an object lesson in how diplomacy -- the competent kind -- just isn't done.

"Bolton: Annapolis will set us back"
Hilary Leila Krieger
The Jerusalem Post
November 15, 2007

A former Bush administration stalwart who has become a vocal critic told The Jerusalem Post this week that the planned meeting in Annapolis later this month to push for Israeli-Palestinian peace is "a mistake."

John Bolton, a leading neoconservative who served as the US ambassador to the UN before leaving the administration last winter, spoke to the Post following a lecture Tuesday night on his new book, which takes issue with aspects of American policy toward Iran, North Korea and Lebanon, among others.

"It's a mistake to push ahead with the Annapolis peace conference in November or December," he said, noting that the date hasn't been finalized.

"I just don't see this as the moment to make progress on Israeli-Palestinian matters. And I don't think that a failed conference will simply leave us at the status quo. I think it will set us back, so I think the effort is perhaps well-intentioned but misconceived."

In his talk he referred to an Israeli government with "internal political difficulties" and a Palestinian Authority that's "broken perhaps beyond repair," so any attempt at an "unnatural" reconciliation could leave US influence diminished.

Bolton, who spoke to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute think tank here, where he now holds a position, also strongly attacked the US response to an Israeli attack of an alleged incipient nuclear facility in Syria earlier this fall.

He described "the pall of silence that the administration has caused to fall over Israel's September 6 raid" as "what may be the most disturbing event of recent American history." That's because, in his estimation, the administration was so invested in diplomacy with North Korea that it was willing to make an enormous error by overlooking the proliferation North Korea allegedly engaged in to supply the Syrian site, as well as possible Iranian connections.

"If you're afraid to have this information come out, what does it say about the nature of the diplomacy that's under way?" he asked.

Speaking to the Post, he dismissed concerns that revealing the nature of the attack -- which has been shrouded in secrecy in Israel, in part because of military censorship -- would increase the likelihood of a Syrian military response.

"I don't think Syria has the military capability and I think they know it," he said.

In his presentation, he called for regime change in Syria and said that the poor Western approach on Iran means that the same option, of regime change or a military attack are the only two remaining alternatives to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In his book, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, Bolton attacks the way the US has conducted its Iran policy. Instead of immediately referring signs of illicit Iranian nuclear activity to the UN Security Council for sanctions several years ago, America allowed Britain, France and Germany to undertake negotiations with Iran.

Because of that, he assesses, "Iran gained almost four years of additional time to perfect an indigenous capacity throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle, leaving us in a far more vulnerable position than when we started." His chilling summation: "This is the road to the nuclear Holocaust."

Bolton also recounts in detail the formulation of the US position at the UN for dealing with Israel's war with Hizbullah last summer, again faulting the Bush administration for backing down from its original demands. Instead of sticking to the insistence that the conflict not end with a mere cease-fire that would maintain the status quo vis-á-vis Hizbullah and Israel, he says, the administration caved in to international demands and the situation got worse.

"Contrary to everything we had said at the outset of the hostilities, the net result, over a year later, appeared yet again to be just another Middle East cease-fire," he writes, "which was, if anything, somewhat less favorable to Israel, and certainly less favorable to democracy in Lebanon, than before."

Bolton, who has been on the receiving end of harsh criticism for his unrepentant neoconservative stances and outspokenness, quit the government after he failed to make his temporary appointment as UN ambassador permanent when the Senate wouldn't confirm him. Since he left office, he has openly criticized the Bush administration for straying from what he considers its original principles.

He has been particularly disparaging of the State Department, a perennial source of frustration for him, and has suggested it be overhauled.

He also doesn't shy from biting put-downs, lambasting former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan for equating himself to a "secular pope" and UN International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad El-Baradei for forgetting that "he works for the member governments of the IAEA and not the other way around."

Bolton's section headings take aim at the IAEA ("How Many IAEA Meetings Does It Take to Screw in a Lightbulb?") and the European Union ("Iran in the Security Council: The EU-3 Find New Ways to Give In") among others.

His book, he said, was partly aimed at providing more information to the public ahead of the 2008 elections.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 20, 2007.

The Reform Party of Syria -- RPS -- (opposed to Assad and his "Ulama) votes for Fu'ad Ajami. So do I.

Please read this message and take Clifford May's advice seriously. It is called "Last Chance for Public Diplomacy" and appeared November 8, 2007 in National Review Online Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Four Americans have now held the title of "Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs" -- three of them under the current administration. President Bush has one last chance and one more year to get it right. I'll tell you how -- but first, let's take a moment to review the modern history of public diplomacy.

During the Cold War, it was understood that battles of ideas had to be fought -- and that they could not be won simply by having diplomats to talk to other diplomats at embassy receptions. We also needed to communicate with ordinary people. To that end, the United States Information Agency (USIA) was created. Its work product was not spectacular -- it was a government bureaucracy, after all -- but it got some things right. In the early 1960s, its director was Edward R. Murrow. Perhaps the greatest broadcast journalist of his generation, he had no problem defending the United States and the White House. (Imagine that!)

Then, in the 1990s -- despite a series of bloody attacks by Militant Islamist terrorists -- Americans persuaded themselves that all the serious wars had been fought and that it was time to spend the "peace dividend." That meant shrinking the military, cutting the intelligence budget and, in 1998, shutting down USIA.

A year later, the office of the Under Secretary for Public Affairs was created. President Clinton gave the job to Evelyn S. Lieberman, the White House staffer whose claim to fame was that she had transferred Monica Lewinsky to the Pentagon because the intern was "spending too much time around the West Wing." Under Lieberman's tenure, no great advances in public diplomacy took place.

Less than a month after 9/11/01, President Bush gave the post to Charlotte Beers, a Madison Ave. advertising executive who had successfully marketed such products as Uncle Ben's rice. That there are significant differences between selling products and championing ideas soon became apparent. Beers' departure from Washington two years later was unlamented.

Next to take the portfolio was Margaret Tutwiler, formerly Secretary of State James Baker's spokeswoman. She appeared unenthusiastic about the assignment. After six months of inactivity, she left to take a job on Wall Street.

Bush then turned to Karen Hughes, his long-time confidante and advisor, a woman with good instincts about swing voters in the Mid-West but no insight into fundamentalist clerics in the Middle East. To advise her, she turned to the usual suspects -- including the university professors who solicit millions of dollars from Saudi petro-billionaires and who are exquisitely sensitive to the perspectives of Arab rulers. (Just coincidence, I'm sure.)

Hughes was energetic. For example, she created far-flung "media hubs" so that, when something happened, American spokesmen abroad could respond in a more timely fashion. But her personalization of public diplomacy -- presenting herself to the Muslim masses as a genial "working mom" -- did not have the impact intended.

What's more, Hughes bought into the State Department delusion that you can educate people about the U.S. by dispatching emissaries who are only too eager to tell the world how much they, too, detest George Bush and his policies.

How can the president make progress in public diplomacy in the few months remaining to him? Start by discarding the peculiar notion that America can or should be "liked." We're at a critical moment in history -- a war is being waged against the U.S. and other free nations by Militant Islamists and their oil-rich enablers. Now is no time for popularity contests.

Concentrate instead on being understood. Bush has articulated his core belief succinctly: "The survival of liberty in our land depends on the success of liberty in other lands." Can it really be so hard to defend that idea to audiences abroad?

Finally and most importantly, Bush should not appoint another political operative as his public diplomacy chief. He should appoint an individual of learning and achievement. There is one obvious choice: Fouad Ajami, the distinguished scholar and author, a Lebanese-born Shia Muslim who is American by choice and conviction.

No one understands the Arab and Muslim worlds better than Ajami. And no one can better explain America and this White House than Ajami, who has written: "Grant Mr. Bush his due: The revolutionary message he brought forth was the simple belief that there was no Arab and Muslim 'exceptionalism' to the appeal of liberty."

Naming Professor Ajami to this position would make a more compelling statement than just about anything else Bush can say or do.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 20, 2007.

This was written by Kevin Myers and it appeared today in the Independent (Ireland)
www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/ eu-inaction-breeds-contempt-in-a-dictatorship-of-floggers-1223433.html.

The only correction I would make to this is that this is not the outcome of "the insane Wahhabist sect." This is Islam as it has existed from the initial psychotic ravings of Mohammed until today. Islam, Islam, Islam. Not Radical Islam, not Jihadist Islam but basic, true to the Koran, Islam. This is how they have always acted and nothing will change them.

It must suck to be saudi. Someone needs to name the name.

EU inaction breeds contempt in a dictatorship of floggers

There are some things -- no, many things -- which I do not understand in this world. But, what I find most incomprehensible of all is that the following story has not made world headlines. Without more ado, let me outline it.

An unnamed Saudi 19-year old woman -- let us call her Fatima -- has been sentenced to 200 lashes, after being gang-raped 14 times by a group of seven Sunni men in the town of Qatif. Not merely did they repeatedly rape her, but they also raped the male friend they found her with.

Her attackers received sentences of between 10 months and five years. The man she was found with in the car -- we'll call him Abdul-- was sentenced to 90 lashes.

Why were Abdul and Fatima, both of them rape victims, sentenced to anything? Because they were alone in a car, and it is a criminal offence in Saudi Arabia for unrelated men and women to be in one another's company.

So criminal, indeed, that even after being repeatedly raped, the two offenders were considered worthy of further punishment: 90 lashes each, which was increased to 200 lashes for Fatima after she had the temerity to appeal and to speak to the Saudi press about the horror which had befallen her.

There are many questions which result from this story. The first is the one I referred to in the opening paragraph: why is this is not a world-shattering headline?

Of all the stories of abuse, torture and degradation which Islamic societies seem to specialise in, this is surely in a class of its own.

For you can call a 19-year-old a woman if you like, but to my mind, in any society, she is still a girl, and in the enclosed and repressive horror of Saudi Arabia, an utterly inexperienced one.

Rape is always an unspeakable crime, but it varies in extremes, and what happened to her and her friend is just about off the scale. To be sure, whether or not Fatima was a virgin is irrelevant; no amount of sexual experience in any way prepares a woman for such violation.

But in Saudi Arabia, there is this further consequence. Fatima is no longer marriageable: and in married life alone can a Saudi woman find a life.

And now she is to be flogged, 200 times. 200 times.

So let Fatima stand as the totem of one of the most evil countries in the world, one which is dominated by the insane Wahhabist sect; a land where children are taught to hate Jews and the West; where young men are so perverted by hatred that they can be sexually aroused sufficiently to rape a man and woman they find alone; a land which produced 18 of the 22 suicide bombers of 9/11; and which has spread a vast network of terror-cells across the world.

For the international Islamist threat has been intellectually fuelled by Saudi Arabia; as have, financially, the madrassahs across the world which promote jihad and suicide bombings.

Saudi feels contempt for us; and what does the West do, but placates, conciliates, permits: hence, the utterly ludicrous notion that at the London Olympics there should be a Muslim area, at the centre of which should be a 25,000-worshipper mosque.

So much for the Olympian spirit; but still, if the IOC ever introduces flogging, or gang-rape into the games, Saudi will be certain to get golds galore.

So, why do we and the EU have dull diplomatic relations with this dictatorship of floggers and rapists? Why did a government delegation meekly accept the sexual apartheid of a delegation of ministers to Saudi? Why do we accept their diseased, demented norms? Ah, goes the argument, because we have more leverage when we talk to them and accept their ways.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. We want their oil and we want their markets, and the raped and violated teenage Fatima may be flogged by these savages with impunity, in order that we may retain our commercial links.

And, if you wanted further proof -- though God knows, none should now be necessary -- that the EU is a hollow, meaningless vessel, the fact that Saudi Arabia feels free to flog anyone 200 times, never mind a rape victim, not only proves that this vile country doesn't give a damn for the "core principles" of the EU, but it also knows that the EU will do nothing serious to defend those principles.

There shouldn't be a functioning embassy in Riyadh: Saudi airports should be lunar in their silence; oil-tankers should be immobilised in Jeddah; and the heathen barbarians running Saudi should remain in economic and diplomatic purdah, until they start conforming with civilised conduct, as is understood in Borneo, Peru, Greenland, China, India, Rwanda -- indeed everywhere where Islamicists are not in power.

For, unless we stand up for Fatima now, we are mere whores, meekly waiting our turn to be buggered by the rapists of Riyadh. (Independent -- Ireland -- Analysis/Kevin Riga)

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. Contact him at zelasko@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 20, 2007.


At a conference, Iran purported to represent all Muslims and spoke about Islamic unity. The delegate from Iran cited subsidies for various projects in Iraq.

The Saudi delegate noted that all those projects were in Shiite areas of Iraq. Why none in Sunni areas, he asked. How does sectarian aid promote broader unity? How can Iran purport to speak for all Muslims, when it favors its own sect? By contrast, he said, S. Arabia is prepared to finance projects in all areas, Shiite as well as Sunni (IMRA, 11/8).

Most Saudi foreign aid that I noticed subsidizes terrorists, radical mosques that pave the way for terrorism, and university centers that promote radical Islam and defend jihadists.


Jihadists are constantly preparing for war, a war for conquest if not annihilation, determined to attack when they can. Therefore, to wait for an attack in order to react or retaliate is immoral. Preemption is the answer (IMRA, 11/9).

Actually, what is called preemption is not. The war is on. In war, one attacks when one can. That should not be a privilege only for jihadists.


Britain's Parliament said it will work with the Muslim Brotherhood so long as it accepts democracy. An Egyptian MP from the Muslim Brotherhood rejected democracy and referred to his organization's purpose, to impose a caliphate over the world. The Brotherhood considers Span and other parts of Europe once conquered by Muslims as belonging to Islam. However, being pragmatic, the Brotherhood postpones conflict to seize Europe until it has the strength for the challenge (IMRA, 11/9).

Doesn't Britain know that extremist Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood?


In Al Ahram, someone castigated the ruling party of Egypt as arrogant, having a cult of the individual, greedy for power, and failing to improve the economy for the poor while citing glowing economic statistics. He said that desperate poverty drives many young Egyptians to risk their lives trying to sneak into Europe. Many drown, without a ripple in Egypt, where everyone understands how impoverished their lives are (IMRA, 11/9).

God forbid their parents try birth control! Apparently, Islam is not sufficient solace for the masses. Most emigrants don't start out on jihad, but many get recruited in France, where they fail to qualify themselves for better jobs but complain at not having them.


At least half the foreign jihadists fighting against us in Iraq are S. Arabians. S. Arabia is alarmed over terrorist directed against itself, but generous in financing terrorism it expects to be directed abroad.

The US is disillusioned with S. Arabia, but does not know how to crack down on it. It fears that if it does, the Islamists will take firmer control (IMRA, 11/9)

That is the same dilemma throughout the Arab world. But the status quo stinks.


UNIFIL forces in Lebanon have been attacked by Hizbullah and threatened by Al Qaeda. UNIFIL spends more, now, to protect itself than on its mission. The European members of UNIFIL are debating whether to decrease their troop contribution (IMRA, 11/9).

Reducing the number of troops may make them more vulnerable.

What will UNIFIL have accomplished? They arrived to stop the war when Israel was decimating Hizbullah. They stayed to block Israel from returning to finish the job. Now that UNIFIL has allowed Hizbullah to rearm, it flees? So much for multilateralism!


P.A. police claim to have searched out terrorists and to have confiscated 40 bombs. Israeli officials know that it was only 7 bombs (IMRA, 11/10).

Egypt periodically declares it has discovered some arms smuggling tunnels and destroyed them. It makes for positive news, but most tunnels operate freely.

Westerners must learn to discount Muslim Arab claims.


Africans are sneaking into Jeddah. They enter cheap and multiple marriages, and multiply faster than do even the Arabs. Many beg or steal. They present a demographic threat. A call has gone up to deport them or put them to constructive work.

Deportation is difficult, because they speak multiple languages and can disguise which country they should be deported to (IMRA, 11/11).

Criminals shouldn't be allowed to use rules of civilization to undermine it.


US forces are poised for victory in Iraq. "Their enemies are on the run. Al-Qaida forces have lost or are losing their bases of operations. Its fighters are being killed and captured in ever increasing numbers. Iraq's Sunni citizens, who, until recently, refused to take any part in the post-Saddam regime, are joining the army and citizens' watch groups by the thousands."

"Local sheikhs in Baghdad, following the example set earlier by Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province, are ordering their people to fight with the Americans against al-Qaida. For their part, the Shi'ite militias know that they are next in line for defeat. As a result, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Shi'ite militiamen to cease their attacks."

US and civilian casualties have plunged. "Neighborhoods in Baghdad that had ceased to function under al-Qaida's reign of terror have come back to life."

By contrast, Pakistan is falling, Iran is nuclearizing, and the US is supporting jihadist oil price increases. Why is the US failing in those policies and succeeding in Iraq? Because in Iraq it decided that it had to win.

The US did not devise policy intelligently. It assumed that by invading Iraq, less of a threat but weaker, it would signal to the rest of the evil axis that they had better stand down. Signaling doesn't work. Confrontation can. (Napoleon taught that one should attack the stronger foe, which one must defeat. If one wins, one is likelier to have sufficient forces left to defeat the weaker foe.)

At first, the rest of the axis was stunned. Unfortunately, the US then reassured them they stood in no danger from us. We tried placating them. That certainly reassured them! It reassured them that they could resume financing and promoting jihad and nuclear development! Sec. Rice will have visited Israel 9 times this year, but Pakistan only once -- misplaced priority (IMRA, 11/10 from Caroline Glick).


PM Olmert rejected a US proposal that Egypt be allowed to double the number of troops along its border with Gaza, in order to prevent arms smuggling. He said that Egypt has enough troops. He does not understand why it does not act effectively and decisively to stop the smuggling.

The Egyptian representative claims that Israeli accusations discourage Egyptian efforts (IMRA, 11/11).

I don't see how criticism would do that.

He doesn't understand why Egypt doesn't act decisively? Where was he when Egypt did everything to encourage smuggling?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, November 20, 2007.

This was written by Ofri Ilani and it appeared November 16, 2007 in Haaretz (www.haaretz.com).

"Science and Scholarship in Yiddish" will be the topic of a symposium to be held today at Tel Aviv University.

"We picked a subject that people don't even know existed," Professor Leo Corry, head of the Cohn Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, which is jointly sponsoring the symposium together with the Goldreich Family Institute for Yiddish Language, Literature, and Culture.

The symposium marks the publication of a special issue of the journal Science in Context, edited at the Cohn Institute in Tel Aviv and published by Cambridge University Press. The journal contains essays by leading scholars in a field that rescues from oblivion a variety of scientific works published in Yiddish.

Science in Yiddish is a vast and complex topic located at a unique crossroads between the history of science and the history of Jewish cultural life in Eastern Europe from late 19th century to the outbreak of World War II. But unlike Yiddish literature, Yiddish language and other phenomena of Jewish culture in Europe, the heritage of science and scholarship in Yiddish experienced neither an academic nor a public revival in recent decades.

Rabbinic relativity

A example of the phenomenon can found in a 1927 book by the Jewish mathematician and physicist Tuvya Shalit: "A rabbi was sitting in a train one Friday afternoon. The train breaks down and he's afraid he will desecrate the Sabbath. He starts praying 'God, please don't let me desecrate the Sabbath. Then, a miracle happens: Sabbath comes in to the right of the train, Sabbath comes in to the left of the train, but inside the train, it's still yesterday.' Over the years this joke made the rounds in Eastern European communities. But Shalit's book, to which Albert Einstein wrote a short introduction, presented it in his book as an example of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Shalit's book was one of a number of scientific works written in the last century by Jews who wanted to transform Yiddish into the language of science for Europe's Jews. Shalit's work, the reception of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis in the Argentinean journal Davke, the work of the social scientist Jacob Lestchinsky, and others are all presented in the special issue of Science in Context.

At home in Russia

Following the Russian revolution, university Yiddish departments flourished and were state- supported in Ukraine and Belorussia; research in history, philology, ethnography, demography and more were published in Yiddish.

But paradoxically, such research was meant to transform traditional Jewish identity into a secular, socialist, Jewish identity cut off from its religious and Hebrew roots.

The movement ended in the early 1930s when hard-line Sovietization of social, cultural, and scholarly organizations became the norm. Another chapter of science-building in Yiddish was epitomized by YIVO, founded in 1925 and headquartered in Vilna.

It functioned until the invasion of Lithuania by the German Army, and one of its key projects was the standardization of Yiddish scientific nomenclature.

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, November 20, 2007.

This was written by Frances Waddams is Membership Director, Anglican Friends of Israel

Dear Jonathan

I'm writing as an admirer of Riding Lights' work. I still use the sketches from Simon Mayo's 'Words into Action' series in my RE lessons. The 'Forgiveness' sketch is still one of the best ways of getting students to remember Jesus' teaching on the subject.

So I was delighted to hear that you will be touring a drama about the effects the Middle East Conflict is having on Christian communities in Palestine.

I went to your website and read the reviews; looked at the photo gallery and followed some of the weblinks. And am now left with deep misigivings about what the play is telling Christian audiences.

Your website says the diminishing numbers of Christians in Palestine, (and all the hardship experienced by Palestinians) is all down to Israeli security measures, i.e., the checkpoints, the security wall, and so on. Sadly, security measures will inevitably contribute to Palestinian hardship -- but you don't seem to have given the reason that Israel installed them, at huge expense, in the first place -- to protect herself from attack by Palestinian terrorists.

Will the play show why Israel had to take such extreme security measures? Will it mention, even in passing, the suicide bombings in Israeli restaurants, markets and nightclubs; snipers murdering Israeli hitchhikers and motorists; rockets raining down daily on Israeli towns and villages?

Will the play explain that these security measures are, even now, protecting Israeli children? (Your website doesn't.)

I hope, too, that Saalam Bethlehem will mention the physical and verbal threats regularly made by Islamist gangs to Palestinian Christians, even to people who have been neighbours for years. Perhaps you have found a place in the script to talk about the protection money Christian businessmen have to pay to the Palestinian warlords simply to stay in business. There is also the discrimination Palestinian Christians receive from the Palestinian Authorities. You may feel that I am going on a bit here, but have you mentioned also the squandering of $billions of international aid and how this has contributed to Palestinian economic hardship, and funded terrorism?

Your website ignores the vital, inescapable fact that the land of Israel was given by God Himself, to the Jews. Communities of Jews have lived continuously there, for over 3,000 years. You do not even mention that the 'Crusader Church in Nazareth' is, in fact, the ancient town synagogue, where the Jew, Jesus, learned the Tenakh as a boy, attended weekly and formed part of the minyan of adult males who read the portions from the Hebrew Scriptures week by week. Instead, the website presents Christian Holy Sites as the sole reason that the land is Holy.

If Saalam Bethlehem does not portray both sides of the issue, then it is, at best, projecting a one-sided view and at worst, simply acting out Palestinian propaganda.

If Saalam Bethlehem is as one-sided as your website, it is contributing to anti-semitic discourse in certain sections of British society that was condemned in the recent All-Party Inquiry into Anti-semitism. (See page 23, particularly) http://www.thepcaa.org/Report.pdf

Which would make 'Salaam Bethlehem' part of the Middle East problem and not part of the solution.

Yours sincerely
Frances Waddams

Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, November 20, 2007.

International Annapolis Summit
November 26? 27?
U.S. Naval Academy

Talk About Divide and Conquer

If President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have their way, the map you see on the left will be the new configuration of Israel -- dividing Israel in half with "Palestine" in the middle. The miniscule state of Israel will grow even smaller than it already is after losing territory that the Palestinians are demanding.

The land they ask for, more than 95% of the West Bank, will give them sovereignty over almost all of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land Sites. In addition Israel will be reduced on it eastern border to a highly populated corridor that in some places is only 9 miles wide.

How would you defend a country only 9 miles wide?

The forthcoming Summit at Annapolis will seal the deal. It will impact history in an unprecedented way by creating a 23rd Arab state -- one led by the Hamas and Fatah terrorist organizations vowing to destroy Israel. The scheduled date is November 26, but the Administration has been evasive in publicizing details of the time and place. They say it will be held in the historic Naval Academy.

When will the media take notice? After the deed is done and it is too late? We feel that the media, especially in the Washington, DC-Maryland area should begin to focus on this and all of the dissension it is creating among various groups who are organized in opposition. So far the entire event has been cloaked in secrecy, while reports on private meetings and negotiations with foreign officials are being leaked.

Six rallies opposing the Summit are set to take place, one in Washington, another in Annapolis and four more across the country. The public is encouraged to participate. They are scheduled as follows:

* Sunday, Nov. 25, 2007, Noon at LaFayette Park in front of the White House and a march to the Holocaust Museum. shalom International and Coalition to Defend Jerusalem, Contact: bob Kunst 305-864-5110

* Sunday, Nov. 25, 2007, Noon at "Torch of Friendship", 3rd St. and Bisc. Blvd, in downtown Miami. Contact: Carole Flato,305-527-8137

* Monday, Nov. 26, 2007, 11 AM to 2 P.M., ANNAPOLIS, Gate 1, King George and Randall. Shalom International and Coalition to Defend Jerusalem, contact: Bob Kunst, 305-864-5110

* Monday, Nov. 26, 2007, Noon to 2 P.M., NYC, at Israeli Consulate, 43rd St and 2nd Ave.. Contact: Eva Costabel, 917-553-6042. Eva is an 83 yr. young Holocaust survivor organizing this rally.

* Monday, Nov. 26, 2007, 7P.M., Chicago Rabbinical Council doing a massive Prayer at Congregation K.I.N.S. of West Rogers Park, 2800 W. North Shore, contact: 773-465-3900

* Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2007, 11Am to 2P.M., ANNAPOLIS, Gate 1, King George and Randall Sts., Shalom International and Coalition to Defend Jerusalem, contact: Bob Kunst-305-864-5110

If the Administration were concerned about the wishes of our citizens, they would not be so secretive, or plan this event during the holidays when most people are distracted.

It is hard to imagine that our President, whose intentions appear to be to dismantle Israel, could be the same person who, early in his presidency, viewed Israel from the air. When he saw the 9-mile strip that a Palestinian state would leave Israel with, he humorously exclaimed, "There are driveways in Texas longer than that!"

"Israel at risk as Annapolis approaches"
Esther Levens
KC Jewish Chronicle
November 20, 2007

The American administration's new Middle East peace initiative is based on wishful thinking.

Late reports tell us that Mahmoud Abbas is making more demands before agreeing to attend the Summit to be sponsored by the United States in Annapolis, Md. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is determined to conclude an agreement with Abbas, who will promise "peace" in exchange for every conceivable tangible demand from Israel.

The Palestinians demand almost all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, half of Jerusalem, the entire Temple Mount, the "right of return" of 4 million Palestinian refugees, border areas from before the Six-Day War, freedom for all PA prisoners, the right to open Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, return of the terrorists deported from the Church of the Nativity and immediate retreat to the September 2000 lines (these are the lines from which the Arabs launched the second intifada, in which Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen's Fatah terrorists killed more than 1,000 Israelis). Iin addition, they demand the execution of the third stage of the Oslo Accords, an end to building in the settlements, and cessation of the construction of the Mughrabi Bridge in Jerusalem.

UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) -- is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, November 20, 2007.

This was written by Joseph Puder and it appeared July 27, 2007 in Front Page Magazine.

Joseph Puder (jpuder2001@yahoo.com) is ITAI Executive Director. The Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI) provides information and education on the threat to America from Jihadist Islam and the religious nature of the Arab-Muslim world war currently against Israel to mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy and congregants directly to their churches.

Few would argue with the characterization of Israelis as tough and generous. Most of those familiar with the inner-workings would also agree that Israelis deserve a better and more accountable leadership.

The ability to survive under the constant threat of war and terrorism has made Israelis tough. The Israeli determination to defend their country in the face of 60 years of constant Arab violence intended to destroy them because they are not Muslim or Arab is either admirable or crazy. The survival of Israel's 5.5 million Jews surrounded by nearly 300 million Arabs and Iranians determined to annihilate them, is nothing short of miraculous.

Israelis are, under the circumstances, amazingly generous and "liberal." For instance, Arabs throughout the region come to Israel for critical medical services and Israeli agricultural experts share their famous techniques with Arab farmers. Incidentally, these gestures and countless others are noticeably absent from the BBC or NPR coverage.

Israel is generally first on the scene with medical teams, specially trained dogs, and rescue specialists at times of disaster like the Tsunami in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia in 2006, earthquakes in Mexico, Turkey or Iran (the Islamic Republic actually refused entry of an Israeli rescue team following the February 2005 earthquake in Bam, Iran). During the 1960's Israeli experts spent years training Africans and Asians in agricultural techniques. African students, in turn, flocked to Israel to be trained in nation building. And, unlike the Europeans, Chinese or the Soviet's, Israelis did not condition for their assistance or political paybacks, and were abandoned by the African states when the Saudi's promised cheaper oil prices if they severed relations with Israel.

Generations of Israelis quip of the "misdirect" by Moses to Canaan instead of Saudi Arabia, which left them with land bereft of natural resources. The only resource it has in abundance is its brainpower. Israel's GNP is larger than the combined GNP of its Arab neighbors. The 2004 Almanac cited the combined 2002 GDP for Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, representing a combined population of 129 million, to be $14,900 compared to Israel's GDP of $19,500 for 6 million people. Israel is one of the world's top exporters of fiber optics, plastics and computer technology and is rated second to the U.S. in high-tech start-ups. Considering the economic strain its citizens must shoulder for national security, the success of Israel's economy vis a vis the rest of the world, is rather amazing.

