HOME Featured Stories November 2009 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 30, 2009.

Mt. Avishai overlooking the Ein Gedi Reserve in the Judean Desert

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


Another foray into the desert this week with a peek at Mt. Avishai, which, at 235 meters above sea level, soars above the Arugot Canyon in the Ein Gedi Reserve. Standing on the canyon floor, at an elevation of 400 meters below sea level, one does have the feeling of looking up at a substantial peak, whose shape, curiously, resembles that of Mt. Everest!

No snow or ice here, but plenty of water flowing from the canyon's chief attraction, Hidden Falls, where I had an opportunity to lead a workshop last month. This shot was taken as we left the falls and began our return ascent to the main trail. In the waning afternoon hours, the canyon is well shaded while the highlands take a direct hit from the sun, complicating efforts to get a good photo, but also providing an excellent opportunity for instruction.

A photographer facing this kind of high contrast lighting really has no choice but to expose the shot for the mountain peak and attempt to build additional form into the composition using the surrounding shadows. The nearly-solid, black canyon walls provide a useful frame while the feathery tree in the lower half of the image is delicate enough so that the eye easily moves past it to find the main subject. Because the sky is cloudless, I included a piece of overhanging branch to complete the frame. I've also stood on top of Mt. Avishai, and while the view is spectacular, you can't see a mountain while you're standing on it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, November 30, 2009.

Dear friends,

As you no doubt heard, PM Netanyahu's government is about to release hundreds of terrorists in Israeli prison in exchange for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas terrorist organization more than three years ago.

This is not the first time Israel releases huge number of terrorists, some arch-murderers, for a single Israeli soul, or even for the bodies of dead Israeli soldiers.

Every time Israel does this, the appetite of Arab terrorists grows and it is just a matter of time before the next kidnapping occurs.

Remember, Hamas is holding Gilad Shalit somewhere in the Gaza Strip which is under their control. Where is Gaza getting electricity, water and other supplies from? You guessed correctly, from Israel.

Here below is an article with good advice how to stop this charade once and for all. It is from FresnoZionism.org
http://fresnozionism.org/2009/11/how-to-end-terrorist-kidnappings/ The article cites a Haaretz Report by Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff.

One can only wonder why successive Israeli governments did not choose to adopt this simple, logical solution.

Your Truth Provider,


Report: Security beefed up at Gaza-Egypt border ahead of Shalit transfer
by Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents

Voice of Palestine radio quoted Egyptian sources on Saturday as saying that in an unusual move, security around the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt has been beefed up, speculating that the added security could signal the imminent transfer of captive Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit from Gaza into Egypt.

Shalit was captured by Gaza militants in a cross-border raid in 2006 and has been held in captivity for over three years. Hamas, the rulers of the Gaza Strip, have demanded the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel in exchange for Shalit's freedom.

According to the Egyptian sources, "this is an unusual move indicating that the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit will be handed over to Cairo very soon."

The sources also said that when Shalit is transferred from Gaza into Egypt he will be examined by Red Cross medical teams as well as Israeli and French teams, in addition to the German mediator. Israel will simultaneously free 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, the sources said.


Senior Hamas officials said Thursday that the talks had hit a snag over some of the Palestinian prisoners the Islamic group wants freed, including Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa'adat.


Hamas is demanding, among other the prisoners, the release of Ibrahim Hamad, head of the group's military wing in the Ramallah area, Abdallah Barghouti, a bomb engineer, and Abbas a-Sayad, the Hamas head in Tul Karm who planned the 2002 massacre during Passover in Netanya's Park Hotel. These three prisoners are considered responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis.

Other names mentioned in the Arab media are Hassan Salame, who was involved in planning the suicide bus bombings in the mid '90s, and Jamal Abu al-Hijla, head of Hamas in Jenin, who was convicted of taking part in planning and funding several suicide attacks during the second intifada.

Another key figure is senior Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti. Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said earlier this week that Barghouti and Sa'adat, secretary of the Popular Front, would not be freed as part of the Shalit exchange. Over the last two days, Hamas officials have said explicitly that Israel is refusing to release Barghouti.

The Obama administration has in recent weeks pressed Netanyahu to extend good-faith gestures to Abbas, intended to compensate for the predicted blow to Fatah's popularity in the wake of the prisoner exchange deal.


Unfortunately, Israel has close to zero leverage. Hamas has held Shalit for three years and can keep him for as long as it likes. The Netanyahu government is under tremendous pressure from the media and others to get Shalit out no matter how much it costs. Although I'm sure the families of the terrorists would like them released, Hamas can afford to be far less responsive to its public than Israel! And of course the conditions under which Palestinian prisoners are held in Israel are far better than those faced by Shalit.

So my guess is that if the exchange actually takes place, the price will be whatever Hamas is asking. Some of the freed terrorists will undoubtedly go on to kill Israelis.

Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that there should be no negotiations with kidnappers, but that the policy couldn't be changed while Shalit was in captivity. This is nonsense, since tomorrow they will capture another Israeli soldier or civilian.

Here's my program to end this:

  1. Institute the death penalty for convicted terrorist murderers. Then at least these will not be eligible for 'exchange'.
  2. Do not negotiate with kidnappers.
  3. Institute reprisals against the leadership when Israelis are harmed. See if the big shots "love death more than we love life".

To rescue Shalit, immediately cut off all supplies, water and electricity to Gaza until he is released. This isn't 'collective punishment' because all Hamas has to do to end it is to free Shalit, whom they are holding in contravention of (real) international law. If they hurt him, see no. 3 above.

Just do it — anyone who objects will have to argue that Hamas is justified in holding Shalit. Even the Norwegians can't say that.

To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 30, 2009.

This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva


(IsraelNN.com) A member of the board of the Jewish National Fund said "the system has gone haywire" after hearing reports that the venerable Zionist organization is donating 3,000 trees to the Palestinian Authority for a new city near Ramallah.

Maaleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel, who also is a member of the JNF board, told Arutz 7 Monday morning he will bring up the issue with the JNF, which is considered a symbol of Zionism, particularly in the Diaspora where Jews have donated billions of dollars for planting trees and building the modern Jewish State.

Kashriel said the contribution to the PA is a grave step that was taken without any request for approval and without advance notice and reflects a "system that has gone haywire."

The mayor of Maaleh Adumim, which along with the rest of Judea and Samaria has been slapped with a freeze on new construction with the threat of arrest for breaking the ban, said, "The country has gone crazy when it plants trees for the PA in Judea and Samaria at the same time that it forbids Jews to build. The system does not know who it is representing — us, the Palestinian Authority or the Americans?"

Concerning the government's building freeze policy, Mayor Kashriel said he is "ashamed" of the government's move, which he said are more drastic than those taken during the years of negotiations under the Oslo Accords that blew up into the Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War, nine years ago.

"As chairman of the local Likud faction, I am ashamed seven times over," he said. "Even during Oslo we did not receive letters that remove our authority and turn us into criminals." He also echoed sentiments of other leaders in Judea and Samaria to continue building despite the orders to halt new construction.

Kashriel said regional leaders will appeal to the High Court to overturn the building freeze, which he said violates the rights of residents of Judea and Samaria. He also has proposed that regional leaders stage a strike opposite the offices of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Morris Sadek, November 30, 2009.

The Holocaust was the state-sponsored discrimination, harassment and eventual liquidation of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its Allies from 1933 to1945. The Nazis termed this well-organized murderous policy as 'The Final Solution'.

Persecution of Jews

The persecution of the Jews began in 1933. They had to wear yellow stars to mark them out from the rest of the populace and they were prohibited from participating in public life. They couldn't own businesses, ride on public transport, attend German schools and universities, rent apartments from Germans, marry non-Jews and so on. Public signs were put up saying 'Jews Not Allowed'. Life grew increasingly difficult and a few Jews managed to get out of Europe while it was still possible; for most of those that remained, death was the only way out. Out of the nine million Jews from 21 European countries, close to 6 million were killed in the Holocaust.

In the 1930s, the Nazis began to euthanize mentally and physically disabled Germans and Austrians. Over 5000 children were killed with lethal injections. Their parents had no say in the matter — they had to acquiesce or get arrested and thrown into prison.

  • On April 1, 1933, the Nazis instigated their first action against German Jews by announcing a boycott of all Jewish-run businesses.

  • The Nuremberg Laws, issued on September 15, 1935, began to exclude Jews from public life. The Nuremberg Laws included a law that stripped German Jews of their citizenship and a law that prohibited marriages and extramarital sex between Jews and Germans. The Nuremberg Laws set the legal precedent for further anti-Jewish legislation.

  • Nazis then issued additional anti-Jews laws over the next several years. For example, some of these laws excluded Jews from places like parks, fired them from civil service jobs (i.e. government jobs), made Jews register their property, and prevented Jewish doctors from working on anyone other than Jewish patients.

  • During the night of November 9-10, 1938, Nazis incited a pogrom against Jews in Austria and Germany in what has been termed, "Kristallnacht" ("Night of Broken Glass"). This night of violence included the pillaging and burning of synagogues, breaking the windows of Jewish-owned businesses, the looting of these stores, and many Jews were physically attacked. Also, approximately 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps.

After World War II started in 1939, the Nazis began ordering Jews to wear a yellow Star on their clothing so that Jews could be easily recognized and targeted.


After the beginning of World War II, Nazis began ordering all Jews to live within certain, very specific, areas of big cities, called ghettos.

  • Jews were forced out of their homes and moved into smaller apartments, often shared with other families.

  • Some ghettos started out as "open," which meant that Jews could leave the area during the daytime but often had to be back within the ghetto by a curfew. Later, all ghettos became "closed," which meant that Jews were trapped within the confines of the ghetto and not allowed to leave.

  • A few of the major ghettos were located in the cities of Bialystok, Kovno, Lodz, Minsk, Riga, Vilna, and Warsaw.