It seems clear that the hostility of the world towards Israel cannot be attributed to anything else but age-old anti-Semitism, much of which is borne out resentment of a people that gave an unwilling world its moral code -- the Ten Commandments. And, of envy, that a downtrodden people that should have disappeared by now is still a player on the world's stage and, a successful one at that.

How else, but anti-Semitism to explain, for example, that the UN General Assembly has held only 10 emergency sessions since its inception 60 years ago, 6 of which have dealt with Israel. And, since the Six Days War of 1967, 30% of all resolutions issued by the UN Commission on Human Rights have been against Israel.

During this time we have learned of murderous coups in Africa, a genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, Syria, and Iraq, slavery in Saudi Arabia, the occupation of Tibet by China, genocides in East Timor and Darfur, gassings of Yemenis by Egypt, gassing of Kurds by Saddam Hussein, and more, yet Israel is the "problem" that is roundly condemned by the UN. All attempts to address human rights abuses by Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, China, Zimbabwe, and Russia, have been blocked by procedural motions. Israel has become the same scapegoat as the Jews in European countries were throughout the last century.

A European poll conducted in 2003 showed that 60% believed that Israel is the "greatest threat to peace in the world today." Not the fanatical Iranian Ayatollahs, not the maniacal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, nor the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria or North Korea's unpredictable dictator Kim Jong Il. Israel, who is defending itself against homicide-killers and terrorist attacks against its civilian population, is the number one villain. Appeasement of violent Muslims who play the intimidation card, along with "just-under-the-surface" anti-Semitism of those who seek to unshackle themselves from the guilt of having perpetrated the Holocaust has led to impugning the Jewish State with "moral lapses."

While Israeli perseverance and fortitude, in the face of unmerited and despicable hatred from the outside world is admirable, Israelis have endured the burden of unaccountable governments, which have made catastrophic decisions.

The system of proportional representation that elects a party list rather than choosing qualified individuals by districts has resulted in Israel's 120 member Knesset resembling an assembly of early 18th century French noblemen who shunned the commoners.

Personal gain, it appears, supersedes ideology in the current Israeli coalition government. Prime Minster Ehud Olmert plunged the country into the Second Lebanon War while failing to prepare the army and the home front. The Vinograd Commission found him and Defense Minister Peretz responsible for numerous dismal failures. Yet, despite the immense damage done to the country and a populace who is aware of it, as is obvious by his 7% job approval rating, the Prime Minister is not impeached and continues to hold on to his "chair."

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel Beitenu -- a right-wing party -- who claimed he was in the government in order to be able to make necessary changes from within, has not resigned from Prime Minister Olmert's Kadima-led coalition nor helped to bring the government down, despite calls to do so from those who supported him, because he enjoys the trappings of power -- the fancy offices, security guards, taxpayer paid Volvo, health insurance, overseas trip, etc.

Olmert and former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon engineered the disastrous Israeli withdrawal from Gaza destroying the lives and livelihoods of 9000 Israelis and paving the way for the Islamist Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections of January 2006. Gaza, following the withdrawal, became a launching pad for daily rockets attack on the nearby town of Sderot and, in the absence of any government actions to defend and secure their safety, many residents have fled. Olmert, who is not accountable to the electorate, has acted as if nothing happened.

Foreign Minster Shimon Peres and former Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin engineered the Oslo Accords, which were responsible for the return of Yaser Arafat and his fellow P.L.O. terrorists to Gaza and the West Bank. Their Labor-led government provided Arafat with weapons and a territorial base alongside Israeli population centers. Within months of the signing the Accord it became evident that the hate indoctrination in Palestinian schools, the media, and the mosques, directed by Arafat himself, continued unabated, ultimately leading to a rash of suicide bombing that killed hundreds of Israelis and resulted in a change of government. Shimon Peres, who replaced Rabin, never took responsibility for the Oslo disaster and he continues to uphold it as a "virtuous" deed.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak's decision to unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon resulted in the empowerment of Hezbollah. Hezbollah, in turn, encouraged Arafat to fight the Israelis and destroy them. Arafat's rejection of the peace offerings made at Camp David II in July 2000 and his decision to launch the intifada was an outgrowth of this empowerment. Thousands of Israelis were killed or maimed. Yet, in sheer irony, Shimon Peres was elected President (an election by the Knesset members, not by the people), Barak is now the Defense Minister, and Ehud Olmert is still the Prime Minister. None of them have ever been held accountable to the people for their critical failures.

The people of Israel deserve accolades for upholding its democratic values and its standards of human rights while on the front lines in the war against Islamic terrorism. Israelis also deserve a better and more accountable government that would represent them directly. A government that governs according to the will of the people will earn the respect of the people -- their greatest resource.

This comes from Europeans_who_support_Israel@yahoo.com Contact Crystal at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 20, 2007.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared November 19, 2007 in the Jerusalem Post.

[AMIA (Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina), the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires that was bombed by Iranian terrorists in 1994, killing 200, injuring 250 people. "GOOGLE"]

It appears that both Washington and Jerusalem are inviting a nuclear attack as each artfully avoids confrontation with Iran. In a logical and sensible world these two governments should be charged with aiding and abetting Genocide of their own citizens. Iran's dictators have made the promise numerous times to "Wipe Israel Off the Map". They call Israel "The Little Satan". They have made similar threats against the United States whom they call "The Great Satan". They have sworn to do these things as commanded under their laws of the Koran.

Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was a parallel to Koranic Laws of Genocide. Therefore, the leaders of Israel and America have failed to protect their citizens against Nuclear Annihilation. Should they happen to live through a nuclear attack, both the leaders of Israel and America should be tried as co-conspirators to Genocide and crimes against humanity for their dereliction of their responsibilities of their offices.

Clearly, a Nuremberg Tribunal should be in preparation now!

According to foreign reports, Israel destroyed a nuclear weapons installation in Syria in September. Never has a larger story been pushed under the rug by so many so quickly. What are we to make of this?

Over the weekend former federal prosecutor and the head of the non-governmental International Intelligence Summit, John Loftus, released a report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. His report was based on a private study of captured Iraqi documents. These were the unread Arabic language documents that US forces seized, but had not managed to translate after overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003.

After a prolonged battle between Congress and then director of US National Intelligence John Negroponte, President George W. Bush ordered those documents posted on a public access Web site last year. They were taken down after it was discovered that among the Iraqi documents were precise descriptions of how to build nuclear weapons.

As Loftus summarized, "The gist of the new evidence is this: Roughly one-quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990s. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid-to-late-1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans' noses."

Loftus then cites Israeli sources who claim that the Iraqi nuclear program was transferred to the Deir az Zour province in Syria.

LOFTUS'S REPORT jibes with a report published on the Web site of Kuwait's Al Seyassah's newspaper on September 25, 2006. That report, which I noted last November, cited European intelligence sources and claimed that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. Syria's program, which was run by President Bashar Assad's brother Maher and defended by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards brigade, had by mid-2006 "reached the stage of medium activity." The Kuwaiti report stated that the Syrian nuclear program was based "on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai transferred to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003."

The program, which was run by Iranians with assistance from Iraqi scientists and scientists from the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union, "was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria." These reports and several others like them which have surfaced over the past several years tell us interesting and disturbing things.

FIRST, THEY show just how difficult it is to gather accurate information on the status of weapons of mass destruction programs.

From the 1991 Gulf War until the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were a top issue on the international agenda. And yet, year in and year out, UN inspectors, who were on the ground throughout most of the period, failed to provide an accurate picture of those programs. Indeed, the documents and reports regarding the transfer of those programs to Syria show those inspection reports were wildly off the mark.

And not only did the UN fail. The US itself also failed. After invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam's regime, the US military and intelligence arms took almost no action to ensure that suspected sites were secured and searched. The US failed to pursue clear intelligence reports indicating that in the weeks before the invasion, suspicious truck convoys had traveled from Iraq to Syria carrying what were presumed to be weapons of mass destruction components.

As for Syria, still today, after Israel reportedly destroyed the Syrian nuclear installation at Deir az Zour, the US and the international community as a whole behave as though nothing is out of order. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with her Syrian counterpart Waleed Muallem on November 3 and invited Syria to demand the Golan Heights from Israel at her peace conference at Annapolis later this month.

THE SYRIAN and Iraqi cases also show that political courage and intellectual honesty are the keys to intelligence collection and analysis regarding weapons of mass destruction programs. When leaders and intelligence officials are uninterested in finding information about these programs, they are guaranteed to discover nothing. And when they wish to do nothing about information that they have, they can easily argue that their information was inconclusive. In contrast, if they decide to act on intelligence information that challenges preconceived notions and entrenched political interests, they are guaranteed to suffer the condemnations of those who have an interest in continuing to downplay or deny the dangers those programs manifest.

Against the backdrop of the international and American inability and unwillingness to handle the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs, the reports coming out from Iran regarding the mullocracy's nuclear program and the American and Israeli responses to it are nothing less than terrifying.

Last week, the IAEA acknowledged that Iran is currently operating 3,000 centrifuges. At this rate of uranium enrichment, Iran will be capable of producing an atomic bomb in a year. This means that diplomacy today is a dead letter. It is too late to talk Iran out of its nuclear program.

Perhaps more disturbing than the IAEA report -- written by Muhammad ElBaradei, who with the exception of the mullahs themselves is probably the man least interested in taking action against Iran's program -- were the Israeli and US responses to it. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly told his ministers that Israel needs to develop contingencies for the day after Iran joins the nuclear club.

THE US is not merely developing contingencies for the day after. It is working to whitewash Iran's role in fomenting the insurgency in Iraq in an effort to restart direct negotiations with Teheran. According to the New York Sun, Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are so eager to ascribe a decrease in Iraqi violence to Iran that they are willing to pooh-pooh the US military's own achievements in its "surge" in Iraq.

The danger implicit in the US and Israeli decisions to plan for the day after Iran gets the bomb is made clear by two recent developments.

First, Sunday The New York Times reported that since Sept.11, the US has been assisting the Pakistanis in securing their nuclear facilities. Speaking to the Times, John E. McLaughlin, the former deputy director of the CIA, said, "I am confident of two things, that the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it."

This story makes clear that even if a regime is considered trustworthy, if threatened by jihadists there is a danger that its nuclear weapons will fall into their hands. If that happens, the notion of deterrence is thrown out the window.

THE LATEST developments in the investigation of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires provide even more reason for worry. Thirteen years ago, Iran ordered its terror arm Hezb'Allah to attack the AMIA building. Eighty-five people were killed.

Two weeks ago, Argentina requested that Interpol issue international arrest warrants against five Iranians and one Lebanese man implicated in the bombing. Interpol complied. Last week, Iran responded to Interpol's move by demanding that Interpol issue arrest warrants against five Argentines involved in the investigation of the AMIA bombing. Iran accused them of the "crime" of insulting Iran.

This is an unsettling state of affairs on several levels. The AMIA bombing involved a state contracting a terror group to carry out a massive attack against innocent civilians simply because they were Jewish. For years, for political reasons, the Argentine government derailed its own investigation of the attack. Indeed, it took 14 long years for Argentina to request that Interpol issue arrest warrants.

And then, in a sign of contempt for the international community, Iran announced its counter-warrant demand. And the world has said nothing.

The point is, even if one believes the dubious argument that the Iranian regime can be trusted with nuclear weapons, given the AMIA precedent there is no reason to doubt that Iran would eventually transfer its weapons to Hezb'Allah or some other Iranian terror group to detonate in Israel.

What the Iranians learned, and indeed what Israel should have learned from the investigation of the AMIA bombing, is that no one will automatically point a finger at Iran for an attack carried out by Iran's terror proxies.

AND SO we return to Iran's nuclear bomb program, which like the Syrian and Iraqi programs, is partially hidden from view, but which the pro-Iranian IAEA claims is just one year away from completion. And we return to the US and Israel acting as though it is possible to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

We look at all of this, and we ask: How can Washington and Jerusalem be so irresponsible? We look at Olmert's reported willingness to countenance a nuclear-armed Iran, and we wonder, how can he try to wish away an impending threat of nuclear annihilation?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 19, 2007.


Britain has been barring Iranian students from coming in, and checking what foreign students already hear are studying in science that might be employed to make weapons.

Iran claims that all 3,000 centrifuges are operational. That would produce one nuclear bomb a year. The world "fears" Israeli will attack its nuclear facilities (IMRA, 11/8).

"Fears" is newspaper jargon. The world should fear Iranian nuclear facilities and hope that Israel destroys them as it once did Iraq's and Syria's. If Israel does eradicate Iran's facilities, setting Iran back a few years, Israel would be the savior of the world, again.

Israel would fear doing so, because Iran, Hizbullah, etc. could saturate it with thousands of explosive missiles that might leave the country disorganized and defenseless.

What poor reporting, extrapolating Iran's potential for bomb development from Iran's current centrifuges! The reporter assumes that Iran won't acquire more centrifuges, doesn't really have more, won't find ways to expedite their output, and won't buy some. That leaves the matter of how to prevent Iran from delivering a bomb.

I think that if Israel knocks out Iran's nuclear facilities, the US still should set up a long overdue program to help Iranians overturn their regime. This would require a long-overdue reorganization of the State Dept. Purge its Arabists (such as Sec. Rice) and semi-pacifists, hire knowledgeable staff, and end its futile and counter-productive subsidy of hostile regimes such as the P.A.. A new President could expose its many failures, by way of giving reform momentum. Start with its repeated failure to keep Islamists out of our country and its subversion of Presidential policy, from Pres. Truman's earlier attempt that the State Dept. frustrated to recognize Palestinian Jewish independence to State Dept. sabotage of Pres. Bush's policy on Iraq and regime change in Iran. Trouble is, our officials are unlikely to challenge the establishment.


French TV, which blamed Israel for the alleged shooting of a Palestinian Arab boy, has brought to trial its accuser. French TV had broadcast 55 seconds of a 27-minute tape filmed by a notoriously unreliable, non-employee Palestinian Arab. Ordered to show the whole film in court, the company showed only 18 minutes. Excuse: the rest was not relevant. A witness to the whole film testified that the relevant portion on the timer reached at least 21 minutes. It appears that the company edited the film.

The court was shown no basis for blaming Israel (Arutz-7, 11/15). This is a good "teaching moment" for Israel to make clear it often is libeled.


After watching Hamas fire upon rivals in Gaza, the Jordan Times finds it as undeserving of power as the PLO. Both want power for its own sake. The answer is some less fanatical group that merely wants to assert "'Palestinian' rights" (IMRA, 11/15).

What such group? How does such a group emerge from under dictatorship? How is it different from Hamas and the PLO, whose bloody goals the people endorse? Isn't it a violent culture?

What are "'Palestinian' rights?" I think Jordan is referring to the jihad that it, Hamas, and the PLO strive for? Why not a group that wants peace and not to conquer Israel? But there is no such group and is unlikely to be.

Jordan is fed up with Hamas and the PLO but for the wrong reasons.


Why should Israel attend another conference with Palestinian Arabs? All earlier conferences have gotten it nowhere, but have wrung more concessions from Israel. What hope is there that this time the Muslims would really make peace, when they have yet to comply with any of the peacemaking measures to which they already agreed? For example, the P.A. still preaches jihad. Since the Muslims want conquest rather than peace, further meetings and further concessions cannot bring peace. Concessions can make war worse for Israel. Israel should stop diplomacy and pursue a military solution.

If Israel does attend, why should it come with still more concessions? Why doesn't it state that it is waiting for the P.A. to fulfill earlier commitments? Why doesn't it come with demands of its own? (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/8.) It acts as if it owes something to the aggressors. That is perverse. It is what I, a Jew, call Jewish thinking.)


The ceasefire in Lebanon requires Hizbullah to keep its troops a certain distance from the border with Israel. Hizbullah, however, recently held large-scale military maneuvers, though unarmed, it claimed, near the border. Its maneuvers evaded the UNIFIL troops brought in supposedly to keep Hizbullah from the border (IMRA, 11/8).

Hizbullah admitted violating the ceasefire. Muslims waging jihad pay no attention to truces either imposed by outside forces or agreed to by their own, unless it suits their purposes. Nobody expects the UNO to do anything about the violation. The truce served its purpose, which was to get Israel to stop defeating Hizbullah.


Military news from Iraq is positive, now. However, I have not heard of Democratic Party officials cheering it. Instead, they constantly complain about the war's expense, while they strive to spend almost all we have on new bureaucracies.

Meanwhile, our country is getting more profligate, just when learner countries, such as China and India, are consuming more of the world's resources and underbidding our workers. Politicians should be seeking to expedite American business and tame our governmental over-spending and private waste of resources. Replace janitors' noisy, gasoline-powered leaf blowers with rakes and brooms, for example.


I recommend this movie about military defense from Islamic jihad. It includes arguments from both American sides, perhaps more from the less heard anti-jihad side. It switches among three, related stories: (1) The conflicts within journalists of ideology versus integrity and integrity versus commercialism and their relationship to politicians; (2) A professor trying to bring out the best in talented but unmotivated students; and (3) War, on a human scale. The debates are astonishingly witty, and the characters draw one in.

Although a military offensive is important, as the movie posits, the US needs to combat jihad ideologically and economically, too. It is easier to eradicate enemy troops if fewer Muslims would volunteer, because we have cut off their funding and their Saudi and Iranian indoctrination and recruitment.


Every day, terrorists with popular support in Gaza fire rockets at Israeli civilians and build up an army capable of inflicting greater casualties when confronted by the IDF. The Israeli government restrains its army from sending a big enough force into Gaza to root out the terrorists, lest doing so harm Arab civilians. The Left calls this being ethical. I call it being unethical, to protect enemy civilians in a war zone at the expense of one's own civilians being attacked by war criminals. Israel's action is not required by international law.

Another pretended ethic is to prosecute critics for "insulting" a public official. The public official helped purge Jews from part of their homeland, in an ideology and methodology reminiscent of the Nazi purge of Jews. The analogy was appropriate. The official's action was cruel. He deserved censure. It is unethical to prosecute the whistle blower instead of the violator of Jewish rights and decency.

The Left also wants to punish soccer fans who booed the 12th commemoration of Rabin's assassination, because his policies got thousands of Israelis killed. Dispute, don't punish.


The Israeli diplomats got the P.A. to agree to disband and disarm the terrorist organizations before statehood. They call that progress.

It isn't. "Disband": the P.A. would place all the terrorists onto its own payroll. "Disarm": They turn in some weapons to the P.A., and the P.A. issues them others. Thus the terrorists remain armed and dangerous (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/9).

Worse, the P.A., itself, is a terrorist organization. Putting all the terrorists into one army does not make terrorism less dangerous but more so. When Hitler disbanded the S.A. and when he put the S.S. into military units, did that make them less dangerous?


A government official proposes to investigate governmental failure to secure Pollard's release. Jonathan Pollard responds that just before the Annapolis conference is not the time to investigate governmental action but the time to act. The government should demand as a condition for attending the conference, his release, which the US had promised years ago and for which Israel made concessions (IMRA, 11/9).

Israel would have to explain that after the US failed to keep its word for nine years, Israel needs it to do so now, as a confidence-building measure.

Problem is, the government of Israel is too corrupt, stupid, and anti-Israel to do the right thing. What is it that gets selfish fools heading governments and punishing brilliant people who should be heading them?


"Strong American support for the independence of Kosovo is detrimental to Israeli interests. The US position is based on the view that a solution to long-standing conflict can and should be imposed on the parties by outside powers. In addition, the new state's creation seeks to award part of a nation's territory to a violent ethno-religious minority; futilely hopes to curry favor with the Islamic world through appeasement; effectively gives a fresh impetus to the ongoing growth of Islamic influence in Europe; and denies the fact that the putative state's leaders are tainted by terrorism, criminality, and well-documented links with global jihad. Most importantly, it betrays a cynically postmodern contempt for all claims based on the historical rights and spiritual significance of a land to a nation." (IMRA,11/9.)

The State Dept. isn't wise enough to impose the right solution. It would set precedent for expansionist Muslims in Israel and throughout Europe to demand independence.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 19, 2007.

This was written by Walter Russell Mead and it appeared November 16, 2007 in the New York Sun

Mr. Mead, author of God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World, which was just released, is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I say there are two sides in the struggle:" wrote Osama bin Laden in one of the bombastic manifestoes that have so signally failed to unite the Islamic masses under his leadership. "One side is the global Crusader alliance with the Zionist Jews, led by America, Britain and Israel, and the other side is the Islamic world." President Ahmadinejad sees it the same way: America, Britain, and Israel are out to destroy everything that gives meaning and decency to the world.

This isn't just about power. The United States, says bin Laden, has "the worst civilization witnessed in the history of mankind." Greedy, licentious, exploitative -- we are a danger to man and an offense to God. The Syrian parliamentarian and critic of Hollywood culture Muhammad Habash describes the "project" of American culture to "crush the weak, oppress the weak, crush them, climb all over their corpses."

On this point, our enemies are less original than they suppose. A common hatred of Britain, America, Jews, and liberal capitalist modernity emerged in the 19th century and played a major role in the history and culture of the last 100 years.

Today's anti-Americans, anti-Semites, and anti-Zionists -- whether they are ex-Marxists, thuggish populists like many supporters of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or fanatical jihadis holed up in Waziristan -- have embraced a set of images and beliefs that haunted the European imagination for hundreds of years.

This hatred is the product of the great story of modern world history: the rise of a global system of power, commerce, finance, culture, and ideology resting first on the power of Britain and now on that of America.

As horrified Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Soviets looked on, since 1688 the British have been on the winning side in every great power conflict in which they have fought -- with the single exception of the American Revolution. In other words, the two great English speaking powers have either separately or together won every major war since the 17th century, and the global system resting on their military and commercial prowess remains the foundation of international order today.

Those who have fought and opposed this system attacked both its geopolitical ambitions and its ideological foundations. Where the Anglophones considered themselves to be fighting for freedom and tolerance, their enemies saw aneconomic and social system based on exploitation, greed, and a ruthless will to power. European suspicion of the allegedly harsh and inhuman character of the dreaded "Anglo- Saxon" model of capitalism echoes these concerns.

Jews and Wasps have their differences, but the rest of the world saw us as fighting on the same side long before America's support of Israel became a major world issue. French Jacobins attacked Britain as "Carthage" -- a cruel, commercial, maritime, and Semitic empire that opposed the noble agrarian Latin world. By the Dreyfus controversy, French anti-Semites increasingly saw specific linkages between the supposedly rootless and cosmopolitan Jew and the terrifying Anglo-American economic machine. [they were more afraid of Germans -- Koira] <

Throughout Europe the Boer War was seen as evidence that Jewish plutocrats secretly manipulated British politicians to launch a war against virtuous farmers to protect Jewish interests in South African gold. "Oncle Sam" became "Oncle Shylock" in French nationalist propaganda during the 1930s. Fascist leaders attacked both Churchill and Roosevelt as tools of the Jews, pointing to the significant presence of Jews among their closest advisors and friends. Stalinists shared both the hatred of liberalism and the identification of liberal capitalism with evil, cosmopolitan, and unmistakably Jewish values. As the Soviet apologist Genrikh Volkov put it, American capitalism reflected a "Shylock passion to utilize for the sake of profit not only a man's blood but also the living soul and his beating heart." [but the pseudo-nationalists also denounce Communism as a jewish tool -- Koira]

The critics have seen something real. Despite a steady undercurrent of anti-Semitism, both Britain and America have long histories of tolerance and more than tolerance for Jews. From the time of Oliver Cromwell, when medieval laws against Jews began to lapse, Jewish immigrants played a growing role in the commercial and cultural life of the English speaking world. Benjamin Disraeli's father received an honorary degree from Oxford in tribute to his scholarly achievements. Disraeli himself, though baptized a Christian, was openly proud of his Jewish heritage even as he headed the ultra-traditionalist Tory Party.

Other European courts tolerated wealthy "court Jews" as financiers. Disraeli was seen as the ideological heir of Edmund Burke and helped construct an ideology of English identity that remains strong today. In the 20th century, men like Isaiah Berlin and Milton Friedman were leading influences in the development of "Anglo-Saxon" political and economic liberalism.

Where critics see a conspiracy, I see a confluence. On the one hand, as Max Weber observed, Judaism like Protestantism provides a solid foundation for success at capitalist enterprise. On the other, it turns out that cultural and religious tolerance are necessary qualities for capitalist success. [but Weber disregarded counter-examples -- Koira]

Capitalism requires careers that are open to talent: successful investment banks need to be run by the best brains rather than the best pedigrees. At the same time, capitalism produces social change. Competition leads companies to invest in new technologies. Great social cataclysms like the industrial and information revolutions change the way people live. Urbanization uproots farmers and peasants in the tens and ultimately hundreds of millions and sends them into alien new cities. Within and across national frontiers, vast migrations of people course across the landscape.

Some cultures, some societies, tolerate this kind of diversity and upheaval better than others. Jewish society, with a culture shaped by millennia of exile, encountered capitalist modernity with the ability to maintain a sense of identity and continuity in the face of change and has generally adapted well to the new conditions.

Wasps, with cultural roots in a form of Protestant Christianity that is individualistic and future-oriented, have also managed to negotiate the challenges of liberal modernity relatively smoothly. For different reasons, we are at home in the same kind of world, and the "Anglo-Judaic" synthesis remains the despair of our enemies.

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 19, 2007.

This was posted by Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018836.php

The Libel Tourist is an important new film:

The Libel Tourist is a short-form documentary film produced by the Moving Picture Institute. MPI's short film program seeks to provide filmmakers with the opportunities to display their filmmaking skills while making an impact on behalf of human freedom.

Though it addresses one of the gravest subjects of contemporary political life, it is only 8 minutes long. In those 8 minutes, our eyes are opened to a new and chilling threat: the story of how Saudi petrodollars have cowed, silenced, and almost broken freedom of speech in the West.

The film documents the true story of how an American-Israeli author Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld was ordered to destroy all copies of her book in a country where it had never been published- England -- after a notoriously litigious Saudi billionaire sued her in a British court. Ehrenfeld's book Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed -- and How to Stop It, accuses the Saudi billionaire of funding of terrorism.

Now Ehrenfeld is fighting back, counter-suing him in the New York, to defend her and our First Amendment rights. She speaks on film for the first time in The Libel Tourist.

Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWq5QsZLCrg for English

And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI2or4Agffc for Arabic

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcel J. Cousineau, November 19, 2007.

Once upon a time not long ago there was a democratically elected leader whom the patriotic and religious people loved. He could do no wrong and when he did his loyal supporters turned a blind eye and made excuses for him always going after his detractors. Their great leader made laws to protect the Fatherland and oppress Jews.

The good German Christian's were silent and accepting of his actions. All but a few stood with their Fuhrer. They attacked any who would dare question their demigod or expose their good fatherly leader of the great nation for the evil man he was. The leader had a way to mesmerize his people with grandiose and smooth words.

For the good of the Fatherland it was acceptable that someone else should suffer and the good German Christians went along. It was the patriotic thing to do for ones country, especially in time of war.

Those Christians who stood up against this evil man were so few in number that they were easily silenced and the majority continued on with their religious hypocrisy while their leader tirelessly destroyed Israel in incubation.

Again, Once upon a time there was an elected president of a great nation who assumed to carve up land that was not his to carve up and reward it to violent and evil people whose only goal was the annihilation of the Jewish people.

He passed laws to protect the Homeland and make the sheep feel safe while helping the Islamic destroyer's of Israel at every oportunity for the good of the self centered Nation and the self centered and selfish people loved him for it.

This evil man spoke with smooth words and sincere expression's as he easily deceived even the very elect and wise ones. He plied his false peace scheme against the Israel of God with very little opposition from Jews or Christians who were too eager to make excuses or cover for him or blame his Secretary or Ron Paul.

Those among God's servants who were idol worshipers were deceived by this wolf dressed as a smoothed wooled sheep. This strong delusion was their judgment that they might be damned who love not the truth. They refused to awaken when the watchmen yelled and shouted the warning.

Marcel Cousineau can be reached at zionsgate@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 19, 2007.

This in spite of not fulfilling the signed Peace Agreement.

Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty
Article 5
Cooperation for Development and Good Neighborly Relations

1. The Parties recognize a mutuality of interest in good neighbourly relations and agree to consider means to promote such relations. 2. The Parties will cooperate in promoting peace, stability and development in their region. Each agrees to consider proposals the other may wish to make to this end. 3. The Parties shall seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and will, accordingly, abstain from hostile propaganda against each other.

In a separate Israel-US Memorandum of Agreement, concluded on the same day, the US spelled out its commitments to Israel in case the treaty is violated, the role of the UN and the future supply of military and economic aid to Israel.

Article 3:

The United States will provide support it deems appropriate for proper actions taken by Israel in response to such demonstrated violations of the Treaty of Peace. ...

This article was written by P. David Hornik and it appeared today in Front Page Magazine
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 56E2A983-895F-4A10-905D-5F3263C7A7D8

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.

It was thirty years ago today that the then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat first visited Israel, publicly launching a diplomatic process that led to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

At present, though, Egypt is "the Arab world's biggest center of publishing anti-Semitic literature." So says a new report by the Tel Aviv-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

This literature that Egypt puts out, says the Center, "is marketed across the Arab and Muslim world, distributed through the Internet, and sold every year at the Cairo International Book Fair." The Egyptian government, "despite its ability to impose strict censorship," allows all this to go on.

Seven of these books were purchased, apparently by someone from the Center, at the Cairo fair that was held this year from January 24 to February 4. The books, published in Cairo over the past four years, "recycle lies, fabrications, and anti-Semitic myths rooted in classical European and Islamic anti-Semitism."

First there's The Nature of the Jews [as reflected] in the Torah and the Talmud by Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa.

The front cover sets the tone: a ship called World Zionism is sailing the globe while Jewish snakes crawl over the various continents (the back cover is even more grisly). The author holds a PhD in comparative religious research from Al-Azhar University, considered the leading center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world.

The book begins by explaining that "the Jews hate the Muslims and hate all the peoples and nations, since the Devil has whispered in their ears saying they are the smart and the clever, while others are unclean beasts."

A later, typical passage states: "Almost all the revolutions, coups d'@eacute;tat, and wars that ever happened in the world were brought about by the Jews, instructed by the falsified Torah, the Talmud, and ultimately The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. [These texts] all incite [the Jews] to eliminate non-Jews, using all means to achieve their goal: ruling the world from Jerusalem...."

Then there's Israel's Follies and the Lies of Zionism: Religion and State by Ibrahim Abu Dah, who heads the Egyptian oppositionist newspaper Al-Siyasi al-Misri. This time the front-cover snakes, instead of crawling all over the globe, emerge from a Star of David containing pictures of Zionist, Israeli, and Jewish notables.

The Talmud, says Abu Dah, tells Jews that all the resources of the Earth belong solely to them, to be seized by them while freely killing any and all non-Jews. Abu Dah, though, provides hope: he sees signs in the Koran and even in Jewish holy books that the demise of the state of Israel is near.

The same Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa has also offered another of the many Arabic editions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This one's front cover varies the zoological content, showing, instead of Jewish snakes (an omnipresent image in the Arab world), a Jewish octopus enwrapping the Earth with its tentacles. The back cover informs readers that "the entire contents [of the Protocols] appear in the Talmud, written by the Jews themselves" and "our sole motive for publishing them is to warn the world about the Jewish threat."

Muhammad Younes Hashem's The Jews and the New Crusaders: The Religious and Political Controversy targets not only Jews but also Christians and the West. The author, a researcher, contends that "the Jews control the Western countries and have formed an anti-Islamic alliance with 'Christian imperialism.'"

Publisher Dr. Huda al-Koumi, who holds a PhD in dramaturgy, explains in her Foreword that "the Jews keep using the most despicable weapons in conflicts with their enemies. They use women, sex, drugs, bribes, forgery, schemes, and mix drugs into food, beverages, agricultural farms, water, and anything [else]."

The cover of Dr. Baha al-Amir's The Divine Inspiration and Its Reversal, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion shows Orthodox Jews praying in a sinister blood-red light. The back cover informs readers that "The Protocols is the centuries-old scheme of the Jews, implemented for hundreds of years. It is transmitted by the snake's head from generation to generation and has led to the downfall of one nation after another since the 5th century BC." The book's text often invokes the Koran in making the case that the Jews seek to corrupt the whole world.

The Children of Israel and the Lie of Semitism was written by Dr. Ayid Taha Nassef, chief of the Information Center for National and Strategic Studies and Research in Egypt. The cover shows a Star of David superimposed on a hapless globe, and the text -- among, of course, many other things -- says that "the recent [persecutions] against the Jews in Germany were carried out by Hitler, who burned thousands of them in mass incinerators due to their despicable acts."

Finally there's Secrets of the Bastions of the False Messiah in the Hidden Island Triangle: The Wandering Jew and the Bermuda [Triangle] Region. This work is by Muhammad Issa Daoud, a famous, bestselling author in the Arab world.

The book develops the thesis that the Bermuda Triangle is home to Al-Masikh al-Dajjal, known in Muslim tradition as a repulsive false messiah of the Jews who will fight the Mahdi at the end of time.

Author Daoud contends that in the 1990s Israel and the United States shot down Egyptian planes in the Bermuda Triangle and that the Zionist- and American-dominated world media covered up the crimes.

The lurid and insane fantasies that fill these books are genocidal in import.

Both stemming from and feeding a frenzy of hatred, they hammer home again and again the message to millions of Arab and Muslim readers that Jews and the state of Israel are the source of all evil.

As the Center notes, "the anti-Semitic myths, lies, and drivel take hold in the consciousness of those exposed to such literature ... and lay the foundations for acts of violence against [Jews]."

That Egypt is the fountainhead of this toxicity does not prevent it from receiving large annual outlays of U.S. aid and being assiduously courted by both the U.S. and Israeli governments as an agent of peace.

Ignoring the real nature of the Egyptian regime and society is both cowardly and a betrayal of the Jewish and other victims of hatred.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Charles Jacobs, November 19, 2007.

It's time to say 'Ta ta' to Tutu!

IAbolish -- American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) -- was started in 1994; its president is Dr. Charles Jacobs. Contact IISG at (617)428-0012 Jacobs writes:

Dear Friends,

Simon Deng has worked with me at the American Anti-Slavery Group (www.iabolish.com) since 1995 in the campaign to stop the slavery and slaughter in Sudan.

We travelled together to Israel two weeks ago to visit the Sudanese refugees there and to have Simon see the Holy Land for the first time.

Simon had joined the Boston Jewish community's protest of Bishop Tutu's "hate-Israel" conference at the Old South Church at the end of October, holding up a banner that proclaimed, "Stop Apartheid in Sudan."

He is available to speak to communities and campuses.

The writer of the essay below, Simon Deng, a native of the Shiluk Kingdom in southern Sudan, is an escaped jihad slave and a leading human rights activist.

Simon Deng

Late last month, I went to hear Bishop Desmond Tutu speak at Boston's Old South Church at a conference on "Israel Apartheid." Tutu is a well respected man of God. He brought reconciliation between blacks and whites in South Africa. That he would lead a conference that damns the Jewish state is very disturbing to me.

The State of Israel is not an apartheid state. I know because I write this from Jerusalem where I have seen Arab mothers peacefully strolling with their families -- even though I also drove on Israeli roads protected by walls and fences from Arab bullets and stones. I know Arabs go to Israeli schools, and get the best medical care in the world. I know they vote and have elected representatives to the Israeli Parliament. I see street signs in Arabic, an official language here. None of this was true for blacks under Apartheid in Tutu's South Africa.

I also know countries that do deserve the apartheid label: My country, Sudan, is on the top of the list, but so are Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. What has happened to my people in Sudan is a thousand times worse than Apartheid in South Africa. And no matter how the Palestinians suffer, they suffer nothing compared to my people. Nothing. And most of the suffering is the fault of their leaders. Bishop Tutu, I see black Jews walking down the street here in Jerusalem. Black like us, free and proud.

Tutu said Israeli checkpoints are a nightmare. But checkpoints are there because Palestinians are sent into Israel to blow up and kill innocent women and children. Tutu wants checkpoints removed. Do you not have doors in your home, Bishop? Does that make your house an apartheid house? If someone, Heaven forbid, tried to enter with a bomb, we would want you to have security people "humiliating" your guests with searches, and we would not call you racist for doing so. We all go through checkpoints at every airport. Are the airlines being racist? No.

Yes, the Palestinians are inconvenienced at checkpoints. But why, Bishop Tutu, do you care more about that inconvenience than about Jewish lives?

Bishop, when you used to dance for Mandela's freedom, we Africans -- all over Africa -- joined in. Our support was key in your freedom. But when children in Burundi and Kinshasa, all the way to Liberia and Sierra Leone, and in particular in Sudan, cried and called for rescue, you heard but chose to be silent.

Today, black children are enslaved in Sudan, the last place in the continent of Africa where humans are owned by other humans -- I was part of the movement to stop slavery in Mauritania, which just now abolished the practice. But you were not with us, Bishop Tutu.

So where is Desmond Tutu when my people call out for freedom? Slaughter and genocide and slavery are lashing Africans right now. Where are you for Sudan, Bishop Tutu? You are busy attacking the Jewish state. Why?

Contact Isaac Judah at isaacjudah@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rabbi Adam Winston, November 19, 2007.

The scenario is frightening. Old, Jewish poor (and not-so-poor) living out their last days in decrepit nursing homes. Federations can't take care of them because their donor base has assimilated away. Outside, what would have been the "next generation" of young Jews, frolic through life with nary a shred of Jewish identity. Disconnected from political or economic support for Israel, not understanding why they should give substantial sums for the Jewish poor and needy. They won't even know the significance of a Lox and Bagel sandwich.

Of course, the solution to both problems is painfully obvious. No, applying the "snake-oil" of yet another conference or perchance a "modality" will not work. One, and only one, thing has proven itself over the past decades -- The Jewish Day School.

As we have called for in the past -- all that we need is 300 new Jewish Day Schools, funded by a fifth of Federation revenue: "A Fifth For The Future". A rather modest investment to insure there will be a future.

The Orthodox are willing to work with you to save your children. They can build, staff and run the schools needed to save your next generation. They have the experience and the infrastructure. They want to help. You just have to care enough to supply the funding.

In fact, a recent study by the AviChai foundation found that 94% of secular children who attended Orthodox Jewish High Schools were happy to study there! An astounding statistic as high school kids are often not happy about very much -- least of all school. Don't we want our children to be happy at school? The non-observant parents also feel quite comfortable in this environment.

Alternatively, 'Jewish leadership' could continue to ignore reality; let the seniors suffer and the young -- who could have helped them -- disappear. History, and the old-folks, will never forgive them.

Rabbi Adam Winston is Director of: "Project: Light Unto the Nations". An international effort promoting the message: "In order for our children to fulfill their role as a Light unto The Nations, they need the superlative education that can only be provided by a Jewish Day School." They can be contacted at : Project: Light Unto The Nations POB 27312 Jerusalem 91272 Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, November 19, 2007.

New York -- (November 18) -- Today, a most important conference entitled, "Hijacking Human Rights: The Demonization of Israel by the United Nations" was held at the UN Millennium Plaza Hotel in midtown Manhattan. The nine hour conference, sponsored by Touro Law School, the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank and the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists featured a veritable cornucopia of speakers representing a broad spectrum of political, religious and academic life.

The credit for spearheading and organizing this conference goes to Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, Director of the Touro Insitute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and editor of www.EYEontheUN.org, as well as www.bayefsky.com, a major human rights website. Professor Bayefsky has served on various delegations to the UN for over twenty years, including the Canadian delegation to the UN General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights, as well as various delegations to the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women and the infamous 2001 Durban Racism Conference. She is a graduate of the University of Toronto and Oxford University, and is a barrister and solicitor of the Ontario Bar.

While this conference focused on the orchestrated isolation of Israel, the blatant anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric of the United Nations, and the voluminous amount of resolutions passed both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council condemning Israel, the speakers grappled with ways to diffuse the tendentious climate that Israel finds herself in. The issue that dominated and most concerned many speakers was the upcoming Durban II conference to be held in 2009. Said Anne Bayefsky, "the resolution for Durban II was snuck under the table this past Thursday. This Tuesday the General Assembly will vote for prep-com on Passover of 2008. The resolution consists of only two paragraphs and Durban II will have the same NGOs (non-governmental organizations) as Durban I. She urged those assembled to lobby Washington and Jerusalem to vote against it. She also added that Durban II is an effort to enforce Durban I." She also warned those present that the NGOs hold they key to funding of Durban II.

According to an EYEontheUN special report entitled, "The UN-NGO Connection: Spreading the Message of Hate and Terrorism, (June 2006) it states, "The large number of NGOs have been empowered by UN accreditation to spread anti-Semitism, hate and encourage terrorism from a UN platform. The call for boycotts and sanctions against Israel is a central plank of this campaign. The UN accredits NGOS through its Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Department of Public Information (DPI), or in Israel's case, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP). Accreditation brings with it a number of entitlements, in particular, the wider dissemination of the NGO's views by way of the UN website, UN conferences and publications. The following is a sampling of direct quotes taken from the sites of UN accredited NGOs:

"The Star of David, which we are told is originally a religious symbol, symbolized hate and evil. Even today, I couldn't imagine a more hateful sign".

"We denounce the racist and colonial character of Zionism, Israel's State ideology.."

"Zionist apartheid, racism, and settler-colonialism in Palestine,,, is violative of the most basic human standards.. Thus, the Palestinian resistance is justified.."

"What do you think of the suicide bombings?.. First of all we don't call it a 'suicide attack,' we call it a 'martyr attack.'"

The United Nations Human Rights Commission originally billed the Durban conference of 2001 as a, "world conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Its goals were to address, "trafficking in women and children, migration and discrimination, gender and racial discrimination, racism against indigenous peoples and protection of minority rights". What resulted at the Durban conference was nothing less than a politically hijacked agenda. Rather than addressing the aforementioned issues, the conference solely focused on an agenda of Israel bashing, calling for the "reinstitution of UN resolution 3379 determining the practices of Zionism as racist practices". Rather than forming committees to study the trafficking of women and children, the agenda at Durban called for what one speaker termed as "BDS" (a new addition to the already complex UN nomenclature) -- boycott, divestments and sanctions leveled at Israel. Israel was accused of imperialism, colonization and globalization in what was termed as the "jihadization" of free speech. Israel and the USA walked out.

According to Shimon Samuels, the Director for International Relations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center based in Paris, "the agenda of Durban II will be similar to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion". He said that the platforms for Durban II as discussed in Geneva will be, "40 years of Israel as an apartheid state and 90 years of Zionist colonialism since the Balfour Declaration." He said that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has initiated 'operation push back' to try and "arrest this pernicious aberration."

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), who was elected to the US Senate in 2002, also addressed the issue of Durban II. He vowed that he will, "support funding restrictions to Durban II and called the original Durban conference, "institutionalized UN bashing of Israel and served to provide a legitimate platform for anti-Semitism." He also added that then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, "turned a blind eye to UN demonization of Israel." He also chided the UN Human Rights Council for placing Israel on its permanent agenda and discussed the bill in the Senate that was passed to prevent US tax dollars going to the UN Human Rights Council. He urged Israel lobbyists to work both sides of the aisle to influence Congress that financial leverage is an effective tool to rein in UN bashing of Israel.

Among the speakers in the morning session were former US ambassador John Bolton, a staunch advocate for Israel, who, during the Lebanon war of 2006 found himself as lonely voice in the wilderness when it came to defending Israel at the world body against charges of engaging in a "disproportionate" response to the incessant Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns.

Bolton called UN resolution 1701, calling for a cease fire, a false resolution and one that can never be enforced. Bolton also believes that the upcoming Annapolis peace summit will only result in Israel and America being placed in a weaker negotiating position. He stressed that Israel can only be treated fairly if the US State department would undergo a cultural revolution of sorts.

Ambassador Robbie Sabel, a former legal adviser to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the Geneva Human Rights body has hijacked human rights mechanisms and is dominated today by the G 77 comprised of non-democratic countries, 132 in all. He went on to defend the human rights record of Israel and said, "In a sane world, Israel's human rights record is actually superlative." He said, "Our soldiers aim at combatants, not civilians, unlike terrorists who are proud and open about killing civilians. He added that interrogations in Israel are conducted with "respect to the suspect and we do everything to preserve human dignity. There is no torture or coercion, no physical or mental abuse."

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), first elected to Congress in 2002 and Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee, came up with an alternative to the "rogues' gallery" that he calls the UN. Saying that since Israel was accepted as a nation state into the UN in 1949, there have been 321 condemnations of the Jewish state and quoted from the Bob Dylan song, "Neighborhood Bully" to describe Israel's predicament. He also mentioned that only 46 percent of UN countries are free nations and referred to the machinations of the UN as a "global Tammany Hall".

Outraged at the fact that Israel and the USA pay more UN fees than any other nation, totaling about 35 million dollars annually, and infinitely more than other "rogue" nations such as North Korea and Burma, he suggested the formation of a new world body called the Liberty Alliance. He said that this body has its roots in modern history and was envisioned by FDR and Truman. He said the Liberty Alliance would ensure an expansion of liberty and dignity and would extend rights to the enslaved and ensure the rights of those who are free. He added that the new organization would give individuals and communities the right to shape their own destiny and would provide "economic, political and cultural incentives for countries to join."

Ambassador Max M. Kampelman, who served as an ambassador during the Reagan administration, was one of the few speakers who was resoundly booed, after being asked a question about his comments. Ambassador Kampelman suggested that the rabbinate was against John Bolton being confirmed by Congress and he also castigated the leadership of the Jewish community, namely the religious leadership for not politically educating their yeshiva and seminary students. When the questioner asked him if there were Orthodox and Conservative rabbis who opposed John Bolton's confirmation, he answered that there was no difference in the Orthodox, Conservative or Reform branches of Judaism when it came to lack of support for Bolton. It was then that the cat calls and booing commenced.

Nonie Darwish, who was born and raised in Cairo, spoke of the horrific abuse of Muslim women in the Arab world and the deafening silence of the UN in the face of daily honor killings of girls as well as female genital mutilation "For the UN, addressing women's rights violations is less important than condemning Israel", she said, adding that, "the UN is twisting international law to fit Shar'ia law". She also stated that Arab feminists and Muslim reformists are being threatened and intimidated and that the UN is not doing anything to protect them. Ms. Darwish warned that, "through jihad, the free world will be destroyed and Israel will be the first nation to go, and the international community must wake up to this threat". She queried as to why the UN was not asking the leaders of 22 Arab countries to make concessions, only Israel. She said that when she returned to Egypt for a 2001 visit, the media exclusively engaged in Israel and America bashing. She said there were no reports on Muslim on Muslim atrocities and no mention of the slaughter of Algerians.

Father Keith Roderick, an Episcopal priest and Christian Solidarity International's representative in Washington, DC, took the podium and spoke about the daily atrocities and murders perpetrated by Muslim extremists against Christians living in the Gaza strip, in Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon. He spoke of Christians enduring land seizures, their businesses not being protected against Hamas and daily speeches in the Hamas legislature that call for Islamic hegemony. He spoke of damages being sought for the murder of 22 Coptic priests by Muslim extremists and asked if the UN is doing anything to protect the Christian minority in the Middle East.

It would appear that this conference, however well intentioned. was preaching to an audience that was already converted. The audience was comprised of mostly middle aged and older members who represented a number of mainstream Jewish and Zionist organizations and were familiar with the subject matter being discussed Roz Rothstein of Stand With Us, addressed the issue of campus outreach, aimed at targeting Jewish students who are convinced that the world vilification of Israel is completely justified because of the UN voting record and the clout that this "august" body has. She asked the audience to get involved in events such as these, which help educate the public to the truth behind the UN demonization of Israel.

Several members of the Israeli delegation to the UN spoke of the opprobrium casted upon them by the nation states at the UN every time they walk into the building. They told of the outright cynicism and hatred that they confront on a daily basis and of the feeling of being a "pariah" nation with "persona non grata" status.

Perhaps the time has come for Israel to re-think their member status in the United Nations. Why would Israel continue to subject themselves to such consistent condemnations when apparently, according to the speakers at this conference, Israel receives nothing in return except the clear message that they are not wanted. As Nonie Darwish told me, "If Israel should pull out of the UN, I would advise them to do it only with the United States and other democratic countries."

Among the other speakers were Dr. Bernard Lander, President of Touro College, Herb London, President of the Hudson Institute, Dr. Walter Reich, Professor of International Affairs, Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld, director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the arts, Amb. Yehuda Blum, former Israeli ambassador to the UN from 1978-1984, Amb. Raphael Walden, Amb. Daniel Carmon, Prof Michla Pomerance, Joe Hess, Prof Malvina Halberstam, Amb Terry Miller, Amb Itzhak Levanon, Prof. Malcolm Shaw, David Matas, Claudia Rosett, Andrea Levin and Roz Rothstein.

Contact Fern Sidman by email at AriellaH@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, November 19, 2007.

Dear Fellow Activists,

Below is an excellent email written to Howard Rieger, and, separately, to Malcolm Hoenlein, by one of our peers in Baltimore. I encourage you to follow Monica Caplan's wonderful example and either call Howard Rieger at UJC (212-284-6500, ext. 6600, Secretary, Pat) and Malcolm Hoenlein at the Conference of Presidents (212-318-6111, Secretary, Lauren), or write a very brief email to Howard Rieger (howard.rieger@ujc.org) and Malcolm Hoenlein (malcolm@conferenceofpresidents.org), asking them how they can remain silent while Israel sinks into the abyss. And, tell them that they must help prevent the summit in Annapolis from taking place. Feel free to let me know if you speak with either or both men, or Bcc: me to the email, so I may track how much mail they are receiving.

Thanks so much.

Dear Mr. Rieger:

Please do me the courtesy of reading this e-mail.

The modern State of Israel was created as a "safe harbor" for the world's Jews -- a place for Jews to live in safety so that "never again" would millions of Jews be in danger of imminent slaughter.

Yet five million Jews living there today are surrounded by enemies who are methodically preparing to get rid of them -- whether by chipping away at the tiny amount of land that is Israel until it is indefensible, or by wearing down its leaders and citizens through continuous attacks. These enemies are being encouraged and strengthened by the sympathy, money, arms, and legitimacy provided them by "concerned" world nations and by naïve and/or weak Israeli leaders.

NEVER AGAIN??? In the 1930's, most Jewish leaders and major American Jewish organizations refused to admit the reality of the grave situation facing European Jews; it was apparently easier, "safer," and more comfortable to do so. PLEASE DON'T REPEAT THEIR MISTAKE. HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO THE RIGHT THING THIS TIME.

I do not understand why your organization isn't screaming out in support of preserving the State of Israel as an intact Jewish state.

I understand that many Americans don't want to "undermine" the government of Israel by speaking out against any of its decisions or policies. This is an understandable, but misguided, notion.

The leaders of the State of Israel are human beings -- and they make human errors. What they have done in the past few years have proven to be errors. Those who love and support Eretz Yisroel have a moral duty to speak up in the light of that.

Because of the leaders' decisions"

* Thousands of productive Jewish citizens, previously encouraged by the Israeli government to settle there, were thrown out of their homes in Samaria and Gaza so that those areas could be turned over to Arabs. Many thousands of those Israelis are still struggling to rebuild their lives -- without the promised support of the government. The areas from which they were expelled are now terrorist strongholds.

* Residents of Sderot and the western Negev are suffering constant rocket attacks without proper shelter (as if there could even be "proper shelter"). Israel should be removing those who are terrorizing innocent Israeli men, women, and children, not sitting and doing nothing for fear of "international" condemnation.

It is said that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same behaviors over and over, and expect a different outcome. If so, then Israel's giving up more of anything is pure insanity. Israel's enemies are undoubtedly laughing in glee at Israel's naiveté -- they take more land, continue to call for Israel's destruction, and continue to lob rockets across the border"and Israel tries to "be nice" to them. As any child knows, being nice to a bully only makes him bolder.

The chief "Palestinian" negotiator, Mr. Erekat, this week REJECTED Israel's position that it be recognized as a Jewish state. The Arab "street" and leaders think that an Israel of any size (even a square centimeter) is too much of a Jewish state. The idea that Israel can "buy" the acceptance of Arabs by any compromises is pure fantasy.

In the mind of Israel's neighbors, the "problem" isn't Israel's size, actions, "occupation," or treatment of Arabs; it is Israel's EXISTENCE!

Israel is being pressured by misguided (or self-interested) world leaders to give up all of Judea and Samaria -- and half of Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount). This reality is frightening (or should be to anyone paying attention): Israel is surrounded by enemies who would like nothing more than her disappearance from the face of the earth. A "Palestinian" Arab state within as few as 10 miles from Jewish population centers (Tel Aviv among them) is sheer stupidity from a security standpoint.

NEVER AGAIN??? Unless Jewish leaders and major American Jewish organizations HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO THE RIGHT THING THIS TIME, "again" will soon be a tragic reality.

Remember the 1930's, gather your courage, and speak up!


Monica L. Caplan
Baltimore, MD

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 19, 2007.

The idea that poverty, relative backwardness, violence, and instability must be caused by external circumstances is engrained in much of the Western intelligentsia. It encourages a tendency to apologize for those regimes and radical groups which are the main cause of continued stagnation and suffering.

In fact, of course, the problems are very much-and usually more-based on history, culture, geography, ideology, and choices made. For example, Muslim-majority countries have much lower participation of women in the economy; are more rural and agricultural; and have had no Enlightenment or industrial revolution. Governments don't care about developing good health and educational systems. Lack of freedom and cultural restrictions--things changed and challenged in Europe from the sixteenth century onwards--harm economic development and social progress. And so on.

Yet the idea that underdevelopment or instability is caused by imperialism is so highly developed among the Western intelligentsia that it ignores the fundamental internal shortcomings that are the real problem, thus understating the problems caused by traditional culture, the need for reform, or the value of the virtues that led to Western successes.

Most revealing in this respect is a recent exchange between Syrian author Nidhal Na'ísa and Egyptian cleric Sheikh Ibrahim al-Khouli on al-Jazira television, October 30, 2007. Khouli said: "Western civilization is not really a civilization...."

Na'ísa responded by asking, "How did you come here [Qatar] from Egypt in two hours? On camels, it used to take you over six months to make a pilgrimage." [MEMRI translation] He might have added: Who developed the technology making it possible for you to speak to millions of people through airwaves to a box with pictures and sounds?

Other Arab liberals have pointed out that the ability to build airplanes is superior to the ability to crash them into buildings (the September 11 attacks).

Of course, Khoulib doesn't so much deny Western technological progress as to consider this endeavor worthless. He explains:

"Your concept of progress and backwardness are mistaken. This materialistic, technological progress, which gave rise to homosexuality even among the Church's clergyman and monks, who even perform same-sex marriages, is not a civilization. It is decay, in the true human sense and in the true moral sense. This runs counter to everything humanity has accepted in its long history." [MEMRI translation]

Obviously, the idea expressed here and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that homosexuality does not exist among Muslims is false. It was glorified in the Muslim medieval golden age and Na'ísa gets in a good crack asking the purpose of the boys who (along with female virgins) are available to the Muslim martyr in heaven.

More basic is Khoulib's total negation of Western culture, with which he is no doubt unfamiliar: Aristotle and the Arles of Van Gogh; Balzac, Bach, and Beethoven; Cocteau, Colette, and Chopin; Dickens, Descartes and Debussy; Erasmus and Einstein; Flaubert and Freud, and so on.

Indeed, there are four main arches critical to the Middle East's dominant ideology:

* That its problems arise from Western and Israeli oppression.
* That the struggles and violence of radical Arab nationalists and Islamists are based on genuine grievances.
* That the West behaves wrongly because it is hostile or ignorant about Arabs and Muslims.
* And that Arab and Muslim society is vastly superior to the West which justifies their rejection of it and ultimately will pave the way for their victory over it.

The first three are too commonly accepted in the West; the last is largely ignored altogether. But the key to understanding the Middle East is not "Islamophobia" in the West but the region's own "Westphobia," "modernityphobia," "secularphobia," "democracyphobia," "freedomphobia," "femaleequalityphobia," and "JudeoChristianphobia."

The bottom line is that change is needed not in Western policies and perceptions but in the Middle East itself. After all, the West succeeded precisely-as Arab liberals well understand--because its societies pit a priority on internal change: education and honest inquiry; productive virtues; better social infrastructure; more human and civil rights; and a freer culture.

In this regard, a British student who lived in Syria has written a personal account entitled "Syrian Journal," which reduces prevailing myths about the region to rubble. It brilliantly portrays a dictatorship using repression, demagoguery, and modern public relations' techniques to stay in power. Read it at

Then compare this to a New York Times article on precisely the same topic, "Students of Arabic Learn at a Syrian Crossroads," which falls for every regime trick and generally portrays Syria as a pretty good society.
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/ 14syria.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

Confronting with the daily avalanche of naïve nonsense or outright mendacity about the Middle East in the Western media, academia, and sometimes governments, I am haunted by something a Syrian friend told the "Syrian Journal" author:

"You know what pisses me off the most? Not the fascists here. But the appeasers in the West. What sort of message is that sending to us? Those of us who want some reform, who want our children to live in an open society like you have in the West?"

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His latest book, The Truth about Syria was published by Palgrave-Macmillan in May 2007. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/articles/archives/oldindex.html.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard A. Shulman, November 18, 2007.


Palestinian nationalism has petered out. (Replaced by Islamism.) The PLO has lost much of its importance. Some key leaders have returned to Egypt. About 50,000 members returned to Jordan.

Israel has encouraged Jordan to increase its ties with the Arabs of Judea-Samaria and even more so in eastern Jerusalem. The more it builds the separation fence (presently suspended supposedly for lack of funds), the more Jordan will gain influence there (IMRA, 11/6). Islamists have moved in.

The article overlooks why Israel is encouraging Jordan. Israel's anti-Zionist government wants to give Judea-Samaria to the Arabs, but the P.A. proved a reckless, bellicose, and incompetent recipient. Israel's leftist rulers are turning to foreign states.

The rulers don't realize that those foreign states are hostile, too, especially Egypt. Nor do they care.


Sec. Rice said that a breakthrough of P.A. compliance with the Road Map (or Oslo) is not required before the conference. It would be required before statehood.

Dr. Aaron Lerner doubts it ever would be required. He thinks she either would propose statehood without compliance on the grounds that she received a report of compliance or she would rationalize, at the last minute, that Abbas needs the power of sovereignty to comply (IMRA, 11/5). Actually, it was required more than a decade ago, in Oslo.

The power of sovereignty would absolve him of having to comply with a pre-statehood agreement.


Israeli police removed youths from another outpost, amid charges of police brutality. The youths and an attorney complained that police confiscated their photographic evidence, and have been doing so at other protests. Police admitted to some confiscation, claiming they wanted it as evidence. They taunted accusers by challenging them to take their complaints to the police complaint bureau (IMRA, 11/6). Ha!

Confiscation is a police-state tactic, as is brutality. If police want evidence to show they are not brutal, let them take their own photographs. They have the staff.

Police brutality against Jews is an old Israeli problem, never understood by the country and therefore never tamed. Israel's many "humanitarian" critics never mention it.


Iran, Russia, Turkey, and Syria historically have been enemies. Turkey long was an a faithful ally of the US, but the US has been a faithless ally of Turkey. That is, the US has supported the Kurds of Iran, although those Kurds have allowed the build-up of a terrorist and separatist movement that raids Turkey. Now the four regional states are becoming allies. Turkey now is Islamist (though not yet as directly so as Iran).

Turkey and Iran are making common effort against the Kurds. They are aligning themselves against the US. Russia, which already helps Iran and Syria arm and which has revived Soviet policy, is sure to make common cause with Turkey (IMRA, 11/6).

This is an obvious failure that, when it becomes official, Democrats will criticize Pres. Bush for, and deservedly so. But they failed to warn about it much. The State Dept. rarely gets the censure and the reform it needs.


Congress froze $200 million of the annual billion dollar US subsidy of Egypt's military. Rep. Ackerman described that as sending a serious "signal" to Egypt to stop the smuggling of money and arms (and terrorists) from Egypt to the Hamas regime in Gaza. This undermines the US policy of strengthening Abbas against Hamas (IMRA, 11/6).

It is not effectual to take inconsequential measures as a means of sending a "signal," when there is no dropping of the other shoe, as by stipulating a further freeze of the rest if the result is not achieved within a stated, desired period, as determined by Congress.


Min. Ramon objects to the ruling against cutting off electricity from Gaza, which is at war with Israel. Yossi Beilin says that the big mistake was in letting Hamas vote in the election. Dr. Aaron Lerner points out that the bigger mistake was in evacuating from Gaza (IMRA, 11/6). The biggest mistake was in not annexing vacant Gaza land.


That's the title of a book by Mr. Vidino, recommended by Middle East Quarterly, for tying together analytically what has been published in English, published in foreign languages, and unpublished. One part traces the growth of a mosque in Milan from a garage to a big center for identity fraud, counterfeiting, and Islamist plotting.

About 3,000 British Muslims were trained in Afghanistan. Those born in Britain may travel to the US without visas! (MEF News 11/6). We can no longer classify Britons as allies. It depends on their religious orientation.


When the Pollard affair broke, Sec. of State Schultz sent Leonard Garment, lawyer for Pollard's handler, to obtain affidavits from Israeli officials' that they had authorized Pollard to be their agent. He told Mr. Garment that then he would have Pollard's sentence reduced to the minor one that the prosecution bargained for.

The Israeli officials, including Rabin and Peres, denied involvement and produced lying and inconsistent affidavits. Garment confronted them. They admitted it. In addition, they soon promoted two of Pollard's chief handlers. This enraged US officials. They took out their anger on Pollard, the only one apprehended

He thinks that the Israeli politicians were afraid that their public would demand their ouster. So many years have passed, that Garment now believes that the officials still alive could admit their involvement without domestic political repercussions. Nevertheless, these officials still keep Pollard at arms' length (IMRA, 11/11).

Peres is the most corrupt Israeli officials, but Israelis think that Olmert is, because of his obvious and plain schemes. Perhaps Peres does not want inquiries that might lead investigators to his many, egregious, evils. There are, however, other explanations for Pollard's continued incarceration, having to do with embarrassment for US officials. Most of those officials are out of office. Their selfishness is cruel.


Martin Kramer, Rudy Guiliani's advisor on the Mideast thinks both contending US policies for the Mideast fail. One is to negotiate. The "realist" school that advocates it optimistically supposes that terrorists can become peacemakers. It overlooks the terrorist goal, which is not compromise but fanatical supremacy.

The other is to turn the Mideast democratic, particularly by means of elections, alone. Elections give the Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to gain power.

Mr. Kramer suggests, instead, the traditional big power method of respecting local customs, delegating power to locals, and letting local people express their views (Mideast Forum, 11/11).

I agree with him as far as he goes. I'd go further and help them build democratic institutions before holding elections. The locals may not be satisfied with that.


A Gazan tried to keep Hamas from using his house as a firing position against Israeli forces. Hamas men shot him in the back (IMRA, 11/11). Imagine if Israelis did that!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by American 1627, November 18, 2007.

If you thought that the 'Christianne Amanpour' trend of belittling radical Islam menace on the entire world via some cheap 'journalism' of 100% inaccuracy in her infamous refuted "God's warriors', where she distorts and lies on other faiths, in order to equalize others to the only real danger the globe faces today, which is of course, not Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Shinto, but [extreme] Islam.

At CNN's advertisement ahead of the Republican debates it CHOSE by no accident an Arab Muslim young woman covered with a Muslim scarf asking: "If you were president, What would you do to repair the image of America"?

Coming from a person of a culture that hates the west especially the powerful in the west and the bastion of freedom such as US, UK, Australia, etc. it was very odd to see the "most trusted name in news" to pick up such an un-average American "point of view", worse there is no secret behind such a line, a Muslim typical propaganda as if "being liked by the Muslim world is in US hands"....

Unless you see CNN for what it is, a worsening media as nothing but on the Arabist side. Do not overlook the Arab money grip control, like the Dubai "sponsorship" of CNN.

If I were to answer to that propaganda piece by that Muslim woman, even with an effort of the best PC I'd still answer:

Let's see, for years, you, the Arab Muslim world have been trying to sell to is that your grievances are mainly because of the "palestinian" -- Israel issue, hmm, President George W. Bush is the most pro "Palestinian" president ever, the one that has pushed for an independent state, practically an unprecedented historic gift, for this group of grandchildren of mostly Arab immigrants into the historic land of the Jews.

So where do the Arab "Palestinians" or the Arab world as a whole stand in its "likeness" of the US?

Did the Arab Muslim world like as better when we the US have interfered to save Kuwaiti Arabs ass, or Bosnian Muslims ass?

Well, maybe the ball is exclusively in your hands, in your hate education, in your Mosques, in your mainstream media?

Maybe this "why do we hate you" is a convenient card to take as much as you can from the US, and still demand more without every reducing their hatred for the powerful infidel?

Well, I for one just replace the word "maybe", for SURE.


Contact American by email at american1627@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 18, 2007.

This was written by by Jonathan Schanzer and Asaf Romirowsky, and appeared 13 November 2007 in the American Thinker. It is archived at http://www.meforum.org/pf.php?id=1802

Jonathan Schanzer is director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center, and editor of inFocus Quarterly. Asaf Romirowsky is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum and Manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.

"Peace is achieved through concessions. We all know that," said embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to crowd of businessmen last week, implying that parts of Jerusalem could be offered to the Palestinians in exchange for peace.

This is not the first time Olmert indicated that he was willing to split up Israel's capital. Last month, he publicly pondered whether it was really "necessary to also add the Shuafat refugee camp, Sawakra, Walaje and other villages and define them as part of Jerusalem."

Drawing from the history of other desperate Israeli prime ministers who have put Israel up on the auction block, Olmert's time in office is probably near its end.

The prime minister's recent statements can be seen only as a last gasp effort to revive his flatlining premiership. After demonstrating an utter lack of leadership during Israel's confrontation with Hizbullah last summer in Lebanon, few Israelis have any confidence in their prime minister. Indeed, he has miserably low approval ratings (as low as 2% in recent polls), with political challengers circling for the right moment to pounce.

Olmert is now chasing peace with the Palestinians at all costs, in a desperate attempt to secure his place in world history, knowing full well that future Israeli history books will not be kind. This fits a sad but familiar trend of other sputtering Israeli prime ministers in recent history.

Take Israel's current Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Under pressure from the Clinton administration during the July 2000 Camp David talks, he became the first Israeli Prime Minister to officially consider re-dividing Jerusalem. Despite the fact that this infuriated a majority of the Israeli public, as demonstrated in popularity polls, the embattled Barak forged ahead. When the talks ultimately failed, thanks to Yasir Arafat's intransigence, the Palestinians launched the al-Aqsa intifada. Barak was blamed for the violence, leading to an even steeper drop in his popularity. Ariel Sharon went on to win the 2001 elections by a landslide 63 percent.

Barak's plummeting popularity even before the intifada was inextricably linked to the former Israeli commando's willingness to violate Israel's longstanding red lines: no division of Jerusalem, no return to the 1949 borders, no return of Arab refugees, and no foreign army west of the Jordan River. But, faced with a legacy of failure, Barak clung to the notion that a peace deal ceding parts of Jerusalem might ultimately secure his place in history. In the end, it only ensured his defeat.

One can also argue that Shimon Peres, who became prime Minister by default in 1995 after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, also ensured his own demise by dangling Jerusalem as a concession to the Palestinians.

An architect of the Oslo process, Peres pushed tenaciously forward toward peace, even when Israel was bloodied by a brutal campaign of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide bombings. Despite the fact that the PA never reigned in Hamas, Peres never stopped pushing for peace. And he never took the question of Jerusalem off the table. Instead, he allowed the Palestinians to hold elections in Jerusalem in 1996, which was largely viewed as a gesture of possible future concessions. Thus, when Benjamin Netanyahu challenged Peres in the next election, he hammered Peres' blind commitment to a failing peace process, and charged that Peres would even surrender control of Jerusalem. This, alone, may have cost Peres the election.

When Olmert, Barak, and Peres raised the specter of Jerusalem, their political shelf lives had all but expired. Indeed, when Israeli politicians discuss the fate of Jerusalem to please the U.S. State Department or Palestinian negotiators, they are indicating to the Israeli public that they have given up on popular support. Instead, they make a last ditch effort to secure their own place in history.

Olmert's recent talk of dividing Jerusalem is a sign that new Israeli elections are almost assuredly around the corner. Refusing to go quietly, he is endangering the unity of Israel's capital just as his moment in history comes to an end.

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lemkin, November 18, 2007.

Rabbi Rich Wolpoe talks about the video of Hatikvah sung at Bergen-Belsen, when it was liberated.

This week marks the anniversary of Kystallnacht; how appropriate! -RRW

It was recorded by a British reporter on April 20, 1945 in Bergen-Belsen when the British army liberated the few thousand survivors in the concentration camp, half of which were Jewish, most of them at the extremes of their strength. It was recently discovered and apparently was loaned to NPR by the Smithsonian Institute.

The British priest organized prayers for Kabbalat Shabbat for the Jews. It was the first time after six years of war and after more than 10 years of persecution. With a lot of effort the Jews organized themselves and, knowing they were recorded, sang " Hatikva".

As you can hear they sang the original version as it was written by Naftali Imber. Picturing them in the midst of the concentration camp singing after all they had been through renders this a very moving scenario.



This is a rare recording of "Hatikva " from almost 62 years ago. If this doesn't give you goosebumps nothing will.

Kol Tuv/Best Regards,

Contact Mr. Lemkin by email at lemkinrealty2@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 18, 2007.

This comes from Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018826.php

Progress, in an update on this story. "YouTube Islamist arrested for threats to Christian political leader," from Christian Today:

A man who placed an "obituary" on YouTube of one of the leading opponents of plans to build Europe's biggest mosque near the London Olympics site has been arrested by police.

The video, "In memory of Councillor Alan Craig", features the Leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance party, his wife and two daughters.

The two-minute video, which has now be taken down, was added by a man calling himself "abdullah1425" and was set to the strains of Elvis Presley's song Always On My Mind and opened with its title and the words 'To God we will all return'.

It featured a boxing scene with an Asian punching an opponent to the ground before ending with the message: "The mosque will be built in time for the 2012 Olympic Games."

When the video was uploaded to Youtube, there was a web link from the Abbey Mills mega-mosque website to abdullah1425's YouTube mini website, where he identifies himself as Muhammad, 23, from Stevenage, Herts. It also had links to material relating to Tablighi Jamaat.

In one comment to another user posted on the site he said: "Jihad starts from the moment your mother gave birth to you." Police have taken a statement about the video from Cllr Craig. The man behind the posting has now been bailed to return to a police station in Hertfordshire.

Commenting, Cllr Craig said: "This incident now seems over. I will not be intimidated by threats of any kind as important issues about this mosque have to be addressed in an open and fair fashion. This whole episode has exposed the reality that some Muslims accustomed to using either violence, intimidation, or the threat of violence are linked to the idea of this mosque.

"I cannot say it often enough: the proposed mosque will be bad for London, bad for the community and an invitation for the propagation of separatist and fundamentalist Islamic ideas. Up to now, Mayor Ken Livingstone and the Labour establishment have turned a blind eye to the real nature of the organisation behind the mega-mosque. I hope they will look more seriously at them now."

Mr Craig represents Canning Town South ward in Newham borough, where he has the support of many Muslim residents in the area in his opposition to plans for the "mega-mosque" at Abbey Mills, near West Ham tube station, which will have a 12,000 capacity.

It is being proposed by the controversial Islamist group Tablighi Jamaat, whose previous adherents include Glasgow airport bomber Kafeel Ahmed, shoe bomber Richard Reid and the July 7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.

Posted by Marisol

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 18, 2007.

Will the conference be held in Annapolis on November 27? Still possible, but looking less likely.

Khaled Abu Toameh is reporting in the Post that PA officials are saying they are doubtful that a joint statement on principles can be agreed upon before the gathering. Obviously Rice doesn't expect this statement to materialize, because it seems she's not coming back here before Annapolis, as she was supposed to do.

Israeli officials are being more explicit: They now say the Palestinians "have backpedaled to square one, to the first day of negotiations."


Abu Toameh further reports that Abbas was just in Saudi Arabia; according to Jamal Shubaki, PA representative in Saudi Arabia, Abbas told King Abdullah that he was pessimistic about chances of success at the conference and said he would rather resign than fail there. According to Shubaki, the king agreed that Israel wasn't sincere in efforts to make peace. If the king did say this, then it would be unlikely that the Saudis would want to attend -- and this was something that has been important to the Americans.

But negotiator Saeb Erekat said that while there were difficulties in the negotiations, it was too soon to talk of crisis.


Said Olmert, during his meeting here today with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, "Annapolis cannot be a failure because the fact that it is taking place is a success unto itself." That's an interesting spin. A sign of expectations that it will fail.


The Palestinians, of course, are placing responsibility for possible failure on us. Said Shubaki: "The Palestinians are unhappy with the Israeli position because Israel hasn't done anything so far to make the conference succeed." He speaks about the need for the US to put additional pressure on Israel. And there are ever more demands on us being put forth.

This negotiating ploy really enrages me.

What has the PA done? Made a cosmetic attempt to secure law and order with those 300 security people deployed in Nablus. The irony here is this is something they should be doing in earnest anyway as a function of their responsibility to their own people.

And we? We're constantly making "good faith" gestures that are supposed to keep the Palestinian street happy. We've let out prisoners and reduced roadblocks. Now they want more:

They've asked for the release of 2,000 additional prisoners and word is that Olmert is thinking of letting out 450 or 500. This will be raised at tomorrow's Cabinet meeting.

They want more checkpoints taken down.

They want the PLO to be able to operate in eastern Jerusalem again, which request Olmert is -- most regretably and dangerously -- said to be considering.


Under heavy pressure from the US, Israel has also frozen settlement expansion.

Kouchner said today that settlements are the "biggest obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians." But -- as often as this canard is repeated -- it just isn't so. The obstacle is the refusal of the Palestinians and much of the Arab world to allow us to exist here in peace as a Jewish state.

Neither, by the way, are the settlements illegal. And when time allows I would like to return to this issue and its historical/legal background.


Meanwhile, Al Hayat in London is reporting that Olmert has agreed in private conversation with Abbas to take in 20,000 Palestinian refugees. Is it true? Don't know.

G-d forbid. It would be a horror. Not only the taking in of 20,000 hostile people (the refugees are the most radicalized), but the acknowledgement that we somehow are responsible for the situation of more than 4 million so-called refugees -- rather than UNRWA and Arab states that have kept them in miserable limbo for 60 years. It would be a Pandora's box.

The whole objection on the part of the Palestinians to our insisting on their recognizing us as a Jewish state is supposed to be because this precludes return.


Something else that really irks: A report has been released by Turkey regarding a mission that came in March to see what was happening with excavations at the Mughrabi Gate outside the Temple Mount. It claims that this represents a "pre-planned effort to destroy the Muslim nature of the Old City." We're trying to "Judaize" the Mount, you see. (That part doesn't irk so much as amuse, it's so ridiculous.

Israel's response was clear and forthright: "Israel is cooperating fully with UNESCO, which had sent a professional team to the site of the dig and published a report refuting all the allegations against Israel."

And we're supposed to have good relations with Turkey.


According to information leaked to the Sunday Times (London), the Winograd report will blame Olmert for the last 60 hours of the Lebanon war, and for the 33 deaths that ensued. I had just read that the report was due out in two weeks, now I read "by the end of the year." It cannot come out soon enough for me, for it will further destabilize Olmert's position.

There was considerable debate recently about the fact that the Winograd report wasn't going to name names. But in this instance, it appears to not be the case. Unfortunately, the Winograd Committee is structured (on purpose) so that it does not have the authority to recommend dismissals or resignations.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sara Shomron, November 18, 2007.

This essay was written by Sylvia Mandelbaum, an author of books and articles and former resident of Neve Dekalim, Gush Katif. Though now a nursing home resident, Mandelbaum writes "at my age I don't feel like retiring because I still have a lot of work that I haven't finished."

How could we have been so deceived? Either we pull ourselves together or we fold up.

We have no party. No government. Nothing. We are nothing. We have nothing because we are nothing. We did it ourselves. We are traitors. I throw the question back at people. What do you do now all you traitors? What do you do now?

You can form a new government but whom do you have? You'll form a new government with traitors.

What kind of people are you? Do you deserve a government? Or do you deserve to be eliminated?

What concerns me is where do we go from here?

I'm in a nursing home. What can I do in a nursing home? All I can do is write or dictate some articles. But there's much that can be done -- much that can be done.

Our government, especially Haredim, are traitors to their own cause. They were given some kind of bribe because they always had their own system. What were they given that made them cave in? Were they given personally or something for their own party? But their party voted for what? For Sharon, right?

The government folded up. A drastic step like that was taken to save the lives of Sharon's sons. Maybe to pay a gambling debt because they were professional gamblers. So what can you do with professional gamblers? What are you going to do against professional gamblers? There's no way that you can fight that.

The people have to fight back. The people. If the people don't want to fight back you have no country.

Gontza velt is a bluff -- from hinton biz aruf.
The whole world is a bluff -- from the bottom to the top.

Contact Sara Shomrom by email at shomron@email.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 18, 2007.

America's Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a speech to the Jews at the UJC (United Jewish Communities) General Assembly in Nashville, DTennessee on November 13th that they and the Israeli Jews must sacrifice.

Since the Jews have been frequently told they must sacrifice again and again by this hostile representative of President Bush, let us see if she is willing to share the pain.

What if the leaders of Mexico lay claim to substantial parts of Texas and California as originally owned by them -- under the Rice Doctrine?

What if Mexico asks the World Court and the U.N. to put the fate of the U.S. on the line in a World Court, given Rice and Bush are so generous with the lives and lands of the Jews?

Rice has turned into or perhaps always was a bigot from the South, having herself experienced prejudice from the whites oppressing blacks. Rice grew up in a well to do family. Her father was a pastor in Alabama. When the Birmingham Church was bombed and 4 little girls were murdered, Condoleezza felt it deeply. She seems to be carrying a racist time bomb in her belly from her youth and it may be exploding now. In her twisted perception, she conceives of the Palestinian Arabs as if they were her oppressed blacks and in her warped perception therefore, the Israelis became the oppressing Southern whites -- from her childhood memories.

Will Condi SHARE THE PAIN and have to defend the transfer of American land, won by war, back to Mexico under her Rice Doctrine: "No acquisition of Land taken in a war"?

Now that Bush, Rice and James Baker III established new ground rules for population transfer, will they be surprised that Mexico demands the return of Texas and California. After all, the U.S. forced Mexico to relinquish these lands so, under Condi Rules it should now go back. The Jews were forced out their G-d given Lands by the Romans and now wish to insure re-possession of Lands Arab squatters claim as theirs. That they Terrorize in whatever faction, militias, organizations...be they Shi'ite or Sunni, none of this makes any difference to C. Rice.

Rice says that the Jews must make "painful concessions" to a pagan, bestial people whose god demands permanent war with all "infidels" (non-Muslims), especially Jews and Christians. So, Ms. Rice, are you prepared for the rest of your life to be identified as the person who made it possible for Texas and California to be divided from the rest of the U.S., probably under World Court or U.N. decisions? After all, the U.S. and Israel are looked upon by an unfriendly World Court and the U.N. as excellent targets. So, if Mexico demands return of lands under the "Rice Doctrine", be assured that the World Court and the U.N. will agree.

DEBKAfile informs us that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are holding back their plans from the Israeli public to withdraw from Judea and Samaria (called the west bank by the rest of the world). Treason and Traitors do, indeed, flock together as birds of a feather as they plan for Land Transfer and Transfer of Jews out of that Land.

Hopefully, Olmert, Livni, Rice, Bush and Baker share the fate in some way of G-d's choosing as he did to Korach and his tribe. Jews have been hounded by anti-Semites seemingly forever. Nothing has changed as these evil people coalesce to chop Israel into bite-size pieces. May G-d curse their days, their nights and all those around them. May they SHARE THE PAIN they foist on the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. Let nature continue to unleash her fury on the collaborating nations -- with famine, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, cyclones, disease, collapse of the money system, floods, devastating war.

If I missed anything dire, please feel free to add.

Does Prayer help? Well, so far -- if you look around you -- you might say it does.

G-d said he would send fire across to the islands (read: nations) for their evil ways and attacks against the Jews. Take a look at what is called the "Ring of Fire", a 10,000 mile crack running beneath the oceans. Presently, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation sits on that crack in the earth that bursts forth with frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Should that crack widen and become a linear seam volcano (like splitting a melon), the wall of flames will, indeed, go across to the Islands. That should fry their bacon.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, November 18, 2007.


Dear friends,

I have the great privilege of knowing Ruth Gavison personally. Ruth Gavison is a genius who carries in her head one of the greatest legal minds in Israel (maybe the world).

As a member of the Winograd Commission of Enquiry on the debacles of the Second Lebanon War, and the leaders who conducted it, I am confident that whatever the decision of this important commission, it will be based on full-proof integrity and legal knowledge.

Israel is currently embroiled in an idiotic debate about its identity and right to exist. As if Israel needs the approval of the non-existent so called "Palestinian" "Nation" in order to feel secure.

The confusion begins with Israel's government which should immediately cease to demand such recognition from the "Palestinians." Here is what PM Olmert should tell Don Abbas, his cronies, and the world:

Israel cannot care less if the "Palestinians" recognize it as a Jewish state. But until they do, there are no negotiations.

Here is a definitive article by the great Ruth Gavison on the subject, both in English and in Hebrew. The Hebrew is for those lost Israeli souls who do not understand where they come from and where they are going.

To my Jewish readers in the Diaspora, here is a pivotal quote from the article:

"The negation of Jewish nationality also leads Aloni to confuse the essence of the ongoing aspiration of Jews -- not necessarily religious ones -- to immigrate to Israel. In sharp contrast to her position, they do not exchange their Jewish identity for an Israeli identity, but come to Israel to give the Jewish component of their identity the possibility of more complete realization, also in public life."

You Truth Provider,

This below was written by Ruth Gavison and it appeared November 11, 2007 in Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925055.html She is the founding president of Metzilah: Center for Humanistic, Liberal, Jewish and Zionist Thought.

In her article "Still a democracy?" (Haaretz, Nov. 15), Shulamit Aloni reaches the conclusion that the Palestinians should not be required to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The main and principled reason for this, she argues, is that it is a mistake to think that the conflict being waged in this land since the beginning of the Zionist enterprise is over the national self-determination of two peoples -- the Jewish people and the Palestinian people -- both of whom regard the Land of Israel as their homeland. This is because the Jews are indeed both a religion and people, but not a nation. The definition of a nation, according to Aloni, is only determined by a person's nationality and does not take into consideration his religion or origin or tribal affiliation. The State of Israel as a democracy is a state of all of its citizens, and the government of Israel represents all Israelis and only the Israelis.

Aloni thus brings to the heart of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict the argument usually sounded in the internal-Jewish context of the dispute, by Jews wishing to distance themselves from what they see as the unjustified wickedness of the Jewish religion and its institutions. But in her attempt to separate the religious and national elements in Judaism in the Jewish-Arab context, Aloni actually underlines the weakness of this view in the context of the argument over the connections between these elements in modern Judaism, the Zionist enterprise and the state. This is because Aloni "establishes" here an "Israeli" civic collective that lacks roots and culture. It is not at all clear whether the Arabs belong or wish to belong to this collective and, in particular, why it is here, and how it is to survive in this region, whose deepest principles of identity - perhaps regretfully for Aloni -- are a complex, powerful and dynamic combination of religious and national elements.

The usual analysis of the conflict between Arabs and Jews is based on three foundations: 1. Citizenship, which is the legal relationship between a person and the state in which he lives, and is not based on nationhood or religion. 2. Nationality, which is the unique ethnic and cultural affiliation to groups with a historic dimension. 3. Religion, which is a central cultural characteristic of groups in human history.

Among many peoples, the connections between nationality and religion are complex. The basic principle of the conflict is that of self-determination of nations -- the basic unit of nationality. A nation-state is not a state of all its citizens, but rather a state of the majority nation or of the national collective living within it. Aloni is correct in arguing that a state, and certainly a democratic one, is in an important sense a state of all its citizens and that this connection is not based on religious or national identity. However, this does not mean that a democratic state must privatize all the non-civic identities of its inhabitants and assimilate them within citizenship. The Arab minority in Israel, via its leaders and its "Vision" documents, for example, is actually demanding recognition of its separate national identity, in addition to recognition of the equal civic rights its members are entitled to receive.

The attempt to uproot Jewish nationalism as a central component of the State of Israel is therefore contrary to Zionism, contrary to the history of establishing the state, contrary to the international decisions that recognized the rights of the Jews to self-determination, contrary to the views held by most of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel -- who want Israel to continue to be their nation-state -- and contrary to the position of the Arab citizens of Israel, who regard themselves as Palestinian Arabs in nationality and as Israelis only in citizenship.

The negation of Jewish nationality also leads Aloni to confuse the essence of the ongoing aspiration of Jews -- not necessarily religious ones -- to immigrate to Israel. In sharp contrast to her position, they do not exchange their Jewish identity for an Israeli identity, but come to Israel to give the Jewish component of their identity the possibility of more complete realization, also in public life.

This aspiration has driven the Zionist movement from the start. This aspiration stands at the basis of the struggle for preserving the Jewish character of the state. This aspiration is recognized in international law as the right of nations to self-determination. It is this right the Palestinians are being asked to recognize.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 18, 2007.

This is an excerpt from the Samson Blinded website (http://samsonblinded.org) and are archived at

That Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state will lead to peace with other Arab countries is wishful thinking on part of Israel. Arabs list recognition of Palestine among other prerequisites for peace with Israel. Many Arab groups declare openly that Israeli recognition of Palestine is not enough: Jerusalem must also be partitioned. There will be no end to Arab demands to Israel. Since Arabs do not want Palestinians living among them, they will demand the right of return to Israel for the descendants of Palestinian refugees and, taking a cue from Jewish Holocaust organizations, will demand reparations for refugees. The only peace Israel should consider is a comprehensive agreement settling all Israeli disputes with all Arab states. Unfortunately, no recent Israeli government has insisted on that self-evident requirement.[2]

A settlement would eliminate neither hatred nor the danger to Israel from Islamic terrorist warfare but only make large-scale Arab-Israeli war less plausible -- though still possible if Israel punished Muslim terrorist sponsor states. The Middle East conflict would not likely subside, as long as Israel offers an attractive vent for Arab grievances. Perhaps the Islamic terrorists would turn against America instead. Indeed, the terrorists lost interest in Russia after evicting its troops from Afghanistan and returned only when Chechnya offered irresistible provocation. These considerations are, however, irrelevant. Israel should not pursue non-essential policies. Israel should not acquire land she does not need. If there is a good reason for Israel to hold Palestinian territory, it must be held, and the Palestinian terrorists should be dealt with. If Israelis do not want to defend the ex-Palestinian territory, it is not essential and must be shed.

The argument that Islamic terrorists hate the West for what it does to them, not for its values, is tautology. Even if America withdrew from global politics, it would remain a large part of the global economy and culture and always act internationally on its values. While Al Qaeda now concentrates its propaganda on U.S. military presence in the Islamic world, a total American withdrawal would only mean Arabs would find another focal point of hatred: satellite broadcasting, movie content, fast food chains (attacked even in Europe), stock and money markets, and agricultural exports. Military withdrawal from Islamic hot spots would not solve the problem for America.

The story of Tunbs, one of three tiny islands involved in an inter-Arab dispute,[3] shows that Arabs cannot formally accept even minor border adjustments unless they are imposed by some to major power. The islands are rather like Israel: economically insignificant land far from the core territory of Arab rivals not under any threat. Iran and Israel offered significant political concessions and aid. In response, the Arabs stiffened their position as the best strategy of improving their bargaining position and esteem. The Middle East conflict kept them prominent in foreign affairs, and major powers courted them. The emirs involved agreed to Iran's de facto annexation of the islands, yet objected to save face. They also asked that the British, not the Iranians, expel them. Likewise, Arabs would have no problem if the United States prohibited a Palestinian state, but they protest if Israel, their neighbor and supposed equal, delays Palestinian statehood. The British cared not a whit about the annexation, if only it were done without much fuss, as the Americans likely feel about the Palestinian issue. If the Tunbs dispute among Muslim powers lasted for decades, how much dimmer are the prospects of an Arab peace with Israel?

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 18, 2007.
Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof...
-- Leviticus 25:10, Hebrew Bible

I'm a proud Philadelphia boy.

My great grandfather, Benjamin, eloped with his fourteen year old bride, Esther, married in Elkton, Maryland, and proceeded to sire my grandfather and over a dozen of my grand uncles and aunts..,Philly's Esther and Benjamin Honigman Family Circle.

My Grandfather served in WWI and my Dad in WWII. Dad later put in almost three decades with the Philadelphia Police Department, retiring as a lieutenant.

Now, let's begin.

I often hear folks complaining about all that aid we give the Jews "over there."

True, Israel has received two to three billion dollars in aid each year from us for some time now. That aid is much appreciated, is largely returned to us via purchases in America, and comes with a big down side as well--as is most recently being manifested in the suicidal concessions Dubya, Condi, and the State Department expect Israel to make in Annapolis to alleged Abbas "good cop" Fatah terrorists who still refuse to recognize the Jewish State. It's fine for Arabs to have almost two dozen of their own (most forcibly Arabized from non-Arab peoples) in their Arab League, but how dare Jews have their resurrected one.

Please take a good look at the opening quote above from the Hebrew Bible, aka "Old Testament."

That's the inscription on the symbol of America's Revolution, the Liberty Bell, which sits within almost a stone's throw of where I was born.

There is no people who share--indeed gave--the values Americans so cherish more than the Jews. Indeed, when Europeans arrived here, they saw America as the "New Zion." The all-American holiday fast approaching, Thanksgiving, was modeled on the Hebrews' fall holiday of Sukkot, the Feast of the Tabernacles.

Israel--the resurrected Jew of the Nations, as the Hebrew Prophets foretold--is a shining "light unto the nations" (as G_d wanted it to be, the definition of its choseness), with all of its admittedly human imperfections.

Compare it, for starters, using the same lenses of moral scrutiny to what's in its neighborhood, and the anti-Semitism of Mr. Peanut's latest book becomes all too real. There are Arabs serving in Israel's Parliament who openly side with other Arabs who call for Israel's destruction. Find the Arab country with freedom like that.

America helps Israel because it's in its own interests to do so--despite all the petrodollar connections, including those in the State Department and at the highest levels of government.

President Bush I and his appointed fellow petrodollar buddy at State, James Baker, supported Saddam until the latter made his moves on that giant oil well known as Kuwait. Killing, gassing, and maiming hundreds of thousands of Kurds and dispatching others made no never mind prior to this.

And yet, some proclaimed we went to war with Iraq to save the Jews.again.

I'm sure Israel felt this way when it was told by Bush I that it had to keep its hands tied behind its back while Saddam sucker punched it with about forty missiles aimed at Jewish civilian populations. Did anyone know then whether or not Saddam would have those warheads topped with biological or chemical materials he possessed? Had Israel responded, there likely would have been no need for Bush II's Iraq II.

And remember Bush and Baker's ire over Israel's taking out Saddam's nuclear reactor at Osirak in Operation Opera?

Decades earlier, like-minded bigots claimed that America fought WWII to "save the Jews."

Reality check.

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.not vice-versa.

We fought the war to save Europe--not Jews--and very likely ourselves afterwards.

American bombers were given orders not to bomb Nazi Final Solution facilities or railway tracks leading to Auschwitz, while flying over them to get to the area's industrial targets.

Jews fleeing Nazis were denied entry into America while Nazi butchers like Dr. Mengele were aided by us to escape to South America and elsewhere...including to the United States. The Jews' saint, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, gave orders which had the United States send the German ocean liner, S. S. Saint Louis, away from Florida. It was loaded with prominent German Jews trying to escape the Holocaust. Many, if not most, wound up dying in gas chambers and such. A movie, The Voyage Of The Damned, would later be made about this.

So, let's cut the manure about America fighting to save Jews.

Next...let's return to the aid issue.

The current war in Iraq--whether you support it or not--is costing America more, for the sake of Arabs, in one week than Israel gets in foreign assistance in one year. America has already spent about $400 billion dollars for Iraq, with much more set to come. It would take Israel centuries to get this from America. And Israel doesn't ask for American blood and souls to be shed on its behalf or to be bribed to display America's own values and democratic inclinations. How long will the latter last among Arabs after America's exit from Iraq?

Ironically, the one people in Iraq who better share those values--the Kurds--are the folks the James Baker types in the State Department are determined to shaft (again) on behalf of their Arab friends who want to be sure oil fields in Kurdish lands remain part of the "purely Arab patrimony."

"F_ _ _ the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker's law firm represents Saudi Arab interests in the United States--including defending them in a law suit filed by America's 9/11 victims. Baker's law partner is America's ambassador to Riyadh (and current Secretary of State Rice has an oil tanker named after her...etc., etc. and petrodollarly so forth).

Egypt gets almost the same amount of aid as Israel, and many of the other overtly or covertly mostly despotic, anti-democratic Arab countries get bundles as well.

Mind you, this does not count places like non-Arab, but Muslim, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Together, Iraq and Afghanistan will cost Americans about $700 billion by the end of 2008. And what about the trillions of dollars America has given to Europe over the years? Why do the same folks who complain about America "saving Jews" not mention any of this?

Having stated the above, I believe that before one cent in aid is given to anywhere, no American should be going to bed hungry, homeless, or worrying about the family going bankrupt due to health problems. We do need to take care of the home front first--especially if we have this kind of money to spread around...including to those who hate us.

But, when the issue of American aid to Israel arises, fairness indeed demands the broader perspective.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 18, 2007.

Below is an excerpt from Arutz Sheva

"In fact, however, numerous testimonies from the 1800's prove that the number of Arabs living in the Land of Israel was very low. The American writer Mark Twain, for instance, who visited the Holy Land in 1867, wrote about the Jezreel Valley, "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent -- not for 30 miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation... To find solitude, come to Galilee for that... these unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness... We reached Tabor safely... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Nazareth [today a teeming Israeli-Arab city of 65,000 people - ed.] is forlorn... Jericho the accursed lies a moldering ruin today..."

Haifa, from what is now the bay area industrial zone, and many towns.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 18, 2007.

Because we have grown accustomed to governments lying, one must read reports as if they come from Pravda or Al Ahram. Sometimes the speeches and interviews are just well-crafted lies. At other times the lies are leaked to accommodating important flagship journals or TV commentators. So what's the current lie, mis-statement of fact, misleading spin or is it just the truth spoke byusually well known liars?

We are being told or leaked to that the Annapolis Conference Summit Inquisition may be "postponed" for a year. Since next year is approximately one month away, might they really mean that they will call for a Conference anytime in January, February, March, etc....? We do know that President Bush is catching six kinds of hell for the Rice idea of gathering Israel's enemies in one spot so she may be divided up as loot for the Muslim Arab world.

The Jews and Christians have made their opinion well known and little of these opinions are supportive of C. Rice. On the flop side, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) is demanding outrageous concessions to which even the weak Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cannot agree. In addition, every Bush venture in Arab/Muslim land is failing.

Bush is discovering to his dismay that there is no peace to be had from the Muslim Arab nations and the Terrorists whom they support. The Iraqi government does nothing while the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim militias battle to the death of civilian masses (when they are not killing Americans and members of the Allied Coalition). Those Iraqis who have joined the military or police to try and protect their country or being blown up daily. The donor nations' monies go straight into Terrorists' salaries, weapons, bribery or infrastructure.

In Afghanistan the Taliban are surging forward, making deals with the tribal sheiks who we bribed to keep the peace but, they won't stay bribed.

Bush sent his girl diplomat, Condoleezza Rice, into the Middle East on many missions but, she can barely wade through the Russian crisis despite the fact that Russia is supposed to be her field of expertise. Vladimir Putin all but booted her and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates out of a meeting after he kept them waiting more than 40 minutes.

I am reminded of how former Secretary of State James Baker III used April Glaspie as Ambassador to Iraq. Most male leaders have total contempt for female diplomats, but especially in the Arab/Muslim world. Glaspie told Saddam that "We have no opinion of your border disputes." [with Kuwait]. The meaning was that the U.S. by sending this pathetic message through this weak woman was giving Saddam Hussein his "Green Light" to attack and loot Kuwait, denials notwithstanding.

C. Rice has James Baker as her advisor and so she screws up with Bush's blessing.

We are told that the Annapolis Conference hinges upon who will be elected in Lebanon. (How? This makes no sense at all.) Then why has Cisco Electronic Systems been approved by Bush to be shipped to Syria, no doubt, with Baker's connivance? That's like World War 2 with Ford and General Motors shipping trucks to Germany through its subsidiary cut-out corporations.

If Israel, Jews or Christians put down their guard now, don't be surprised if you are knocked flat on your collective behinds. Don't blame the referee because the 'someone' who is beating the hell out of you is actually a well-organized gang, headed by Bush, Rice and Baker.

They all want Israel's scalp and, if they cannot get it on November 27th, then it can be sliced into pieces on January 27th or April 27th Bush, Rice and Baker want a trophy win and they don't care which country disappears, as long as it is Israel.

So good friends, don't put your fighting gloves away and keep your guard high because they are coming back to kill you if and whenever they can.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 17, 2007.


Reuters reports good news. Gulf states, their coffers overflowing, now spend more on higher education than on arms. The Arabs don't want to be backward in knowledge. A new Saudi research university will allow mixed gender classes and women drivers on campus, no sex police to be present (IMRA, 11/3 from Lebanon Star).

That is good news for jihad. The Arabs will gain knowledge and skills primarily for the service of religious war.

I don't understand why women or anybody should need to drive on a campus, rather than walk. Without sex police, if the story is true, one can anticipate sexual relations on campus. Then the clergy will demand the introduction of sex police. That's their problem. What I object to is their arrogant attempt to impose their way upon us.


Half the Mideast Muslim countries have strikingly reduced birth rates, close to that of Europe. Half still have a "youth bulge" in the population. Too many youths for the job market, unable to afford marriage for years, and a Muslim culture lead to terrorism. More terrorism emanates from Muslim countries with high birth rates than with low ones.


The IAEA and its head, Mohammed Baradei, are covering up for Iran's nuclear weapons development instead of leading the demands for Iran to step down. The evidence, including Iranian deceit that it would not need if its program were civilian, piled up. Nevertheless, Baradei denied Iran's intent. Why?

Perhaps it is because he is reacting to Israel's bombing of Iraq's covert nuclear weapons factory, years ago. It does not seem for religious reasons, because he has not mixed religion with politics.

The IAEA has lost much credibility over its failure to stop Iran and N. Korea, and Iraq (IMRA, 11/4) not to mention Pakistan and India (IMRA, 11/4).

I find the argument unpersuasive. Motives are difficult to discern. Merely asserting a plausible rationale for a motive does not make a good case.


After Gaza rockets damaged Siderot, the IDF attacked Gaza, in retaliation (IMRA, 11/4). Since terrorists attack every day, why wait to retaliate? Why hold back?


A law student wrote an essay about Jonathan Pollard's disproportionate jail sentence. He also cited lies and mistakes about Pollard, such as Sen. Fred Thompson's, that Pollard spied "against" our country. He spied in behalf of Israel but not against the US, and never was charged for the latter. Sen. Thompson expressed no such indignation against Muslim and Christian spies whose espionage was against our country, but who received much lesser sentences.

The aspiring lawyer discussed the silence by Jewish organizations and politicians, and their lame excuses for not petitioning the President to release Pollard. He thinks that those Jews are afraid to take a stand for a fellow Jew. He contends that their fear indicates the prevalence of anti-Semitism (IMRA, 11/4).

Fear does not indicate reason to fear. The law student did not prove his thesis. I chide him for making claims of prejudice he cannot support. He may wonder but he ought not assert it.


The Druse attacked the four Jewish families in town. After a full day, police came to protect the Jews by evacuating them (rather than arresting the mob), and let the Druse set their houses and cars afire. After the Druse attacked the police and the police defended themselves, the Druse alleged police brutality against them. Some officials are calling for investigation of the police and not of the Druse! In Israel, the government often accords Jews fewer rights than gentiles.

(Another case: government lets Muslims but not Jews pray on the Temple Mount.)

The Olmert regime recently approved the appointment of Theophilus as Greek Orthodox Patriarch, after terrorist pressure and the need for approval from Jordan and the P.A. got him to sign a pledge not to let Jews lease Church property. This is serious, because the Church is a major landholder in Israel.

At the same time, the Olmert regime is pressing the Jewish National Fund not to assert its mandate for making land available to Jews. Gentiles may discriminate against Jews, while a Jewish organization holding land in behalf of the Jews may not keep it for Jews.

Meanwhile, the government is going to a conference to lay the groundwork for setting up a truly apartheid state for Muslims. Jewish won't be allowed to own land or live there, but Arabs will be allowed to own land and live in Israel. The new state would weaken Israeli self-defense. Why is Israel doing this? Clue: the government also is opposing automatic citizenship for Jews. It is anti-Jewish (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 11/5).


Siderot is the nearest and main target of terrorist rockets. The government of Israel reinforced some buildings there and built bus stops as bomb shelters. The shelters had only half the specified thickness. A rocket would shatter them. They, in turn, would become shrapnel. Rockets have penetrated reinforced buildings, too (Arutz-7, 11/5).

The history of war involves a shifting duel between offense and defense. A defense arises to meet offense technology. Then the other side improves its technology for offense, rendering the defense vulnerable. Investing large sums in static defense usually is wasted effort. When, in addition, the defense contractors skimp on materials, the defenders have little chance.

Israel should remember its Bar-Lev Line of forts. It was unable to hold back an Egyptian invasion, especially because the government skimped on the number of troops fortifying the Line. Its technicians did not figure out, and its spies did not discover, the means that Egypt would use to overcome the Line.


The Israeli curriculum not only tells Arab students that the foundation of Israel was a catastrophe for them, but, thanks to a Likud, former Minister of Education, tells Israeli students that Israel expelled several hundred thousand Arabs and is responsible for them. The Knesset Education Committee voted to have those false, anti-Zionist propaganda claims corrected (Arutz-7, 11/5). The current Min. of Education founded Peace Now. She is not likely to cooperate.

So much for the notion of Israel having a "Zionist propaganda machine." So much for resting hopes for the preservation of Israel upon the Likud Party. The catastrophe for the Arabs is that they followed jihad instead of peace.

They are responsible for that. Israel did not expel more than a few of them, and only from strategic security positions where they were a threat to Israel, with which they were at war. If Israel had expelled all of them, it would have far fewer problems now.


The NY Times publishes some classified information. When that information is communications intelligence, the Times is breaking the law. The government does not prosecute it. When it is not communications intelligence, the Times would be breaking the law only if it had criminal intent and a criminal history. In another case, two AIPAC employees thought they were receiving the normal back-channel briefing. Obviously they merely were lobbying, without criminal intent. Nevertheless, the government is prosecuting them (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/6).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, November 17, 2007.

Dear friends,

Every day the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and its legitimacy as such is put to question by Israel's enemies without and within.

Here are two answers to those who doubt, a paragraph from Israel's Declaration of Independence and an anecdote:

"By virtue of our natural and historic right, and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, [we] hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel."


Forty years ago, Yaakov Herzog (brother of Israel's sixth president, Chaim Herzog) was invited by the BBC to take part in a symposium. The subject: What Are Israel's Chances of Survival? Herzog, shocked by the choice of topic, declined to participate but said if they ever held a symposium on Britain's chances of survival, he would be glad to attend.

Enough said!!!

Your Truth Provider,

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, November 17, 2007.

Speaking at the Knesset, Livni claimed that there is absolutely nothing to worry about Annapolis. Lunacy and self-delusion are governing the kadima gang. Shas and Yisrael Beitenu must leave the gov't before Annapolis : such gov't "can't fall fast enough". One more MUST READ by Caroline Glick

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jewish World Review

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

On the eve of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "peace summit" in Annapolis, the political house of cards which is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima government is poised to collapse.

Olmert owes his parliamentary majority and his governing coalition to two sectoral right-wing parties -- Shas, the Sephardic party, and Yisrael Beitenu, the Russian immigrant party. Today both are being pressured by Likud and their own voters to leave the government against the backdrop of Olmert's intention to offer massive concessions to the Palestinians at Annapolis. If they bolt his coalition, Olmert will be going to Annapolis without a governing majority. As far as Israel's national security is concerned, the government can't fall fast enough.

The Kadima-led government has been a national disaster. Kadima is a party of fantasists. It was established by the fantasists who pushed Israel's withdrawal from Gaza two years ago. With the active assistance of the delusional Israeli media, during the 2006 election, Kadima was able to hide the dire consequences of that retreat from the voters until after the elections.

While the public swallowed Kadima's promises of peace and prosperity, Gaza was transformed from a tactical nuisance into a strategic threat. While Kadima's leaders promised the country responsible, honest government, terrorists from Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt marched into Gaza. Advanced weaponry, money and indoctrination materials flowed freely across the border between Egypt and Gaza that Kadima's leaders -- against the stated opposition of the IDF -- ordered the IDF to vacate. The destroyed Israeli settlements were turned into terror training bases and launch pads for rocket and mortar attacks against the Western Negev.

Since launching a major ground operation against Gaza would involve an acknowledgement of the fact that the withdrawal was a colossal mistake, for the past two years the government has refused to act. As Kadima clings to its delusions, some 40,000 Israelis under rocket and mortar attack are beset by the reality that they have been abandoned by their government which refuses to defend them. Not wishing to die for the government's delusions, some fifty percent of the residents of Sderot have already fled their homes.

In the meantime, as Hamas's 15,000-man Iranian-trained army, formed after the 2005 withdrawal improves its rocket and mortar arsenals and increases their range, another 250,000 Israelis -- residents of Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat, Netivot and Ashdod look on with worry knowing they are next in line.

Rather than contend with the failure of their grand retreat strategy in Gaza, ahead of last year's elections, Kadima's leaders announced their next big plan. They called for an Israeli retreat from Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem. Indeed, in the early months of their tenure, Olmert and his colleagues were so busy harassing settlers and building walls between neighborhoods in Jerusalem that they failed to note the approach of war. And so they were caught by surprise when on July 12, 2006, ten days after Hamas and Fatah attacked Israel from Gaza and abducted Cpl. Gilead Shalit, Hizbullah attacked in the north -- kidnapping IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser and shelling northern communities with Katyusha rockets.

In reacting to Hizbullah's campaign, Kadima's maintained their penchant for delusion. Rather than waging a real war against Israel's enemies, they decided to wage a pretend war.

In their testimony before the Winograd Commission, senior cabinet members and IDF commanders testified that during the government's meetings in the two days following Hizbullah's attacks, they didn't think that Israel was at war (note : Livni so declared, in one of her irrational, flip-flop speeches after Lebanon war).

Apparently they never got the memo. The government's decisions during the war only make sense when viewed as the moves of a government that refused to recognize reality. Its refusal to draft reservists; its insistence on not launching a ground offensive until after the UN Security Council had already passed the ceasefire resolution; its decision not to bomb Hizbullah targets in Syria; its refusal to declare a state of emergency and evacuate residents of the north, and its insistence that Israel achieved all its goals only make sense when seen in the context of a governmental campaign to ignore reality.

And now, with the Winograd Commission poised to release its final report, rather than contend with the wreckage of their last failure, Kadima's leaders are marching towards their next failure at Rice's peace parley in Annapolis.

Kadima's leaders promise us that we have nothing to worry about. They learned the lessons of the Gaza withdrawal.

Unfortunately, it seems that they have learned the wrong lessons. The decision to withdraw from Gaza was founded on an understanding that there were no Palestinian leaders willing to make peace with the Jewish state. Instead of fight to victory and so enable a peaceful Palestinian leadership to emerge, Israel opted to cut and run.

Far from learning that cutting and running is a bad strategy, Kadima's leaders embrace it. What they learned from Gaza is that they were wrong to acknowledge that there are no Palestinian leaders interested in making peace with Israel. So rather than repeat that "mistake," they invented the fiction of Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as a credible leader.

If Kadima's leaders are allowed to go forward with their "peace" talks with their fictional Palestinian partner, the consequence will be the transformation of Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem into the second Gaza. And this is something that Israel cannot allow. While the Gaza terror state directly threatens 250,000 Israelis, the Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem terror state would place millions in its crosshairs. Every major city is within rocket range of the areas. A partitioned Jerusalem would become uninhabitable for Jews.

Unfortunately, Kadima's leaders don't care. What is important to Kadima's leaders is, in Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's words, "to create processes." (note: in her repeated speeches void of any common sense and logic)

Livni, it would seem, has taken on the role of chief defender of the government's new big strategy. Speaking at the Knesset this week, she claimed that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Israel's concessions will only be implemented after the Palestinians fight terrorism. Of course by agreeing to conduct negotiations Israel surrendered its former position that nothing could be discussed until after the Palestinians fought terrorism.

As for Olmert, in the current iteration of Kadima's strategic myopia, he shows that he learned nothing from Lebanon. There he decided to launch a counter-strike without accepting that Israel was at war. He then spent the next five weeks pushing policies that were aimed at forcing reality to bend to his imagination.

Today, as then, Olmert moves ahead with negotiations with Abbas and Rice without any consideration for the consequences. Indeed, like Livni, he denies that there are consequences. He refuses to consider the effects of his support for Abbas -- a leader with no followers, who already lost an election to Hamas in 2006 and lost Gaza to Hamas in 2007. He thinks that the fact that he is offering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to a leader of a society that refuses to accept Israel's right to exist is cost-free.

Of course, this isn't the case. His willingness to offer such enormous concessions has radicalized his powerless interlocutor still further. Then too, Olmert's willingness to accept Abbas as a negotiating partner and embrace the fantasy that his Fatah group is something other than a terrorist organization has had dire consequences for Israel's relations with the US. Seizing on Israel's willingness to deal with irreconcilable foes, Rice invited Syrian dictator Bashar Assad to send a representative to Annapolis. There, Iran's junior partner in nuclear weapons development will demand that Israel surrender the Golan Heights to its Iranian-trained army.

Against this backdrop, led by Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu, Wednesday Olmert's political opponents began their offensive against the Olmert-Livni government. First, the Knesset moved to begin checking Olmert's power to concede Jerusalem. By an overwhelming majority, its members approved -- in a preliminary reading -- Likud MK Gideon Sa'ar's bill requiring the approval of two-thirds of the Knesset for any plan to limit Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem.

Joined by MKs from Kadima, Shas and Yisrael Beitenu, Netanyahu and his Likud colleagues then reconnoitered at the City of David. There, nestled between the Temple Mount and the Kidron Valley, the parliamentarians vowed to block any concessions on Jerusalem.

As one would have expected, sitting among politicians who base their policies on reality, the representatives of Shas and Yisrael Beitenu looked a little embarrassed. Here they were, announcing that they reject the Olmert's new delusional flagship policy, while enabling him to implement it by remaining in his government.

And that's the thing of it. It would seem that Shas and Yisrael Beitenu haven't decided yet where they stand on the reality-delusion spectrum. Yishai and Lieberman apparently believe that simply by denying the self-evident dangers of Kadima's policies, they will be immune from criticism when those policies fail. But their voters are not so easily gulled.

Monday, Netanyahu and Sa'ar paid a visit to Shas's spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in a bid to impress on him the dangers of the moment and to convince him to withdraw Shas from the government. As they exited the rabbi's home a young Shas voter approached Netanyahu and asked, "Why is Shas still in the government?"

The two parties claim that they will leave the government if it damages Israel in any way. But of course, it already is damaging Israel. From a security standpoint, the government's decisions to release terrorists from prison; grant "clemency" to wanted terrorists; curtail IDF counter-terror operations; and continue to do nothing in Gaza in the interest of the peace process, are endangering the country.

And then there is the symbolic damage. By announcing a freeze of all Jewish building activity in Judea and Samaria, the government has effectively said that Jews have no right to Judea and Samaria. By agreeing to discuss massive territorial concessions in Jerusalem, the government has effectively provided the Palestinians with veto power over Israeli sovereignty in the city.

For the past three years, Kadima's leaders have annually introduced a new "grand strategy" for solving Israel's woes. In each case, after their grand strategy collapsed, before the country could force them to pay the price for their idiocy, they moved on to their next grand strategy that then collapsed.

The only way to prevent Kadima from moving forward with its most dangerous grand strategy to date is to bring down the government by forcing Yisrael Beitenu and Shas to bolt the coalition. They are feeling the heat. But it has to be turned up several notches.

This comes from Europeans_who_support_Israel@yahoo.com Contact Crystal at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr.Richard L. Benkin, November 17, 2007.

November 15, 2007, was supposed to be just another one of the seemingly endless string of pro forma court appearances for Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. It was his 36th in the 31 months since his release from prison. They are pure harassment carried out in a deliberate effort to silence him. They are draining his physical, financial, and emotional resources and all have the same tedious and soul-numbing pattern : Shoaib is called to appear as the court opens; he is forced to sit for hours upon hours; and finally, the judge tells him that he is ordered to return in another few weeks. Bad enough; but November 15 was not more of the same. After making Shoaib wait for several hours -- that did not change -- Judge Azizul Haque berated him because the Supreme Court had not yet heard him appeal. He then to the Public Prosecutor and asked him what he thought should be done. Ehsanul Haque Shomaji replied that the judge should revoke his bail.

Now, government spokesmen have been telling to leave them be, that the matter is in the hands of the court, and that the government really cannot interfere. That certainly does not sync with what happened on November 15! The military-backed government's action was illegal, as well, since bail is guaranteed under Bangladeshi law while the appeal is pending. But little has been done in Shoaib's case that accords with the law; radical Islamists still rule the roost in Dhaka, and call the tune to which the government dances lies and transparent delaying tactics. They have told me explicitly that they plan to 'wait us out' on this.

Eventually, Shoaib's bail was restored, but only until December 13 when he again faces potential re-incarceration. That will be the fifth attempt to throw him back in prison since we secured his release. Even though the judge and public prosecutor acted in gross violation of Bangladeshi law, the government refuses to take any action. All of it underscores Shoaib's precarious position while the admittedly false and capital charges remain pending. It brings home starkly how his freedom--perhaps his life--remain in danger. But each one of you can do something to help Shoaib and the cause of justice.

Garment exports to the West, especially the United States, are the lifeblood of the Bangladeshi economy. The holiday shopping season is upon us, and retailers depend on these sales for their economic health. I do not like the word, boycott, but I do have a choice where to spend my own money. Personally, I do not want to support an economy that openly supports radical Islamists (the government has admitted numerous times that this is the sole reason why the charges remain) and oppresses heroes who oppose the radicals. Everyone can exercise that same choice. I have listed the top importers of Bangladeshi textiles below and am asking everyone to contact each of them. (If you are not in the US, write to the top importers in your country or we can help you identify them if you want.) Tell them that you will refrain from patronizing them until they either stop purchasing Bangladeshi goods or until Bangladesh drops the admittedly false charges against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury -- a man who has been honored for his fight against radicals and his support of interfaith understanding by the US Congress, European Parliament, Australian Senate, and others; who has been awarded numerous international prizes for his struggle. Yet, the Bangladeshi government -- in defiance of them all -- still harasses this man and threatens him with a potential death sentence for those same efforts. Remind them that there are plenty nations who would love to supply them with their textile products. Why do they choose to buy from Bangladesh when it gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

Each of you can be a human rights champion by doing that; you can do even by getting others to do the same. The Bangladeshi government has turned a deaf ear to international pleas for justice, appeals to human rights and a free press, and even requests by the United States Congress. They have spurned offers to help them with various problems they face, all because they refuse to "anger the [Islamist] radicals," as they have told me again and again.


H. Lee Scott, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 702 S.W. 8th Street Bentonville, Arkansas 72716 Phone: +1-479-273-4000

Wal-Mart's Global Ethics Office: ethics@wal-mart.com

Congressman: John Boozman (R AR-3) He also was the Republican floor leader for HR64 on Shoaib's behalf.

Senators: Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D) and Mark Pryor (D)


Robert J. Fisher
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Interim Chief Executive Officer
Gap, Inc.
Two Folsom Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 650-952-4400

The Gap's Board of Directors: board@gap.com

Corporate Compliance Department: corporate_compliance@gap.com

Congressmanwoman: Nancy Pelosi (D CA-8) She is also Speaker of the US House.
Senators: Diane Feinstein (D) and Barbara Boxer (D).


Philip H. Knight
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Nike World Headquarters
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005-6453
Phone: 1-800-344-6453

Nike's Corporate Responsibility Governance: nikeresponsibility@nike.com

Congressman: David Wu (D OR-1)
Senators: Ron Wyden (D) and Gordon Smith (R)


Mackey J. McDonald
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
105 Corporate Center Blvd.
Greensboro NC 27408
Phone: 336.424.6000

Cindy Knoebel, Vice-president for corporate communication: corporate_communications@vfc.com

Congressman: Coble (R NC-6)
Senators: Elizabeth Dole (R) and Richard Burr (R)


Emanuel Chirico
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation
200 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-381-3500
Fax: 212-381-3950

Congresswoman: Carolyn B. Maloney (D NY-14)
Senators: Charles Schumer (D) and Hilary Rodham Clinton (D)

This is something everyone can do, and Shoaib is depending on us all. He has stood up against those who would kill us, even at the risk of his own life. Let us all stand with him. The time is right. Bangladesh has refused the carrot; perhaps it is time for the stick.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury's Brother and Defender

Contact Richard Benkin by email at drrbenkin@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcel J. Cousineau, November 17, 2007.

I've been a witness to a strange thing among Israel's strongest supporters. They've all turn out to be pathetic cowards who make excuses for the Chief destroyer of Israel

And they continue their farce and outright deception with no shame.

They are part of the problem facing Israel, no where near the help that they masquerade to be.

They won't even identify the Chief enemy, the treacherous betrayer, the wolf who wears a sheeps skin

These cowards do go after his secretary.

With enemies,at least you know their intentions, but with a treacherous friend who deviously plays the part of a friend it is evil personified.

But the blind leaders of the blind snowflake Zionists continue to grovel at his feet and give him undeserved praise and cover.

Their years of silence towards the one man who by way of his false peace and dream for his terrorist Islamic Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of all Jews destroys Israel is much worse than mere cowardice, it is a henious betrayal of Israel.

If they would have oposed their demi-god and idol, President Bush early on, the flood of destruction coming from this treacherous and evil man might have been quelled.

Even after the Gaza debacle they continue to make pathetic excuses of ignorance or cowardly blaming his secretary,the Rat Rice.

They do not have the courage to point the finger of responsibility and guilt where it belongs because they have a personal interest in their doubleminded hypocrisy.

It's no wonder Israel is in such dire straits with pathetic Zionists like this who half heartedly support Israel and cover for their friend, the destroyer of Israel.

Everyone of you are shallow hypocrites.

Marcel Cousineau can be reached at zionsgate@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sylvia Mandelbaum, November 16, 2007.

Why have I been so silent these last few years while there were so many changes made in the government, events which normally shake me to my roots? I find my day appalling so much so that I feel I must speak out now.

First I want to ask a few questions:

(1) Where is our old stamina?
(2) Why do we allow things to happen to us that we wouldn't ordinarily allow?
(3) Are we going uphill or are we going downhill?

Now we have to answer the questions.

Our old stamina? I think it's worn out. Even though we haven't used it lately -- it's worn out. In order for something to remain alive it has to be used but not abused.

Because I think we are worn out we need a new angle. We need a new reason. That is our secret. We have always been able to renew ourselves but these days we seem to have failed. We sit back and hope it will correct itself. But this is wrong. It doesn't happen by itself. It takes power. It takes willpower. It takes belief and we have become lax. We have forgotten how to renew our faith. We have forgotten right from wrong. We allow everybody and anybody to direct us. We don't know ourselves where we are heading. So if we do not know how can we lead our people? We have always been considered a good people. Please God, bring us back to the right track so that we may regain our prestige in the world.

Sylvia Mandelbaum is author of books and articles and former resident of Neve Dekalim, Gush Katif. Though now a nursing home resident, "at my age I don't feel like retiring because I still have a lot of work that I haven't finished."

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, November 16, 2007.

Tonight BBC America featured a truly bizarre report by Katya Adler. There they were, Palestinian militants from Gaza wearing ski masks practicing first aid in an immaculate Geneva office. It was part of an ongoing IRCR program to give terrorists a chance to relax, excuse me learn about the Geneva Convention -

The International Red Cross has begun training Palestinian militants in Gaza as part of what it says is its worldwide effort to teach the rules of international humanitarian law in areas of armed conflict.

All armed factions in Gaza have signed up to the course, which explains the rules of war under the Geneva Convention and how to protect civilians.

The Red Cross says it gives the same courses to the Israeli army.

Katya Adler asked the trainees whether they will follow the laws they were taught. It will depend on our commanders they answered.

Adler asked a commander whether he will stop lobbing missiles at Israeli civilians now that he knows international law considers it illegal. No, he answered.

Katty Kay asked why they came to Geneva? Katya failed to answer. Hard to believe that it never occured to either that the "gunmen" may enjoy the paid vacation. I wonder about the "all armed factions." It is doubtful that Gaza and Hamas gunmen could share a classroom but then maybe they will do anything for a Swiss vacation.

I hope somebody will get hold of the video. It is a priceless piece of absurdity. Unless one is a terrorist, one does know whether to laugh or cry.

The terrorists must laugh. Who can ask for a more cooperative and helpful enemy?!

Next time you think of contributing to the Red Cross, remember your dollars will be used to provide terrorists with a much needed vacation!


Iranian journalist Amir Taheri pleaded wih Al Baradei not to repeat the mistake he and Blix made before the Iraq War:

His report should debunk Ahmadinejad's claims by stating unequivocally that the Islamic Republic has already violated the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty on 32 issues over more than 18 years.

Al Baradei should also expose Ahmadinejad's bogus claim that Iran is enriching uranium as fuel for power stations. Iran has no nuclear power plants and thus has no need of enriched uranium.

The only nuclear power plant under construction in Iran is to be completed by Russians at an unspecified date. But the uranium enriched by Iran at Natanz is not suitable for the plant being built by the Russians because it needs a different-type of fuel designated by an exclusive scientific code -- a code that Moscow has refused to communicate to Tehran.

Because nuclear fuel has a lifespan of three to four years, the Natanz uranium cannot be intended for any of the 22 nuclear power plants that Ahmadinejad says he wants to build in Iran over the next 25 years. (None of those is even in the drawing stage.)

If the centrifuges are working to train Iranian scientists, Al Baradei should know that, at the level of scientific research, Iran was already able to enrich uranium in 1978.

The centrifuges working at Natanz can only be producing ingredients for nuclear warheads. Al Baradei should tell that truth to the Iranian people and the world at large.

But the Egyptian refused to listen or tell the truth. Hence, Iran's official news agency boasts: ElBaradei report vindicates Iran

Those who had hoped against hope that Ayatolla Khamenei would clip Ahmadinejad's wings must come to terms with the fact that Al Baradei's report only served to convince the Ayatollah that the Iranian President was right and that he should be permitted to further consolidate his power.

Here are some of the consequences -- Crack Down on Iranian internet hosts, Tough measures for Iranians students abroad. There are bound to be plenty more. Of course, the ambitious now know who is the stronger horse.

I am sure Al Baradei gets it but does not care. All he cares about is avoiding the opprobrium of his transnationalist brethren who consider any enemy of the US, a friend.

Disgusting but true.

If Iran is bombed, he will be justly blamed.

Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, November 16, 2007.

This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis). Contact him by email at imra@netvision. net.il and visit his website: http://www.imra. org.il

It seems that every time U.S. Secretary of State Rice or Israel President Shimon Peres make public remarks about the Arab Israeli conflict they don their amateur pollster's caps and proclaim that the Israeli street supports the measures that they advocate.

And they are wrong.

Now it could very well be that most of the English speaking Israelis that Ms. Rice encounters are eager for a "land for piece" (of paper) deal and certainly Mr. Peres' acolytes may share his virtual reality take on the situation. But you can't gauge the attitude of the street by relying on such a skewed sample.

Polls are far from exact tools in measuring public opinion, but they are magnitudes more accurate than the Rice-Peres straw polls. One of the most fascinating findings of polls of the Israeli public is the consistent response to the following basic question:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Most of the Palestinians have not accepted Israel's existence and would destroy it if they could."

Here are the results for Israeli Jews polled in the Peace Index October 29-30 poll:
Agree a lot 44.5%
Considerably agree 20.2%
Middle 13.2%
Considerably disagree 11.2%
Disagree a lot 7.9%
Don't know/No reply 3.0%

Again, the question didn't read "the Palestinians would like to destroy Israel if they don't get a sovereign Palestinian state". It didn't even say "the Palestinians would like to destroy Israel if all their demands are not met."

Rice confuses Fatah for the NAACP and keeps on thinking that if the Palestinians would just be given a sovereign state and "dignity" (which apparently means not being subject to vital Israeli security operations) that peace would reign eternally. Peres continues to doggedly adhere to his flush toilet theory of peace, arguing essentially that the ideological drive to destroy the Jewish State can be neutralized via an improved living standard.

But that's not what the Israeli street thinks. The Israeli public, at least when it stops for a moment to think, views policy issues through the prism of the fundamental truth that Rice and Peres deny: that regardless of what concessions we make, most of the Palestinians have not accepted Israel's existence and would destroy it if they could.

The Peace Index found that 59% oppose, in exchange for a peace agreement, transferring the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty so that they can serve as the capital of Palestine (33% support it).

A Maagar Mohot poll of Israeli Jews 18-26 October (commissioned by the Israel Policy Center for Promoting Parliamentary Democracy and Jewish Values in Israeli Public Life) released this week is chock-a-bloc with similar results:

In light of the current situation of the PA, do you support or oppose that Israel should commit to transfer parts of Jerusalem to Palestinian control??
Oppose 69% Maybe 11% Support 17% Other replies 3%

In light of the current situation of the PA, do you support or oppose that Israel should commit to remove the IDF from most of Judea and Samaria, and transfer it to Palestinian control?
Oppose 61% Maybe 15% Support 22% Other replies 2%

In light of the experience with the disengagement, do you support or oppose that Israel should commit to a mass evacuation of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria?
Oppose 65% Maybe 13% Support 19% Other replies 3%

Do you agree or disagree with the claim that in light of the experience of the past Israel should deal with the Palestinians with a tougher approach and not seek simple ways to solve the Israel-Arab conflict?
Agree 65% Disagree 28% Other replies 7%

And it goes on.

No. The Israeli street doesn't share the convictions of either Ms. Rice or Mr. Peres.

They can argue their positions. But they certainly have no business claiming that it is the voice of the Israeli street.

Contact Lee Caplan by email at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bob Kunst November 16, 2007.

Nov. 26, 27, 2007, in Annapolis at Gate 1, King George and Randall Sts. starting at 11 AM to 2 PM. The sell out Summit itself will be on the 27th so we will have an extra day of publicity on the 26th. Also, on the 27th will be the New Jewish Congress at the Ramada in Jerusalem for their conference.

Below is an email from Sidney Kulnick, who is flying up from Miami.

My name is Sidney Kulick. I was born in New York, raised in Miami, and now currently reside and work in Miami. I am employed with Miami Dade County in the Computer Technology Department as a Senior Systems Analyst. In the 1960's and early 70's I was employed with UNIVAC as a Programmer Analyst on the Apollo Project providing remote site computer communication software support.

But, where I was born, live or work is not important. What is important is that I will be at the Annapolis Conference over the coming Thanksgiving Day holiday.

In August of 2005 I went to Israel with a group of approximately 20 Americans, included in which were four Gentiles. We made our way to Gush Katif to support the residents against their forced expulsion carried out by Jewish soldiers and police.

Can you imagine? Jewish soldiers and police removed 10,000 Jewish citizens from their homes and then destroyed those homes. Not to mention the lives of the people; most of whom are still unemployed and without permanent housing. Gush Katif prior to the expulsion was economically viable; it was a thriving exporter of fruits, vegetables, and flowers. The architect of this forced expulsion is the current prime minister Ehud Olmert. For what? We are all aware of current state of Gaza since the expulsion.

Olmert wants to do to the Jews of Jerusalem and those living in the Jewish Historical Homeland (Judah and Samaria) the same as he did to the Jews of Gush Katif.

We must not allow this.

Please join me this coming Thanksgiving Day weekend in Annapolis to put a stop to this madness. This time we must not fail.

You may reach me at: (H) 305-932-1018 E-mail: s_Kulick@bellsouth.net, Sidney KulicSenior AnalysPayroll Maintenance

Bob Kunst is President of Shalom International. Contact him at shalominternational@mindspring.com or visit www.defendjerusalem.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 16, 2007.

Briefly before Shabbat and without knowledge of when I will next be on line...

Don't know where the issue of demanding that we be recognized as a Jewish state is going. I'm looking for -- expecting -- the hedge that allows the PA to say they didn't provide this recognition, but that allows Olmert to say he got what he demanded. PA negotiator Saeb Erekat has now said that Olmert wanted to "poke us in the eye." But...he has also now said, "The majority of Israelis are Jews. And when we recognized Israel we recognized the composition of the state." This is NOT the same thing as what Olmert is supposed to be demanding, which would be a right that sounds the death knell for "return" of refugees. It's on the way to a hedge, and it remains to be seen how this plays out.


The defense establishment is advising that no more concessions should be made to Abbas until the results of Annapolis are examined. Enough good will gestures, they say. Said one defense official -- unnamed, but clearly someone with his head screwed on right -- "The Palestinians will forget quickly what we gave them before the summit and it is important to create incentives for Abbas to make the summit work."

But the Cabinet (either not knowing or not caring how this constant rush to concessions weakens our stance) will be voting on Monday regarding the release of more prisoners, which Abbas has requested.

According to a "senior official" in the government -- also unnamed -- "If the summit is successful and negotiations ensue, then it might be necessary to keep the Palestinians happy and quiet. One way to do that is to release more prisoners." I was so incredulous at the stupidity of this I had to read it twice. The plan being hatched, which apparently hasn't reached Olmert's desk yet, is to keep the street quiet by releasing a significant number of prisoners every month so that negotiations can proceed.

Don't they see that if we have to BUY the cooperation of the Palestinian people, if they are not happy BECAUSE we are negotiating peace, then there is no peace? Here, in a nutshell, is the whole concessions mentality, which totally fails to recognize that the other side has to genuinely want peace.


The Shin Bet is making a prediction that Abbas might be looking for an excuse to shuttle Annapolis. Not getting enough concessions might be a hook for this: we couldn't continue for Israel wasn't sincere. But this is absolutely not a reason to make those concessions, for reasons just stated. If he wants out, it wouldn't work anyway.

And sure he wants out, because he's not politically strong enough to compromise at all, and because he would never sign an end of conflict agreement, since the goal is to destroy us.


Political commentator Ehud Ya'ari also thinks Abbas wants out. Says he, "The Palestinians are fuming at Rice for having trapped them in a corner." But he talks about something else that is mightily worrisome: the Palestinians are trying to "get out of it by renewing the talk about a 'third step' in the Oslo process that was never implemented. What this means is an attempt to get more territory on the West Bank from Israel without having to reach any substantive agreement." Something else to be monitored very closely.

Ya'ari says a great deal more: "If it were not for Israel's regular preemptive counterterror raids, Hamas could, if it so wished and even without the use of armed force, paralyze the functioning of the Palestinian Authority. There's no chance that things will change in the foreseeable future. The Fatah movement has in fact ceased to exist, although there are still tens of thousands of card-carrying members. There is no meaningful process of resuscitation or reform under way in either the PA, or its ruling party, Fatah. In private conversations, associates of the PA chairman, Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), call him 'a pensioner still going to the office.'"

And this is who we are thinking of negotiating with.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380783569&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Or Read it below. Click here.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, November 16, 2007.
"The continued disregard to Prof. Khadduri's teachings -- which are consistent with the Palestinian track record of the last 14 years since Oslo -- adrenalizes the veins of Israel's enemies, radicalizes Arab expectations and demands, pours oil instead of water on the terror fire, exacerbates Middle East turbulence, brings Israel closer to an all-out war under worse conditions, causes a setback to US-Israel relations, minimizes the chance of peace, thus undermining vital US national security interests."

Dear friends,

The most tragic result of the expulsion from Gush Katif (Gaza) in 2005 ("Disengagement") is the fact that so many had predicted precisely the terrible consequences of that crazy move (also a brainchild of Ehud Olmert).

The very same people and many more who since wizened-up, predict even worse if any concessions are made to Don Abbas and his clans in Annapolis, only now, the concessions would be within 15 miles of the outskirts of Tel Aviv and lead to the division of Jerusalem, the only heart and soul of the Jewish nation.

Here is a most important article, written by Yoram Ettinger, which deals with the reliability of any deals made with Muslim Arabs. It is called 'Quo Vadis Annapolis?!' It was published on Nov. 13, 2007 by Ynet, Israel's Internet daily (Yedioth Achronot).

Please study it carefully and open your eyes to the truth.

Your Truth Provider,

US and Israeli policy makers are premising the Annapolis Conference on foundations that have led to a series of bloody collapses in Oslo, Cairo, Hebron, Wye, Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David 2, and the "Disengagement." They assume that Abu Mazen has adopted a mentality of peace, thus granting yet another victory to the simplistic world of delusions over Mideast 's complex reality.

The late Professor Majid Khadduri, from Johns Hopkins University', considered the world's leading authority on Arab definitions of peace and war, noted that Arabs view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective -- defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a necessary, but temporary, break in the ongoing war against the enemy and/or infidel.

Khadduri's monumental book, "War and Peace in the Law of Islam," clarifies the meaning of the intriguing 1,400-year sequence -- since the 7th century -- of wars, terrorism, and the violent violation of agreements, alliances, and treaties among Arabs, among Muslims, and between Arabs and non-Arabs.

According to Prof. Khadduri, "If a catastrophe had befallen the Muslims, (they) might come to terms with the enemy...provided that the Muslims should resume the Jihad after the expiration of the treaty...Defeated Muslims always maintained that their battle with the enemy would be resumed, however long they had to wait for the second round...(pp. 134-136)... If the [leader] entered into treaty arrangements which provided terms he was incapable of fulfilling, the treaty was regarded as void... By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike...(pp. 220-221)...The Prophet Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding a [628 A.D.] treaty with the Makkans, known as the Hudayabiya Treaty (whereby) a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument if it serves Muslim interests...the Prophet and his successors, however, always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam... Muslim authorities might come to terms with (the enemy), provided it was only for a temporary period ...a temporary peace with the enemy is not inconsistent with Islam's interests...(pp.203-212)."

The determination of the architects of Annapolis to defy Prof. Khadduri's findings, resembles mathematicians and physicists, who would act in contrast with Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravitation.

On the other hand, Abu Mazen's school textbooks, religious clerics and official TV, radio and newspapers resonate with Khadduri's theories day and night. They preach for the "liberation" of Jerusalem, the Galilee, Haifa, Jaffa, Ashdod, and the Negev, the destruction of the Jewish State, glorification of homicide bombers and Jihad. Abu Mazin's hate-education system lends credence to a major conclusion from Professor Khadduri' s book : The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not over the size -- but about the existence -- of the Jewish State, which is located in a region defined by Muslims as "The Abode of Islam."

Prof. Khadduri adds that "Thus, the Jihad, reflecting the normal war relations existing between Muslims and non-Muslims... was a product of a warlike people... Islam could not abolish the warlike character of the Arabs who were constantly at war with each other; it indeed reaffirmed the war basis of inter-group relationship by institutionalizing war...transforming [inter-Muslim] war into a holy war designed to be ceaselessly declared against those who failed to become Muslims... The short intervals which are not war...are periods of peace (pp. 53-54)." "In practice, however, the Jihad underwent certain changes in its meaning to suit the changing circumstances of life... This change, as a matter of fact, did not imply abandonment of the Jihad duty; it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension -- it assumed a dormant status, from which the [leader] may revive it at any time he deems necessary... There is no [permanent] compromise with non-believers (pp. 64-65)."

The Annapolis Conference is premised on the notions of "Land-For-Peace" and the "Two State Solution," which constitute a timeout that would enable the Arab side to improve its positions in this constant war -- just a phase in realizing Jihad's objectives.

The continued disregard to Prof. Khadduri's teachings -- which are consistent with the Palestinian track record of the last 14 years since Oslo -- adrenalizes the veins of Israel's enemies, radicalizes Arab expectations and demands, pours oil instead of water on the terror fire, exacerbates Middle East turbulence, brings Israel closer to an all-out war under worse conditions, causes a setback to US-Israel relations, minimizes the chance of peace, thus undermining vital US national security interests.

This is not the way to advance peace!

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Babbazee, November 16, 2007.

This was written by Rabbi Avi Shafran, who is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America (wwwAgudathIsrael.org).

This morning I counted. There were at least ten times the Hebrew name of Jerusalem, or its synonym Zion, passed my lips. Before breakfast.

There was "Jerusalem, praise G-d," "May You shine a new light on Zion," "the Builder of Jerusalem," and many more throughout the Jewish morning prayer service.

And then there were the other references to Jerusalem but without her name, like "May it be Your will... that the Holy Temple be rebuilt, speedily in our days" and "the city called by Your name."

After a bowl of cereal, the blessing "Al Hamichya" would mention Jerusalem two more times. And for any meals including bread that might have followed, one of the main blessings that comprise the grace after meals would have the Holy City as its subject as well, beginning with a reference to "Jerusalem Your city" and ending "Who in His mercy builds Jerusalem."

And, then, in each of the day's two remaining prayer services, as in the morning one, the silent "Amidah" prayer includes a similar blessing.

It is hard to believe that any people, entity or government could arrogate to claim a closer connection than the Jewish one to the city nestled in the Judean hills, the city toward which praying Jews for millennia have faced thrice daily, and face to this day. And it is even harder to believe that a government of a self-described Jewish State would even consider, much less announce, its contemplation of placing Jerusalem on the cutting block of negotiations with an enemy.

Yet that is what is happening before our incredulous eyes.

There are Jews who, whether on religious or nationalistic grounds, reject without qualification the very idea of territorial compromise. Many of the religious leaders of the haredi world, however, have clearly stated that political sovereignty over land does not trump the attainment of peace and security. None of us haredi Jews deny, G-d forbid, the holiness of any part of the Jewish Land. But we know that the true, complete (territorially as well as spiritually) "Jewish State" will arrive only when the Messiah does, and that the Third Holy Temple will be built by the hand of not man but G-d. Thus, the reflexive form in our prayer: "May it be Your will that the Temple be [re]built."

That said, though, "territorial compromise" with an adversary that includes duplicitous, hate-filled elements -- elements that celebrate violence and make no secret of their goal of destroying Israel, elements that have time and again asserted themselves at will, brushing away the ostensibly more moderate among them like so much lint -- is, to put it mildly, foolhardy. And the Israeli leadership's apparent readiness to treat even Jerusalem, the very wellspring of the Holy Land's holiness, like a salami to be shared merits an adjective considerably less mild.

Mere days before this writing, we were reminded of what lies on the "other side." A Fatah rally in Gaza was attacked by Hamas forces who killed six and injured dozens. The PLO's chief negotiator publicly rejected the notion that the Palestinians would ever recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Israeli leaders would have to be seriously deluded to imagine that offering such people a part of Jerusalem will result in anything like a secure city.

One can only add to our prayers the hope that those political leaders somehow experience some flash of recognition of what they are contemplating. That they blink a few times, shake their heads and remember just what Jerusalem means to the Jewish People. That they come to open a Jewish prayer book and not only read the words but pay attention to them; and say the grace after meals, doing the same.

And that they then turn to their adversaries and say, without rancor but with full determination: "No. We're sorry. Not Jerusalem."

To be sure, from a haredi perspective, it doesn't make any inherent difference what temporal flag flies above the hewn stones of Jerusalem's walls. The city's holiness is neither heralded nor preserved by such banners. But it is a fallacy of the most dangerous sort to imagine that the cause of peace could possibly be advanced by surrendering the heart of the Jewish People.

Visit Babbazee's website The Outraged Spleen of Zion at http://babbazeesbrain.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, November 16, 2007.

If only Israeli political leaders were of the same quality as her scientists and engineers.

This was written by Matthew Krieger and was published yesterday in Jerusalem Post
/www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380801327&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Once again led by its research and development center in Haifa, Intel Corp., the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer, on Monday unveiled its smallest and fastest processing chipset. Codenamed Penryn, the processors, including 16 eco-friendly and "cooler" chips, are the first to be produced on the company's 45 nanometer (nm) manufacturing process.

"The intellects, physics and designs that went into solving one of the industry's most daunting challenges are awe-inspiring and I congratulate the Intel teams for this breakthrough achievement," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO, as he unveiled the product. "Best yet, this feat, coupled with our industry-leading architectures, means faster and sleeker computers, longer battery life and better energy efficiency. Our objective is to bring consumers a new class of computers delivering a full Internet experience in ever-smaller, more portable form factors."

The chips were built using an entirely new transistor formula that alleviates the wasteful electricity leaks that threaten future computer innovation. In addition to increasing computer performance and saving energy use, the processors eliminate eco-unfriendly lead and, beginning in 2008, halogen materials.

"This development marks the biggest transistor advancements in 40 years," said Intel co-founder Gordon Moore.

Intel's new flagship manufacturing plant in Israel, Fab-28, currently under construction in Kiryat Gat, will produce the new 45nm chips beginning sometime in late-2008, an Intel spokesman told The Jerusalem Post.

The new 45nm (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter) processors boast nearly twice the transistor density of previous chips built on the company's 65nm technology, meaning that up to 820 million transistors can be packed into quad-core processors.

"The technology that was developed for the 45nm chips is much more advanced then any technology that we have ever developed before," Roni Friedman, vice president of the Mobility Group and General Manager of the Mobility Microprocessor Group, said in a conference call.

"With a smaller silicon die, Intel can have more CPUs from the wafer and by reducing the size of the die it is possible to create a bigger memory cache without increasing the size of the chip. Also, a smaller die has closer circuits, making it faster for them to communicate to each other."

The processors are the first to use Intel's Hafnium-based high-k metal gate (Hi-k) formula for the hundreds of millions of transistors inside the processors. According to Intel, the move to halfnium doesn't just facilitate the shrinkage from 65nm to 45nm, but the new process also increases transistor switching speed and greatly reduces power leakage, thus upping performance-per-watt in the Penryn line significantly beyond what's gained from a typical die shrink. Intel has claimed its 45nm chips get a 38 percent efficiency boost over their 65nm predecessors.

"The breakthroughs clear the path for Intel to design products that are 25% smaller than previous versions and, thus, more cost-effective, as well as the ability next year to pursue new ultra mobile and consumer electronics "system on chip" opportunities," Intel said.

The processors also include additional features such as the new Intel Streaming SIMD Extensions 4 (SSE4), which are 47 new instructions that speed up workloads including video encoding for high-definition and photo manipulation, as well as key HPC and enterprise applications. Software vendors supporting the new SSE4 instruction set include Adobe, Microsoft and Symantec.

Intel's Israeli R&D facilities have been at the forefront of its technological breakthroughs contributing to technologies such as the Core 2 Duo and the 65nm multi-core microprocessor, which serves as the bais for the Intel Viiv and Centrino Duo mobile technologies.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 16, 2007.

This was written by Rebecca Harrison. It is archived a http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKL1558737720071115 Editing by Peter Millership.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- Israeli archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a second century terraced street and bath house which provide vital clues about the layout of Roman Jerusalem.

The Israel Antiquities Authority said the 30-metre (90-foot) alley was used by the Romans to link the central Cardo thoroughfare with a bath house and with a bridge to the Temple Mount, once the site of Jerusalem's ancient Jewish temple.

"We find bits of Roman road all the time but this discovery helped us piece together a picture of Roman Jerusalem," Jon Seligman, Jerusalem regional archaeologist, told Reuters at the site. "It was a real Eureka moment."

The Romans razed the second Jewish temple during the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD but later built a colony in the area, and called it Aelia Capitolina.

Archaeologists say the street is remarkably well preserved. After clearing away mounds of earth, workers are painstakingly restoring the alley, which runs between walls of ashlar stone and is paved with large flagstones.


The remains of the street, which now runs below a sewage channel and offices belonging to the Chief Rabbi of the Western Wall remnant of the temple compound, will form part of Jerusalem's Western Wall tunnel tours for tourists.

Archaeologists also discovered the outside wall of a large building which they believe is a Roman bath house because of the latrines outside and pipes which appear to have operated an under floor heating system.

They will start excavation on that site shortly.

The Antiquities Authority said the discovery of the alley, a stone's throw from the Western Wall, may add weight to the theory that the Temple Mount complex was a focal point of Roman life even after the destruction of the temple itself.

The complex is also revered by Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) and houses Islam's third-holiest mosque, making it Jerusalem's most contested site and giving it a pivotal role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Seligman said the newly-discovered alley once led to an important bridge over a ravine known during the time of Jesus as the Valley of the Cheese makers.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 16, 2007.
This was written by John Loftus and it appeared in Front Page Magazine

John Loftus is President of IntelligenceSummit.org, which is entirely free of government funding, and depends solely upon private contributions for its support. Mr. Loftus' full research paper on Iraqi WMD can be found at www.LoftusReport.com.

John Loftus is a highly respected international expert on terrorism and the Middle East.

His article below challenges all who are deeply committed to the ideology that "Bush lied, people died" or "NO WMDs".

I wonder how long we will need to wait before Mr. Loftus' report appears in some mainstream news outlet.

david meir-levi

PS. Note too that his description of the WMDs in Iraq, and their disposition just before or during the war [some moved to Syria, some buried beneath the Euphrates, Russian assistance in disposing of them], substantiates my past 4 years of emails on this topic.

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com. This document research has been supplemented with dozens of interviews.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 -- and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans' noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein's nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria. Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed with Saddam's enriched uranium. Allegedly, the Syrians were close to completing a warhead factory next to Saddam's WMD dump in Deir al Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic "dirty bombs" that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for the next several thousands of years. Debka alleged that it was this combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province..

Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location. Armed with this knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of the province of Deir al Zour for a site that would match the unofficial Israeli descriptions: camouflaged black factory building, next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard. There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16 minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97 seconds East. Analysts and members of the public are invited to determine for themselves whether this was indeed the weapons dump for Saddam's WMD.

Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show that all of the buildings, earthern blast berms, bunkers, roads, even the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. Of course, that is not of itself definitive proof, but it is extremely suspicious.

It should be noted that the American interrogators had accurate information about a possible Deir al Zour location shortly after the war, but ignored it:

"An Iraqi dissident going by the name of "Abu Abdallah" claims that on March 10, 2003, 50 trucks arrived in Deir Al-Zour, Syria after being loaded in Baghdad. "...Abdallah approached his friend who was hesitant to confirm the WMD shipment, but did after Abdallah explained what his sources informed him of. The friend told him not to tell anyone about the shipment." These interrogation reports should be re-evaluated in light of the recently opened Iraqi secret archives, which we submit are the best evidence. But the captured document evidence should not be overstated. It must be emphasized that there is no one captured Saddam document which mentions both the possession of WMD and the movement to Syria.

Moreover, many of Saddam's own tapes and documents concerning chemical and biological weapons are ambiguous. When read together as a mosaic whole, Saddam's secret files certainly make a persuasive case of massive WMD acquisition right up to a few months before the war. Not only was he buying banned precursors for nerve gas, he was ordering the chemicals to make Zyklon B, the Nazis favorite gas at Auschwitz. However odious and well documented his purchases in 2002, there is no direct evidence of any CW or BW actually remaining inside Iraq on the day the war started in 2003. As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.

We know from Saddam's documents that huge quantities of CW and BW were in fact produced, and there is no record of their destruction. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, at least as to chemical and biological weapons, the evidence is compelling, but not conclusive. There is no one individual document or audiotape that contains a smoking gun.

There is no ambiguity, however, about captured tape ISGQ-2003-M0007379, in which Saddam is briefed on his secret nuclear weapons project. This meeting clearly took place in 2002 or afterwards: almost a decade after the State Department claimed that Saddam had abandoned his nuclear weapons research.

Moreover the tape describes a laser enrichment process for uranium that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq, and Saddam's nuclear briefers on the tape were Iraqi scientists who had never been on any weapons inspector's list. The tape explicitly discusses how civilian plasma research could be used as a cover for military plasma research necessary to build a hydrogen bomb.

When this tape came to the attention of the International Intelligence Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan educational forum focusing on global intelligence affairs, the organization asked the NSA to verify the voiceprints of Saddam and his cronies, invited a certified translator to present Saddam's nuclear tapes to the public, and then invited leading intelligence analysts to comment.

At the direct request of the Summit, President Bush promptly overruled his national intelligence adviser, John Negroponte, a career State Department man, and ordered that the rest of the captured Saddam tapes and documents be reviewed as rapidly as possible. The Intelligence Summit asked that Saddam's tapes and documents be posted on a public website so that Arabic-speaking volunteers could help with the translation and analysis.

At first, the public website seemed like a good idea. Another document was quickly discovered, dated November 2002, describing an expensive plan to remove radioactive contamination from an isotope production building. The document cites the return of UNMOVIC inspectors as the reason for cleaning up the evidence of radioactivity. This is not far from a smoking gun: there were not supposed to be any nuclear production plants in Iraq in 2002.

Then a barrage of near-smoking guns opened up. Document after document from Saddam's files was posted unread on the public website, each one describing how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last. These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of nuclear weapons. The Iraqi intelligence files contain so much accurate information on the atom bomb that the translators' public website had to be closed for reasons of national security.

If Saddam had nuclear weapons facilities, where was he hiding them? Iraqi informants showed US investigators where Saddam had constructed huge underwater storage facilities beneath the Euphrates River. The tunnel entrances were still sealed with tons of concrete. The US investigators who approached the sealed entrances were later determined to have been exposed to radiation. Incredibly, their reports were lost in the postwar confusion, and Saddam's underground nuclear storage sites were left unguarded for the next three years. Still, the eyewitness testimony about the sealed underwater warehouses matched with radiation exposure is strong circumstantial evidence that some amount of radioactive material was still present in Iraq on the day the war began.

Our volunteer researchers discovered the actual movement order from the Iraqi high command ordering all the remaining special equipment to be moved into the underground sites only a few weeks before the onset of the war. The date of the movement order suggests that President Bush, who clearly knew nothing of the specifics of the underground nuclear sites, or even that a nuclear weapons program still existed in Iraq, may have been accidentally correct about the main point of the war: the discovery of Saddam's secret nuclear program, even in hindsight, arguably provides sufficient legal justification for the previous use of force.

Saddam's nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files have never been read, let alone translated.

It is time to utterly reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look to the best evidence: Saddam's own files on WMD. The truth is what it is, the documents speak for themselves.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 16, 2007.

Did you know the Jews expelled from Arab countries in the 1940s hold title to land totalling 5 times the size of the State of Israel? This was from one reader of the original article:

83. Refugees circa 1948
MichaelF -- USA
11/18/2007 02:35

It seems that the events of 1948 produced more Jewish refugees than Arab ones. Using the Arab standard in identifying a refugee as anyone remotely related to anyone who is an actual refugee (which is contrary to international law), than practically every Israeli citizen is owed compensation by the Arab world!

Another said:

80. For all the cynical Jewish bashers..some facts! part 1
Michael Dar -- Israel
11/17/2007 12:37

The Arab's (so-called Palestinians) exagerated demands have no basis whatsoever. There was never a Palestinian people/identity in the first place nor for that matter a sovereign country called Palestine. If the Arabs and supporters want to breng up the problem of the Arab (so-called Palestinian) refugees they must, if justice has to be served, put the Jewish refugees from Arab land into the equation.

This was written by Etgar Lefkovits and appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost. com/servlet/ Satellite? cid=119512751760 4&pagename= JPost% 2FJPArticle% 2FShowFull

The Jews of Fez, 1900

The government needs to bring up the issue of hundreds of thousands of Jews who left their homes in Arab countries following the establishment of the State of Israel as part of any future peace agreement with the Palestinians, the president of the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries said Thursday.

About 850,000 Jews fled Arab countries after Israel's founding in 1948, leaving behind assets valued today at more than $300 billion, said Heskel M. Haddad.

He added that the New York-based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. -- which is five times the size of the State of Israel.

Most of the properties are located in Iraq, Egypt and Morocco, Haddad said.

The Baghdad-born Haddad fled Iraq in 1951, and, after a brief stop in Israel, made his way to the United States where he went on to become a prominent New York ophthalmologist.

In an interview, he said that it was imperative for Israel to bring up the issue of the Jews who fled Arab countries at any future peace talks -- including those scheduled to take place in Annapolis in the coming weeks -- since no Palestinian leader would sign a peace treaty without resolving the issue of Palestinian refugees.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians -- with estimates ranging from 400,000 to 750,000 -- left Israeli-controlled territory in 1948 and 1949, and they, along with their millions of descendants, make up one of the prickliest issues to be dealt with by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as part of any resolution to the conflict.

Haddad said that the key to resolving the issue rested with the Arab League, which in the 1950s passed a resolution stating that no Arab government would grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees, keeping them in limbo for over half a century.

At the same time, the Arab League urged Arab governments to facilitate the exit of Jews from Arab countries, a resolution which was carried out with a series of punitive measures and discriminatory decrees making it untenable for the Jews to stay in the countries.

"No Jews from Arab countries would give up their property and home and come to Israel out of Zionism," Haddad said.

He said that the Israeli government was "myopic" not to utilize this little-known information, which he said should be part of a package financial solution to solving the issue of Palestinian refugees.

An Israeli ministerial committee on claims for Jewish property in Arab countries, which is currently headed by the Pensioners Minister Rafi Eitan, has been virtually dormant since it was established four years ago.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi, November 15, 2007.

This year Islam and Judaism's Holiest Holidays overlapped for 10 days.

During this time:

Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks in 10 countries.

Jews celebrated their 159th Nobel Prize Winner.

Contact Zalmi by email at zalmi@zalmi.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 15, 2007.
This is by Caroline Glick and it appeared November 9, 2007 in the Jerusalem Post.

The Battle of Iraq is nearly over. And the Americans have nearly won. Their enemies are on the run. Al-Qaida forces have lost or are losing their bases of operations. Its fighters are being killed and captured in ever increasing numbers. Iraq's Sunni citizens, who, until recently, refused to take any part in the post-Saddam regime, are joining the army and citizens' watch groups by the thousands.

Local sheikhs in Baghdad, following the example set earlier by Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province, are ordering their people to fight with the Americans against al-Qaida. For their part, the Shi'ite militias know that they are next in line for defeat. As a result, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Shi'ite militiamen to cease their attacks.

The numbers speak for themselves. Over the past month, some 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned home. Since May, the number of civilian casualties has decreased by 75 percent. US military casualties have also dropped precipitously after the death rate rose in recent months of hard fighting. Neighborhoods in Baghdad that had ceased to function under al-Qaida's reign of terror have come back to life.

Businesses are reopening. People are rebuilding their homes. Even churches are reopening their doors. This is what victory looks like.

Yet the promise of Baghdad is a lone ray of light in an otherwise darkened field of failed US policies. As President George W. Bush prepares to enter his last year in office, America's international standing is at a low point. The forces of jihad, while being defeated in Iraq, are rising everywhere else. The price of oil races toward the once inconceivable price of $100 a barrel. New jihadist mosques open daily throughout the world. Pakistan is a disaster. Iran is closing in on the bomb.

TO UNDERSTAND America's manifold failures, it makes sense to begin with a look at why Iraq is different. For the new, successful American strategy in Iraq is not only different from what preceded it there. It is also different from the US strategy that is failing everywhere else.

The new American strategy in Iraq is based on a fairly simple assumption: The US goal in Iraq is to defeat its enemies, and to defeat its enemies the US must target them with the aim of defeating them. This is a strategy based on common sense.

Unfortunately, common sense seems to be the rarest of commodities in US foreign policy circles today. Outside of Iraq, and until recently in Iraq as well, the US has based its policies on the notion that it can bend its adversaries to its will by on the one hand signaling them in a threatening way, and on the other hand by trying to appease them where possible. And this is the heart of the failure.

In the lead-up to Iraq, it was clear to US strategic planners that of the three states -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- that Bush labeled as members of the "Axis of Evil," Iraq was the least dangerous. It sponsored terror less than Iran. Its weapons of mass destruction programs were less developed that those of Iran and North Korea.

As a result, there were some voices -- particularly in Israel -- which suggested that given that the US was uninterested in targeting more than one country in addition to Afghanistan, the US should direct its fire at Iran rather than Iraq. But for their own reasons -- among them the collapse of the UN sanctions regime on Iraq, the fact that Iraq alone was under UN Security Council authority, and Iraq's relative weakness -- the Americans chose to go after Saddam.

They assumed that the invasion itself would strengthen America's deterrent capability and so work to America's advantage in its dealings with Iran and North Korea. Here, then, we see that the decision to invade Iraq was based in part on a continued American reliance on a strategy of signaling rather than confronting Iran and North Korea. If this hadn't been the case, Iraq probably would have been cast to the side.

Initially, the American strategy met with stunning success. Iran, North Korea, Syria and indeed the Arab world as a whole were terrified by the victorious American assault on Saddam. Unfortunately, rather than build on their momentum, the Americans did everything they could to assure these states that they had no reason to worry that a similar fate would befall them. Rather than maintain the offensive -- by sealing Iraq's borders and then going after insurgents' bases in Iran and Syria -- the US went on the defensive. And so it allowed Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to support and direct the insurgency. As a result of America's show of weakness, the lesson that its enemies took from its campaign in Iraq was that to deter the Americans, they should intensify their support for terror and their weapons of mass destruction programs.

Once deterrence collapsed, the Americans chose a mix of appeasement and threats that had no expiration date. Last year's North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear tests, the war in Lebanon, the Hamas takeover of Gaza and Iran's intensification of its nuclear program are all the result of the failure of this model of US foreign policy making.

These policies are of a piece with the US's general posture toward its adversaries. And that posture is unfortunately based on a hugely inflated view of America's deterrent capabilities and Washington's failure to craft policies that are suited to its interests and goals.

TODAY, THE most glaring example of this state of affairs is Pakistan.

America has two primary goals there. First, it seeks to prevent Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technologies from proliferating or falling under the control of jihadists. Second, it seeks to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban.

After September 11, the Americans gave Pakistan's military dictator a choice: he could help them defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan or he could lose power. That was a good start, but then the Americans began losing track of their priorities. After Gen. Pervez Musharraf agreed to Washington's ultimatum, the Americans put all their eggs in his basket. And they thereby lost their ability to deter him and so influence his behavior.

Certain of unconditional American backing, Musharraf played a double game. He helped the US in Afghanistan and then allowed the Taliban and al-Qaida to escape and re-base in Pakistan.

Musharraf also failed to be forthcoming on nuclear issues. He barred American investigators from interrogating Pakistan's chief nuclear proliferator, A.Q. Khan, and so denied them key intelligence on other countries' Pakistani-supported nuclear programs. Yet having based their Pakistan policy on their assumption that Musharraf was irreplaceable, the Americans pretended nothing was wrong.

And now they are confronted with a disastrous situation. On the one hand, thanks to Musharraf's hospitality, al-Qaida and the Taliban control large swathes of Pakistan and have declared jihad against their host, thus placing Pakistan's nuclear arsenals in greater danger. At the same time, they use their Pakistani bases to intensify their insurgency in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, as has been his consistent policy since seizing power in 1998, Musharraf continues to ignore the seriousness of the Taliban-al Qaida threat. The purpose of his recent declaration of martial law and suspension of the Pakistani constitution was not to enable him to better fight the jihadists. It was to break his liberal political opposition whose members demand democracy and an end to his military rule.

And in the midst of this, the Americans find themselves with no leverage over the still irreplaceable Musharraf.

A similar situation exists in Saudi Arabia. There, too, the US squandered the leverage it gained after the September 11 attacks by giving unconditional support to the Saudi royal family. The Saudis immediately understood that the best way to ensure continued American support was to extend their support for terrorism and funding of radical, pro-jihad mosques while raising the price of oil. As in Pakistan, the worse the situation became, the more the Americans supported them.

AND THEN of course there are the Palestinians. Here American policy has been a double failure. First of all, it has destroyed American deterrence toward the Arab world.

To divert American attention away from their support for jihadist terrorism, the leaders of the Arab world sought to convince the Americans that the only way to end their support for terror and jihad was by resolving the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

Rather than stop to question the validity of the Arabs' strange assertion, the Americans believed them. Over time, this belief led them to neglect their actual goals -- ending the Arab world's support for terror; preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and maintaining oil prices at around $30 a barrel -- in favor of a secondary and unrelated issue.

Aside from that, it bears noting that it is largely because of the strengthening of jihadist forces in the Arab world that there is no possibility of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather than understand this, the Americans have allowed the Arabs to send them on a wild goose chase that will never end.

The very fact that this week US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thought that it was more important to come to Israel for the ninth time this year than to deal with the crisis in Pakistan shows clearly just how deeply the Americans have internalized this Arab fiction.

Then there are the Palestinians themselves. As Bush announced in 2002, the US's main goal regarding the Palestinians is to force them to stop engaging in terror and jihad. All other American policies regarding the Palestinians were supposed to be conditioned on the accomplishment of this goal. Yet as in Pakistan, over time the Americans neglected this goal in favor of an easier one -- supporting Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. To strengthen Abbas and Fatah, the Americans have cast aside their goal of ending Palestinian terror. As a result, today they have no leverage over Abbas. As with Musharraf in Pakistan, strengthening Abbas is the only policy the Americans have toward the Palestinians, and increasingly, toward Israel. And as in Pakistan, the threatening reality on the ground is a consequence of the fact that their policy ignores their actual goals.

Two conclusions can be drawn from contrasting America's victory in Iraq with its failures in so many other theaters. First, the only way to successfully fight your enemies is to actually fight them. And second, basing policies on pretending to deter leaders who are not deterred is a recipe for failure. Until the Americans accept these lessons, Iraq aside, the international environment will grow ever more threatening.

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Koira, November 15, 2007.

This was written by Daniel Pipes and it appeared November 13, 2007 in Front Page Magazine http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= BB9ECB95-30EC-453F-BED1-9F0BFF95BC23

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).

The Bush administration's counterterrorism policies appear tough, but inside the courtroom, they evaporate, consistently favoring not American terror victims, but foreign terrorists.

Consider a civil lawsuit arising from a September 1997 suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed credit for five dead and 192 wounded, including several Americans. On the grounds that the Islamic Republic of Iran had financed Hamas, five injured Americans students sued it for damages.

Expert testimony established the regime's culpability during a four-day trial, leading Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, under the Flatow Amendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to fine the Iranian government and its Revolutionary Guard Corps US$251 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs looked for Iranian government assets in the United States to seize, in accord with the little-known section, 201a of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, which states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism the blocked assets of that terrorist party shall be subject to execution."

An ancient Iranian fragment similar to the ones in legal dispute in a terrorism case.

Finding Iranian assets, however, proved no easy task, as most of them had been withdrawn by the Iranian authorities after the embassy hostage crisis of 1979-81. Therefore, the victims' lead lawyer, David Strachman of Providence, R.I., devised some creative approaches, such as intercepting the imminent return of ancient Iranian clay tablets on loan to the University of Chicago for up to seventy years.

Strachman found just one significant cache of Iranian government money: approximately $150,000 at the Bank of New York, in an account belonging to Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank and a fully-owned subsidiary of the regime. However, when the plaintiffs sued for these funds, BoNY filed a federal lawsuit asking for a legal determination what to do with its Bank Melli assets.

The victims' task in this case may have appeared easy, given that the U.S. government views Bank Melli as an "wholly-owned instrumentality" of the Iranian government and it considers that government a "terrorist party."

But no, the U.S. Department of Justice "entered this case as amicus curiae in support of Bank Melli." It did so, explained a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, "to vindicate a correct reading" of the U.S. regulation. Its amicus brief appears decisively to have influenced the trial judge, Denise Cote, who adopted the joint Bank Melli-Justice Department position in toto and ruled in March 2006 against the funds being awarded to the victims. The latter appealed to the Second Circuit Court, but it too sided with the Justice Department, dismissing the suit in April 2007.

Its funds then in the clear, Bank Melli immediately removed them all from BoNY and transferred them beyond U.S. jurisdiction.

The story does not end there. On October 25, the State Department announced that Bank Melli would henceforth be cut off from the U.S. financial system because it "provides banking services to entities involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs" by facilitating "numerous purchases of sensitive materials." Further, it found that Bank Melli "was used to send at least $100 million" to Iran's terrorist fronts, including those which had trained the Hamas members who perpetrated the 1997 Jerusalem bombing.

This incompetent outrage -- Washington first helping Bank Melli, then sanctioning it -- fits a larger pattern of federal agencies advocating in court on behalf of terrorists.

* Justice tried to shield Tehran from victims' claims in the University of Chicago case.

* It opposed the attachment of a mere $10,000 of Iranian funds to one 1997 victim family; and, when the family won in district court, it appealed the verdict.

* It interceded in Ungar v. Hamas to prevent the orphaned victims' attachment of $5 million belonging to the Holy Land Foundation, a Texas organization prosecuted as a Hamas front.

* In Ungar v. PLO and PA, the State Department rescued the Palestine Liberation Organization when the Ungars tried to enforce their $116 million judgment against a PLO-owned office building in Manhattan.

Is there not something deeply flawed about the U.S. government consistently siding with terrorists and, according to Strachman, "never once supporting terrorism victims to collect their judgments in court"? One hopes it will not require a new terrorist catastrophe to fix these misguided policies.

Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, November 15, 2007.

This was written by Joseph Farah,founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is Stop The Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution. He also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

"Israel has decided to make Annapolis a success, to bring an end to the conflict, to finally make peace between the Palestinians and ourselves."

Earlier this week, Israeli President Shimon Peres actually made this statement. I'm not joking. I'm not making it up. This is what the octogenarian statesman had to say about the upcoming Middle East peace summit in Maryland.

I could write a book about this one, inane, ridiculous, stupid sentence. Suffice it to say it illustrates what is wrong inside the psyche of today's Israeli political elite.

"Israel has decided to make Annapolis a success ..."

I wonder if Shimon Peres has ever heard the expression: "It takes two to tango." Actually, it takes many more than two to tango in the Middle East. It's not like Israel has one enemy. It has dozens -- any one of which is capable of sabotaging Israel's best efforts to achieve peace. And I'm not sure a single one of its enemies is actually serious about peace. In fact, I can't think of a single one.

Nevertheless, Israel has decided to make Annapolis a success.

Does Peres not understand what this sounds like to people? In all of his many years on this planet, has he never taken an hour for media coaching? Does he not have advisers around him explaining that the words you choose are very important in matters of diplomacy? How could this man who believes so hopelessly in talking to his enemies not understand that the words you speak in public have consequences?

If it were as simple as Israel deciding to make peace, can we now assume that for the last 60 years Israel had decided against making peace? What is so remarkable about this moment, about Annapolis? No clue is provided.

So, just as much of the world already suspects, Israel has single-handedly prevented peace with the Palestinians for the last 60 years -- that's what Peres has admitted through this statement.

... to bring an end to the conflict, to finally make peace between the Palestinians and ourselves."

Never mind that 60 years ago, even 40 years ago, the only people who called themselves "Palestinians" were Jews. Peres would never mention such a fact. He has not only decided to make peace with enemies who want no part of peace, long ago he decided to adopt their language, to permit them to set the parameters for the conflict, to accept their grievances as legitimate -- even though they are not.

Such is the continuing folly of the Israeli political elite whom Shimon Peres personifies.

Are they fools, or is there an agenda at work other than securing the safety of Israel's citizenry?

It's hard to believe I know Israel's history and position in the world better than Peres, so I must assume those who take such positions do so because there is some personal gain. It can't be about peace, because there will be no peace -- Peres knows it; everyone knows it.

It can't be about making Israel more secure, because these ideas only serve to make Israel less secure. In fact, just talking about them, just putting them on the table for discussion, makes Israel manifestly less safe.

But don't try to explain it to Peres. Don't try to explain it to George W. Bush. Don't try to explain it to Condoleezza Rice. Don't try to explain it to Ehud Olmert. They're all determined to pursue the Annapolis folly -- to continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

This comes from Europeans_who_support_Israel@yahoo.com Contact Crystal at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 15, 2007.

The Annapolis Conference "Peace Summit" arranged by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the name of President George W. Bush is likely to have negative consequences for the Republican Party and its candidates for President. It is anticipated that the Bush/Rice Ploy to invite every nation hostile to Israel (as well as their proxy Terror organizations) will result in a backlash. Bush seems to be following James Baker's infamous comment: "F... the Jews; they didn't vote for us anyway."

American Jews are growing increasingly disturbed by the Rice-Bush plan to bash Israel into submission to benefit Yassir Arafat's partner and 40 year companion, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) President of the (artificially created) Palestinian Authority and Head of the Fatah (with its substantial Terror militias such as the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, Tanzim and others).

A substantially large group of American Christians are angry over the Bush/Rice plan to re-partition Israel by forced eviction of 120,000 t0 250,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria. This will convert Israel's Biblical heartland into another Global Terror Base -- like Gaza is now -- only far larger and closer to Israel's population centers. Christian Zionists (those who support the Jewish nation's sovereignty and security) do not want Jerusalem divided nor the re-partition of Israel.

They know that, until the Jews united Jerusalem in 1967, Christians did not have free access to their own shrines and churches. Israel codified laws that made it a guaranteed right for all religions to have unimpeded access to their holy places.

The Muslims, on the other hand, not only drove out the Christians from every place over which they gained control, but they also make it plain that neither Christians nor Jews are welcome anywhere in the Middle East. Bethlehem is virtually empty of Christian Arabs due to harassment by Muslim Arabs.

While it is well known that a weak Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was easily shoved into supporting Abu Mazen in this Conference, he will be bashed by every single one of Israel's adversaries who are all going to be invited. Olmert will be forced into accepting "diktats" that will increase the vulnerability of the Jewish State of Israel.

It would be immensely wise for Olmert to develop a bad case of the flu and retire to a hospitable bed for the duration of this Conference!

The Annapolis Conference will sit on the backs of Rice, Bush and their Republican Party. Republicans will be seen as not interfering with the Rice and Bush plan to dismember America's staunch ally and friend, Israel. Perhaps they were so busy electioneering that they ignored this volatile situation.

I also haven't heard a word from the Democratic Presidential Candidates about their foreign policy plans for Israel.

For those who can, please send this article to the Republicans and the Democrats running for office. Perhaps they do not know or understand this later day Inquisition arranged by Rice, guided by Baker and others, supported by Bush.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 15, 2007.

I don't know what else one would call it. Consider: Olmert says unequivocally (or as unequivocally as Ehud Olmert ever says anything) that he will demand at the start of negotiations that the PA recognize us as a Jewish state. No compromise on this, he has stated: "Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me."

And the PA is growing increasingly adamant about not giving us this recognition. Even PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, who is supposed to be the most "moderate" of the bunch, has now rejected this demand. Pretty much makes the whole thing a non-starter. No?

But "well-placed sources" have told the Post that Olmert believes the Annapolis joint statement will address the matter satisfactorily, enabling negotiations to proceed. That's interesting, since we've heard that so far there is no joint statement. And, in any event, it would seem to be possible to resolve this. What are we missing here?


I mentioned Saudi Arabia last night, with regard to the fallaciousness of the Palestinian claim that no nation is connected to a religion. That example came to my mind because it is so glaring. But several pieces have been generated on this subject and a whole host of examples has been put forward -- such as the Church of England.

But the best example was put forth by Aaron Lerner of IMRA, who pointed out that the PA draft constitution names Islam as the official religion of the Palestinian state.


Earlier today the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram reported that Syria would be attending the conference if it would receive a proper invitation. But now Assad is saying again that the conference must deal with the Golan Heights.

He made this statement after meeting with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. Said Moussa, the Arabs were going to come up with a united plan for the conference at a meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo on November 22 -23.

"What we want is a conference that deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict and starts serious negotiations under international supervision," explained. Abbas will address the group and Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, in Damascus, will be consulted.

This makes my blood run cold. Walking into such a situation is insanity, truly. Especially as we are going from a position of weakness, as Olmert rushes always to make concessions.


I'm not exactly buoyed by Evelyn Gordon's piece in the Post, either. She reports that one concession Olmert has already made is to allow the US to decide when there has been compliance with the Road Map. This is of concern with regard to PA counterterrorism efforts -- have they sufficiently reformed their security forces, confiscated guns, arrested terrorists. Once they have done this to determined satisfaction, we are required to pull back. And if they are not equipped to handle the situation we would see a huge increase in terrorism.

Trust the US on this? With Rice, who has a history of putting us in positions that generate security risks, in charge? And Dayton, who has turned out to be a fool, making judgment on the ground? Not a good scene.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1195036608552&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


This ain't great either (the bad news seems to come in bunches, doesn't it?): Eighty-nine Congresspersons have written to Condoleezza Rice, saying that "current levels of US assistance are insufficient to leverage...real change and improvement by the Palestinian Authority..." They request increased giving to the PA, and ask that Israel be "engaged" regarding the release of tax revenues to the PA.

Among those 89 Congresspersons were nine Jewish lawmakers, including -- I am sorry to have to report -- Gary Ackerman, chair of the subcommittee on the Middle East, Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor in the Congress, and Henry Waxman.


Compare this with what Congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) have to say on the subject:

"The US has spent, and continues to spend, millions of dollars on programs to assist the PA...

"Despite [this], Abu Mazen and his corrupt Fatah party failed miserably at curbing terrorism and implementing government reforms...

"Yet, the US has done little to change their behavior, instead, counseling patience and offering further aid. This only encourages a culture of victimhood and unaccountability among the Palestinians, a culture feeding terror and perpetuating and deepening the present conflict. Therefore, given the history of the PA and Fatah, the Administration's recent proposal to hand Abu Mazen hundreds of millions in additional funding is simply wrong.

."..It is time for a new approach.

"We must pursue a policy that sets and enforces higher standards for Palestinian behavior, and provides consequences if they fail to perform. The first step is to link our support to results. Instead of disbursing millions to Palestinian leaders in the hope they will change their ways, we must link each disbursement of funds to tangible progress...

"If the Palestinians do not achieve the intended results, they must not receive US assistance or the legitimacy of political support from US officials."

We DO have friends who get it.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid= 1195036608573&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Two years ago, the American-Israel Demographic Research Group released information showing that the commonly cited demographic time bomb with regard to Arab population overtaking Jewish population in Israel -- a major rationale presented for giving up Judea and Samaria -- didn't exist. Seems the figures were wrong: the PA was using projections from old figures, and those projections were wrong. Many thousands had left the area, some were being counted twice because they lived in Jerusalem, etc. All in all, said this group, there were about one million fewer Palestinians than was claimed, and if we were to keep Judea and Samaria, we would still retain a Jewish majority for the foreseeable future.

Now Bennet Zimmerman, an American member of this group, has given an interview debunking demographic arguments for dividing Jerusalem. The Arab birthrate is going down (a function of modernization or "Israelization", and the Jewish birthrate is going steadily up. Says Zimmerman, "for the first time since 1967, Israel has a stable 2-1 majority" and "a two thirds majority in Jerusalem."


Coincidentally, one of the Israeli members of that team, Yoram Ettinger, a former envoy in the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, has just written a piece for YNet. It has nothing to do with demographics, but rather with "Wrong approach to peace."

Ettinger cites Professor Majid Khadduri, now deceased, from Johns Hopkins University, who was the world's leading authority on Arab definitions of peace and war. Peace, Khadduri had explained, is viewed as a tactical means of achieving the strategic objective of defeating the enemy. "Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy..."

An important read on a little understood subject:

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, November 15, 2007.

This was written by Ehud Ya'ari and it appeared November 11, 2007 in The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380783569&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ehud Ya'ari is one of Israel's most prominent commentators on Arab affairs and the Middle East conflict. He appears regularly on Channel 2 TV and other Israeli major media outlets.

His comments and interpretations are unbiased, factual, lucid and clear. He is considered a man of integrity with reliable sources among Arab and Israeli leaderships.

In anticipation of the upcoming charade in Annapolis, I am sure you would wish to read his article published by The Jerusalem Post on November 11th.

This is a most dangerous time to risk concessions to Don Abbas and his terrorist clans.

Your Truth Provider,

The hard core of cold facts tends to be washed away in the flood of hollow verbiage in the media's coverage of the twists and turns of the Middle Eastern imbroglio. Daydreams obscure the line of vision to the true horizon, as do misleading analyses and sheer prejudice.

Gaza: Over the coming year, there is no doubt that Hamas, in its upgraded military mode, will be producing Qassam-type missiles with a range of 20-25 kms, bringing all of Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat, Netivot, Ofakim and the many kibbutzim and moshavim that surround them into the line of fire. Over a quarter of a million Israelis will be in range. Moreover, Hamas will be able to fire the rockets from the heart of Gaza, without having to send launch teams to the open areas close to the border fence.

All of which means that unless there's a miracle and a full and stable cease-fire is in place, the government, whether eagerly or out of a lack of any alternative, will have to order the army to carry out a major operation to clean up the Strip, along the lines of the dazzlingly successful Operation Defensive Wall in the West Bank in 2002. It will probably be harder and cost more casualties. The army is already preparing for the campaign and Hamas is working feverishly on its defense plans, based mainly on heavy rocket fire into Israel -- dozens a day -- and fortifications and trenches around the launch sites.

The West Bank: The Palestinian security apparatuses are not in control of the whole area. If it were not for Israel's regular preemptive counterterror raids, Hamas could, if it so wished and even without the use of armed force, paralyze the functioning of the Palestinian Authority. There's no chance that things will change in the foreseeable future. The Fatah movement has in fact ceased to exist, although there are still tens of thousands of card-carrying members. There is no meaningful process of resuscitation or reform under way in either the PA, or its ruling party, Fatah. In private conversations, associates of the PA chairman, Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), call him "a pensioner still going to the office." For example, the Al-Amari refugee camp in the heart of Ramallah, the "capital" of the PA, has openly declared itself beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinian police.

When British intelligence operatives asked leading members of the Fatah's Al-Aqsa Brigades in Nablus who their enemies were, they replied: Hamas, corruption, collaborators with Israel, and Israel itself, in that order. The militiamen, in other words, see the rotten government of Abu Mazen as more of a target than the settlers. Instead of gaining strength after the debacle in Gaza, Fatah on the West Bank is growing weaker.

The Annapolis Conference: Abu Mazen has been heard joking with his bureau staff that "after 20 years, I've gone back to being a teacher." What he means is that he finds himself engaged in long hours of explaining to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the land mines on the way to a permanent settlement. The Egyptians have already advised finding a suitable pretext to postpone the parley indefinitely. Meanwhile, it is becoming clear to all parties to the negotiations that there is no chance of agreement on a declaration that will herald even a hint of a breakthrough. If Abu Mazen compromises, he will be assailed by both Hamas and much of Fatah. If a vague statement is issued, everyone will say yet again that he has nothing to offer to his people.

The Palestinians are fuming at Rice for having trapped them in a corner and have begun to try and get out of it by renewing the talk about a "third step" in the Oslo process that was never implemented. What this means is an attempt to get more territory on the West Bank from Israel without having to reach any substantive agreement.

Lebanon: Without knowing how the grave internal crisis in this country will end, these facts are already clear: Hizballah is building a large quasi-divisional formation north of the Litani River, as part of an effort to link the Shi'ites of South Lebanon to the Shi'ite heartland in the Beka Valley, through a corridor across the Christian and Druse villages that separate the two. Syria and Iran are supplying the militia with long-range rockets, anti-tank missiles and other advanced materiel that it never had in the July 2006 war. In the area controlled by UNIFIL south of the Litani, Hizballah is also building its "nature reserves" or rocket-launching bases and underground bunkers in the mountains, quietly but unhindered, and reorganizing, on a larger scale, its deployment in the Shi'ite villages near the Israeli border. The U.N. force is simply not effective in preventing this.

Syria: Following the successful Israeli air strike at the "reactor" that they had begun building in their eastern desert, the Syrians have adopted a new "blocking" doctrine (murnana'a in Arabic). It entails avoiding war with Israel in the new future but deepening involvement in Hizballah and Hamas, creating threats and provocations by using these proxies on other fronts. In the event that Israel's patience runs out, the Syrian military is preparing an "offensive defense" -- a capability of attacking the Israeli hinterland with hundreds of heavy missiles, while blocking an Israeli armored attack on the Golan Heights.

Iran: According to the evaluations of most Western intelligence services, the Iranian nuclear program will reach its "point of no return" (the production of sufficient weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear weapon) in 2010/11, with some even putting the date as early as 2009. And there is already no doubt that in parallel to the overt program that is open to inspection there is a covert, military plan to actually make nuclear weapons, and not only to cross the technological threshhold. The time for drawing conclusions is running out.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, November 14, 2007.

Polls from Israel indicate that the vast majority of Israelis disagree with the policies of PM Ehud Olmert. The Annapolis Summit is less than two weeks away. Decisions made there can change the entire future of the country. With so much at stake with these potential decisions, we want to give you an opportunity to express your displeasure with the apparent capitulation of the Prime Minister to the demands of the Palestinians.

Please read the sample letter below protesting the surrender of land, division of Jerusalem, right of return for 4,000,000 Palestinians. It is a letter that you can send "as is", or you may edit the text as you see fit.

This Urgent Action Alert will go to MK Avigdor Liberman and MK Eliyahu Yishai and copies will be sent to Prime Minister Olmert, Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon, President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, MK Rabbi Benyamin Elon, MK Dr. Arieh Eldad, and MK Benjamin Netanyahu.

click here to send a messages to MK Liberman and MK Yishai.

Dear Members of the Knesset Liberman and Yishai,

Jewish and Christian Zionists the world over are stunned in disbelief as they watch the tragic unfolding of events involving President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in collusion with Mahmoud Abbas as they collaborate in leading Israeli Prime Minister Olmert down a path of no return. Olmert's apparent willingness to accept the proposed suicide pact drafted by US and Palestinian leadership clearly puts Israel's security interests at the bottom of all priorities.

One of the questions plaguing Israel supporters in the US as we watch this fiasco progress is "HOW can this be happening?" Weak Israeli leadership is putting Israel's future in absolute peril. How can an unpopular prime minister remain in power, when his policies run counter to the vast majority of citizens and the wishes of Jews and Christians world-wide who are closely observing this phenomena?

Olmert is under suspicion of felony with charges pending as he plans to attend the Annapolis Summit and offer his support of unthinkable concessions: 1) giving away the land of Israel including half of Jerusalem and the entire Temple Mount to terrorists, 2) accepting the "right of return" of 4 million Palestinian refugees placing Israeli Jews in the minority, 3) returning to pre-Six-Day War borders, 4) releasing all Palestinian Authority criminals and terrorists deported from the Church of the Nativity incident as "another good will gesture", and 5) retreating to the September 2000 lines from which the second Intifada was launched killing more than 1,000 Israelis.

The greater tragedy is that this catastrophe can be stopped by the simple resignation of the two leaders of two political parties in Israel -- the Yisrael Beitenu Party and the Shas Party -- forcing the election of a new Prime Minister and the cancellation of the Annapolis Summit.

We plead with you to put the Nation of Israel above your own interests and quit the government so that the Annapolis Summit does not bring down Israel along with all of its Yeshivas.

We ask this on behalf of Jews and Christians throughout the world who recognize Israel as the center of our faiths.

Signed: ____________________
City, Country: _______________
Email: _____________________

click here to send a messages to MK Liberman and MK Yishai.

UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) -- is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Lemkin, November 14, 2007.

This was written by Gil Hoffman. It appeared today in the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid= 1192380809927&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

A screenshot of the video on YouTube featuring Prime Minister Ehud Olmert 20 years ago, "Debate: Rabbi Meir Kahane Vs. Ehud Olmert." Photo: youtube.com

The demographic threat that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert used to justify forming Kadima two years ago and that he uses now to explain the need for the Annapolis summit has an unlikely critic on the popular Youtube Web site: Olmert himself.

A broadcast of ABC's Nightline news magazine from some 20 years ago in which Olmert downplayed the significance of Arabs becoming a majority in Israel has become the top video that comes up when searching for "Olmert" on Youtube's search engine.

The site says the video has been viewed more than 33,600 times since it was submitted a year ago by the right-wing Voice of Judea Web site. The second-most popular video of Olmert on the site shows the prime minister falling asleep during a televised event at the Prime Minister's Office a day after the publication of the interim Winograd Report last spring.

The Nightline video begins with then-MK Meir Kahane (Kach) answering questions from host Ted Koppel about his calls for limiting Israeli citizenship to Jews due to the demographic threat posed by the higher Arab birth rate. Koppel then interviewed Olmert, who was then a Likud MK and a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

"This is entirely incorrect," Olmert said about Kahane's argument that Arabs could eventually outnumber Jews between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. "There are 700,000 Arabs in a country of 4 million people [referring to Israel without the Gaza Strip and the West Bank]. The chance that they will become a majority any time in the future is such a remote possibility that it in no way justifies the philosophy he preaches."

Probed further about the subject, Olmert said the solution was for Israeli Arabs to learn to live with Israel as a minority; he continued to deny that there was any demographic threat.

"The probability that I attach to [Arabs becoming a majority] is so small that I don't think that at this stage we have to give any answers," Olmert said.

When Kadima was founded in November 2005, Olmert and other Kadima leaders said the party would seek to create a Palestinian state due in part to studies predicting that there could soon be a majority of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Olmert also sounded very different in speeches this week when he used the demographic threat as one of his main arguments for relaunching negotiations with the Palestinians at the Annapolis summit.

"We need to [create a Palestinian state] or we can end up like South Africa," Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday. "We need to maintain the Jewish majority and prevent the idea of two states for two peoples from being lost."

[Editor's Note: The young Olmert was right. See below.]

Contact Mr. Lemkin by email at lemkin@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 14, 2007.

Still in that holding pattern...waiting for a grandchild who gives hints but so far has not been inclined to make that big appearance...writing as I can return to my computer...

Actually, from my son's house yesterday, when I accessed news via his computer, I wondered if I was perhaps more at ease when I didn't know what was going on. It remains so incomprehensible to me -- this push to insanity. But there's hope.


Word now has it that the Annapolis conference will only last one day, that day presumably being the 27th of November. Invitations still aren't out. Latest news is that Egyptian officials are now saying, once again, that things don't look good for progress and they're not sure they're coming.

The Post reports today that Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a senior adviser to Abbas, says that not "a single word" of the joint declaration had been written. "There are still too many differences."

This is good news because there has been concern regarding what Olmert might sign upfront, thereby committing us to things we're best not committed to.

Seems the US is prepared to go ahead even if there is no joint declaration. They are now saying what's going on is a process, and that the statement isn't that important. (More on Rice below.)

Seems to me there is only going to be widening of the gaps between the two sides in the time remaining. Protests are gearing up in several quarters here in Jerusalem, and Abbas is being squeezed from his side.


The other good news involves a first reading that passed in the Knesset today of a bill that requires a vote of 80 members of the Knesset to change Jerusalem's boundaries. This would be added as an amendment to the Basic Law of Israel, which already identifies Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. There has been some question as to how "Jerusalem" is defined, as the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem were not the same when the Basic Law declared it to be our capital as they are now.

I've had several discussions on this issue with an attorney, and it would be my understanding that such an addition to our basic law, finalized, in place and publicized, would give proper legal notice internationally so that Olmert's signature alone on an agreement that gave away part of Jerusalem would not be binding internationally.

And I do not believe there is even a remote chance that 80 of our MKs (out of a total of 120) would sign off on giving away part of Jerusalem. This, alone, might kill negotiations.


Olmert has had a meeting with leaders of the Yesha Council -- the organization that represents the residents of Judea and Samaria. Suffice it to say that it did not go well. At issue at present is a freeze on settlement building which is seen as a gesture to the US.


One of the things I'm paying close attention to is Olmert's pledge to demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Most recently what is being said is that he will raise this with them post-Annapolis in negotiations. My response to this was that the time to raise it was in the pre-Annapolis declaration -- for if they cannot agree to this there would be no point in going to Annapolis at all, and it would certainly be unwise to sign anything absent this Arab acknowledgement. Well...seems as if there will be no declaration, although Olmert is bent on going to Annapolis.

Of course they're never going to agree to recognizing a Jewish state. Not only is the concept abhorrent to them -- as they consider this Muslim land -- it would preclude the refugee's "return."

Said negotiator Saeb Erekat, "There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined." And what about Saudi Arabia? This nation, which is governed by Sharia -- Muslim law, doesn't even let Jews into the country and forbids any public worship, or construction of churches, by Christians.


If -- it should only be! -- Olmert would refuse to pursue negotiations if the Palestinians refuse to recognize us as a Jewish state, it would save a great deal of grief.

Olmert gave a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday. What he told them is that there would be negotiations about the third stage of the Road Map -- outlining what would define a final state (including questions of Jerusalem and borders) -- but that it wouldn't be actualized until the first stage -- which requires the PA to dismantle terrorism -- was implemented.

This may sound safe -- we wouldn't withdraw from anything until they dismantled the terrorist infrastructure. But it most definitely isn't safe. Experts have been warning about this for some time. Once Olmert were to sign on to specific agreements in theory there would be enormous pressure by the international community for us to proceed no matter what. There is absolutely NO precedent for holding the Palestinians accountable. We'd be told Abbas is trying his best, or that he arrested half a dozen terrorists. Or that he will be better able to carry this out once we strengthen him by giving him a state.

Actually, last week Ahmed Qurei, head of the PA negotiating team, said they had already fulfilled their obligations under the first stage of the Road Map and could proceed. When you finish laughing, you can continue reading. But understand that their brazen gall in making such claims is considerable and part of what has to be dealt with.


As most of you likely know, there was a Fatah-organized rally in Gaza City on Monday, which attracted 250,000, in commemoration of the third anniversary of Arafat's death. Hamas forces fired on the crowd, killing six and wounding many more. In the words of Khaled Abu Toameh, this clash represents "the huge challenges facing...Abbas" before Annapolis.


Last Friday Al-Quds, a London paper, reported that Abbas is leaking the information that Israel plans a major operation in Gaza to retake the Philadelphi Corridor after Annapolis. Presumably Israel shared this information with Abbas (don't know that this is actually so) and that he is trying to block it because he's unhappy about it. It's important to ask WHY Abbas, our "moderate partner for peace," would be unhappy about an Israeli action to block terrorism in territory that Hamas controls. The fact that he is speaks volumes.


Let me turn, now, to the greatest source of political insanity: Condoleezza Rice, who gave an address in Nashville at the General Assembly of United Jewish Communities -- the largest annual gathering of Jewish leadership. Said she:

"Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interest of the United States."

Real peace might be. The so-called "peace" she hopes to see negotiated does not serve the US, as a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will become a headquarters for terrorism, affecting the stability of Jordan and what goes on in Iraq.

"We will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security."

Forgive me, but she lies through her teeth. She consistently pushes Israel to take actions that compromise our security because those actions in her mind serve other purposes. How could she ask us to release prisoners when there is a statistically large possibility of their return to terrorism? Or to remove checkpoints when they are proven to catch terrorists on their way to their crimes of horror?

"Just think back to 2001," she advised her listeners. "Despite the extraordinary efforts of the Clinton Administration, peace negotiations had collapsed. The violence between Palestinians and Israelis was almost daily... "

Her implication is that the violence came about because Clinton failed to envision the proper parameters for a Palestinian state and thus couldn't achieve peace. But in point of fact, the violence increased BECAUSE of the "peace negotiations." It was thought by Arafat that he could accomplish more that way -- Clinton, who invited Arafat to the White House more times than any other international leader, never held the Palestinians responsible for their commitments or obligations. (Here we go again.) He kept giving to them, and playing up to them, even (or especially) when they didn't honor commitments.

How is this different from today -- when the US gave large sums to the PA to strengthen it against Hamas in Gaza, and Fatah security people -- better armed, more numerous and better trained, ran from Gaza because of lack of WILL, only to find that the US was prepared to give them huge additional sums of money for (more) arms and training? What message has been delivered?

And so, she goes on to explain: "This led the President [Bush] to try a different approach... What... needed to be addressed was the character of the Palestinian state. Would it fight terrorism? Would it govern justly? Would it create opportunity for its people? In our view, the security of the democratic Jewish state required the creation of a responsible Palestinian state."

Now, neither you nor I can see into Rice's head. But does it seem the remotest bit likely that she actually believes that Abbas has established a new sort of responsible, democratic state that is fighting terrorism and governs justly and creates opportunity for its people? She's not a halfwit, which one would have to be to believe this. There is no law and order in the PA areas. Abbas and his cronies are breathtakingly corrupt, and there is no opportunity for the people. (More and more I'm hearing about Palestinians within Israeli jurisdictions who are afraid of being included within a Palestinian state -- they far prefer Israeli rule.)

And, if she doesn't believe this, exactly what is going on, and how does she have the nerve to say this?

Perhaps more to the point, how is it that American Jewish leaders sat still for this garbage and applauded her, rather than rising on their feet and challenging her? That is what is most worrisome.


Lest you have the wrong impression on this matter: In a poll just done by Ma'agar Mohot, it was found that 65% of the population of Israel opposes a substantial withdrawal from Judea and Samaria because of what happened after the Gaza pullout, and 55% think that the Knesset should remove Olmert. Were we to leave Judea and Samaria, 65% believe there is a high or very high chance that Hamas would take control of the area, and 77% said Abbas lacked the power to prevent attacks.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, November 14, 2007.

The first step is to dispel all illusions. There shouldn't be any false hopes or mistaken impressions. Yesha council leaders called it an 'impending tsunami.' Big mistake number one: it is not impending; it is already upon us.

There may be those who are unaware of what's going on. Hebron is a good place for a beginner's education.

The purchase of Beit HaShalom, that huge 3,500 square meter structure between Hebron and Kiryat Arba some eight months ago is history. Presently eight families, including lots of children, are keeping Beit HaShalom Jewish. If there were not living there, in almost subhuman conditions, the site would have been long lost to Hebron's Jewish Community. As it is, the powers-that-be are doing their utmost to have us expelled from here too, but the wheels of justice spin slowly.

Where do things stand at the moment? Following purchase of the building, one of the neighborhood Arabs began dancing a war jig, claiming that the building belonged to him. Actually, he was involved in the purchase as a middleman, and had absolutely no idea who the actual buyer was. When the purchase was concluded, he had no choice but to scream bloody murder, otherwise his brethren would first torture and then kill him. During questioning by the Israeli police, he was shown a film of himself counting the money he'd received for the building. His response: I gave the money back and canceled the deal.

As a result of his loud denials and claims that the documents were forgeries, the Israeli supreme court ordered a police investigation to determine the legitimacy of the purchase. The initial police inquiries in March showed that the purchase was indeed legal, that the papers were in order. However that was not enough for the Supreme court. A second, in-depth investigation was necessary. The police were ordered to hand over their findings within 45 days. In the mean time, the Jewish residents of the building were forbidden to make any structural changes at the site. Any construction, or anything resembling construction, would necessitate a special permit, granted by the Defense ministry or the Israeli Civil Administration, a quasi-military organization under the jurisdiction of the Defense ministry, i.e., the government.

Forty five days came and went; the police returned to the court and requested an extension; the investigation was still under way. Since then, the police have requested numerous extensions, their job not yet completed.

In the meantime, winter approaches. Winter means wind, rain and cold. The residents of Beit HaShalom, perched on a hill overlooking Hebron and Kiryat Arba, began preparing for five or six months of winter. However, there were a number of issues to deal with. The building's windows were all open with no possibility of being closed because glass had never been installed. There was only one electric line running into the building, nowhere near the power needed to allow the residents to live normally. The third problem: the roof had never been sealed. Heavy rain would cause major leaks inside people's living quarters.

Hebron's leadership requested a permit from the Defense ministry on humanitarian grounds to: tar the roof, close the windows, and install additional electric lines. This request reached the desk of Defense Minister Barak. Barak, in August, refused to allow negotiations and delay forced expulsion of two families from the Mitzpe Shalhevet neighborhood. He gave the final orders: send in 3,000 troops to throw out the 'settlers.' Barak remained true to form and refused the latest request: no tar, windows or electricity.

The community appealed this decision to the Civil Administration military panel. Last week the answer came in: No, no, and no. The windows and electricity were refused unanimously. The tar was voted down two to one. Such actions, taken by Jews in a disputed building, might be considered an 'act of ownership.' Children, rain, winter, humanitarianism aside: let them suffer.

I've been told that the Israeli courts ruled, concerning illegal Bedouin settlements in the Negev in south Israel, that the government must allow them proper infrastructures on humanitarian grounds. Bedouins yes, Hebron Jews, no

Make no mistake, we will heat the building, using a generator and portable heating units. The fuel is very expensive -- at least $6,000 a month. (That's over $30,000 for the winter.) The equipment will cost over $5,000. The real problem will be the leaky roof. However, we'll find a way to deal with that too. That's not really the problem. The real issue is the attitude of those people called 'leaders' -- running the country.

It really shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, the government abandoned Yesha's Jews during the Oslo War, allowing people throughout Judea and Samaria to be shot at for over two years with almost no reaction or serious attempt to stop the attacks. So too in Gush Katif, where missiles fell for over five years. The reward for their heroism: expulsion and further abandonment.

Again, the war drums are rumbling. A synchronized orchestra, conducted by the American Secretary of State, with the Israeli prime minister standing in the wings, acting as first violin, reminiscent of legends of Nero's fiddling as Rome burned.

This being the case, what's the big deal, a few cold, wet Jews in Hebron?!

The big deal is that all of these instances are absolutely nothing compared to what's being planned. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Jews expelled from their homes, with nowhere to go. The heart of Israel being abandoned to the deadliest terrorists on the face of the earth, disguised as 'partners for peace.' Hebron, Jerusalem, Beit El, Shilo, -- all to be disposed of, like a dirty diaper. Not only the places; the people too. And that is exactly how they will relate to us: the like contents of a dirty diaper.

It's not yet too late, but the countdown is getting close to liftoff. Don't be fooled and don't be surprised: This is what's in store for us in Israel. And afterwards, when our 'partners' start shooting down planes flying into, or leaving Ben Gurion airport, don't say you weren't warned.

Happy winter.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, November 14, 2007.

This video is for those who believe that Israel is an apartheid state that is committing genocide against the Palestinian people

It was worth the 6 minutes to watch this clip!


Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 14, 2007.

Simply insane !! He put his wife's life in jeopardy !! The husband should have been forcibly ejected from the room !! Idiots at the hospital !!

Where was Hospital Security ?

.....He would have been in his right to have the man removed by police......

... but Dhimmis don't care about things like that.

As long as ISLAM can demand AND get this kind of "respect", also called appeasement, Things can only get worse.

Progress can only come when they are told to get out of our countries and leave....or learn to integrate and fit in.

The last thing a doctor is going to be doing in an emergency situation is drooling over the patient.

Can muslims never get their minds out of the gutter?

This was posted by Robert Spencer and appeared today in Jihad Watch

Here's a glimpse into the New Europe, courtesy the ReligionNewsBlog (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Belgian anesthetist has filed a complaint against a Muslim who blocked him from entering the operating theatre where his wife was to undergo emergency surgery.

The woman was operated with the male doctor shouting instructions from a hallway to a female nurse.

Doctor Philippe Becx from Bree, Belgium, was called to the hospital in the middle of the night because a woman had to undergo an emergeny caesarean section.

However, her husband blocked the door and demanded a female anesthetist. The latter was unavailable.

After a two-hour discussion proved fruitless, an imam was summoned. The imam permitted the doctor to apply an epidural injection, but only if the woman was fully covered with only a small area of skin showing.

During the surgery itself, performed by a female gynecologist, the anesthetist was to remain in the hallway. Through a door that was slightly ajar, he shouted instructions to a nurse who was monitoring the anesthesia.

According the hospital's directors, the doctor acted with 'admirable understanding.' He would have been in his right to have the man removed by police.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, November 14, 2007.

"We Forget Thee, Jerusalem" is a Review by Emmanuel Navon of How Dreadful Is This Place! by Shmuel Berkovits,
Carta Jerusalem, 2006, 576 pages Hebrew. The review appeared in Azure Magazine, Autumn 5768 / 2007, No. 30.

Emmanuel Navon is the founding partner of the Navon-Levy Group Ltd. and a lecturer at the Abba Eban Graduate Program for Diplomacy Studies at Tel Aviv University.

This was distributed by EUROPEANS_WHO_ SUPPORT_ISRAEL@ yahoogroups. com

This past May, Israel celebrated the fortieth anniversary of Jerusalem's re-unification, marking the return of Jerusalem to Jewish control for the first time in 2,000 years. In truth, however, Israel never really took control of Jerusalem's holiest site, the Temple Mount. Even as Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Shlomo Goren famously stood at the newly liberated Western Wall and blew the shofar, Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan, contemplating his victory from nearby Mount Scopus, is said to have wondered, "What do we need all this Vatican for?" For Rabbi Goren, the Jews had rightfully recovered their property, and a keystone of the Jewish faith. For Dayan, Israel was now burdened with a foreign religious artifact; the best it could do was to try not to upset Muslim sensitivities. These contrasting attitudes reflect two opposite approaches to Zionism: One that sees in it the partial fulfillment of the biblical vision of Jewish redemption, and one that sees in it a strictly practical answer to the problem of anti-Semitism and Jewish defenselessness.

As Shmuel Berkovits demonstrates in How Dreadful Is This Place!, a book on the political, legal, and religious significance of holy sites in Israel, the Israeli government has consistently adopted the second approach in its treatment of the Temple Mount since 1967. Focusing mainly on post-state policies toward holy sites, but drawing on a wealth of primary and secondary Jewish, Muslim, and Christian historical sources, Berkovits' comprehensive work reveals a troubling state of affairs: While its Muslim neighbors have been calculating, even shrewd, in their attempts to claim the Temple Mount as their own--and, concomitantly, to deny any Jewish link to the site at all--Israel has shown an astonishing lack of determination in defending it. Thus is Israeli control over the Temple Mount more precarious today than ever, and, absent a concerted effort on the part of Jews both in Israel and abroad, liable to disappear altogether.

In February 2007, Arab leaders threatened to unleash a wave of violence against Israel in order to stop its government from re-building a bridge at the Temple Mount's Mughrabi Gate. The construction, it was claimed, would cause the Temple Mount to collapse, thus destroying the Dome of the Rock and the adjacent Al Aksa mosque. Such ludicrous accusations regarding the Temple Mount have a long and fruitful tradition in the Muslim world. As Martin Gilbert shows in Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century (1996), Haj Amin al-Husseini, the former mufti of Jerusalem, claimed the Jews threatened the security of mosques and other Islamic holy sites, leading to the Hebron massacre of that year, 1929; he then hoped to repeat the bloodbath on a larger scale in 1931, when he convened a pan-Islamic conference in Jerusalem at which he disseminated photomontages of Jews with machine guns attacking the Dome of the Rock. Husseini was likely also the inspiration for Yasser Arafat's incitement to terror against Israeli civilians in September 2000 (aptly named the "Al Aksa Intifada"), in which he called upon both the Palestinians and the entire Muslim world to "defend" the Al Aksa mosque from the Jews. No doubt, threats to the sanctity of the Temple Mount serve as effective incitement to violence in the Arab street. Yet as Berkovits' history of both Jewish and Arab treatment of the Temple Mount makes clear, it is hardly the Arabs who have cause for complaint.

When Israel liberated the Old City in June 1967, it immediately passed--and enforced--a law guaranteeing freedom of worship for the three monotheistic religions and the preservation of their holy places. However, as Berkovits explains,"The Israeli government, the Jerusalem Municipality, and the Antiquities Authority have been hesitant to enforce Israeli law on the Temple Mount." Over the years, Israel's High Court of Justice has rejected repeated petitions to enjoin the government to let Jews pray on the Temple Mount --even individual prayers, conducted silently and without ritual objects--for fear of upsetting Muslim worshippers and triggering Muslim violence. As of today, the Israeli police prevent Jews from praying on the Temple Mount, and only in June 2003--three years after the PA-controlled Waqf closed all entrances to the Temple Mount to Jews--did the Israeli government order the police to allow Jews, under extremely limited conditions, to once again enter the Temple Mount.

This approach stands in stark contrast to the treatment Jewish holy sites have received at Arab hands. Jordan, for instance, violated the 1949 armistice agreement with Israel by preventing Jews from praying at the Western Wall; destroying the Old City's fifty-eight synagogues and Jewish schools; and desecrating the Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery by using gravestones for the construction of roads, military camps, and latrines. The Palestinian Authority (PA) also violated its commitment under the Oslo accords to protect Jewish holy sites when, in 2000, it destroyed Joseph's Tomb in Shechem ( Nablus ) and an ancient synagogue in Jericho, and called for the "liberation" of Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem by claiming that the building was actually an ancient mosque. Finally, the Waqf's massive digging and building activities on and under the Temple Mount have destroyed countless Jewish relics from the First and Second Temple per