  • The largest ghetto was in Warsaw, with its highest population reaching 445,000 in March 1941.

  • In most ghettos, Nazis ordered the Jews to establish a Judenrat (a Jewish council) to both administer Nazi demands and to regulate the internal life of the ghetto.

  • Nazis would then order deportations from the ghettos. In some of the large ghettos, 1,000 people per day were loaded up in trains and sent to either a concentration camp or a death camp.

  • To get them to cooperate, the Nazis told the Jews they were being transported to another place for labor.

  • When the Nazis decided to kill the remaining Jews in a ghetto, they would "liquidate" a ghetto by boarding the last Jews in the ghetto on trains.

  • When the Nazis attempted to liquidate the Warsaw Ghetto on April 13, 1943, the remaining Jews fought back in what has become known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The Jewish resistance fighters held out against the entire Nazi regime for 28 days — longer than many European countries had been able to withstand Nazi conquest.

Concentration and Extermination Camps

  • Although many people refer to all Nazi camps as "concentration camps," there were actually a number of different kinds of camps, including concentration camps, extermination camps, labor camps, prisoner-of-war camps, and transit camps.

  • One of the first concentration camps was Dachau, which opened on March 20, 1933.

  • From 1933 until 1938, most of the prisoners in the concentration camps were political prisoners (i.e. people who spoke or acted in some way against Hitler or the Nazis) and people the Nazis labeled as "asocial."

  • After Kristallnacht in 1938, the persecution of Jews became more organized. This led to the exponential increase in the number of Jews sent to concentration camps.

  • Life within Nazi concentration camps was horrible. Prisoners were forced to do hard physical labor and yet given tiny rations. Prisoners slept three or more people per crowded wooden bunk (no mattress or pillow). Torture within the concentration camps was common and deaths were frequent.

  • At a number of Nazi concentration camps, Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on prisoners against their will.

  • While concentration camps were meant to work and starve prisoners to death, extermination camps (also known as death camps) were built for the sole purpose of killing large groups of people quickly and efficiently.

  • The Nazis built six extermination camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, and Majdanek. (Auschwitz and Majdanek were both concentration and extermination camps)

  • Prisoners transported to these extermination camps were told to undress to take a shower. Rather than a shower, the prisoners were herded into gas chambers and killed. (At Chelmno, the prisoners were herded into gas vans instead of gas chambers.)

  • Auschwitz was the largest concentration and extermination camp built. It is estimated that 1.1 million people were killed at Auschwitz.

Holocaust to Copts

Christians in Egypt, are exposed to holocaust by the Muslim Arabs who occupied our country, Egypt, for 1400 years and since that date, they have killed many Copts and continue in the kidnapping of Christian girls and have not approved the building of churches, but attack churches and burned them. We live in this persecution.

The 21st century, security and equality for Christians in Egypt is still a dream

What kinds of discrimination face Copts living in Egypt?

  1. Prevention of church construction, thereby suppressing Coptic worship and expression.

  2. The absence of justice for persecuted Copts. Hundreds have been killed, injured or made victims of vandalized property in wide-scale attacks following Friday Muslim prayers. No one has ever been recognized, held accountable, or punished for these heinous acts against Copts.

  3. The kidnapping, drugging and raping of Coptic girls as young as 14-years-old. Just in case, the aforementioned torture was not sufficient, they are forced to convert to Islam with the blessing and sponsorship of Al-Azhar (the largest Islamic institution in Egypt).

  4. The publication of offensive, degrading anti-Christian material by publicly owned newspapers and television channels. Copts who demand the right to religious freedom in Egypt have been labeled traitors and infidels in public media outlets.

  5. The unjustly withheld salaries of the Christian clergy by the regime, whereas mosques, Islamic institutions and universities are funded by taxpayers. Churches and Christian institutions are denied access to any government fund.

  6. The fact that Copts are denied high profile jobs in the police, army, legal system, local authorities, etc. Additionally, since Muslims mostly own private businesses, Copts are denied occupations within the private sector as well.

  7. Courts impose unfair sentences, along with enhanced penalties against Copts because of their Christian faith

Red Priest Sawiris Copts do not feel secure in their own country Egypt! Condemn the Archbishop Salib Matta Sawiris "President of the International Peace Center for Human Rights in Egypt" and the heinous attacks carried out by a large group of Muslims to the Copts (Christians) in Forshat city of Qena, "south of the capital Cairo, Egypt," which resulted in the destruction of homes, cars and shops and pharmacies in the village owned by Christians, Christians of the two villages and the deportation of two of the city, namely "Red Mound Manor Alcdev" which Talthma sectarian violence. He added that the Christians in Egypt do not feel secure and protected by the failure of the Egyptian security apparatus to prosecute the aggressors on Christians in sectarian violence, which increased in intensity strongly in these days, and said that the Egyptian security should be based, in turn fully Egyptian Christians to feel safe in their homeland. Sawiris also criticized the failure of the Egyptian government and local authorities in solving the problems of Christians in Egypt.

He said: "Christians are Egyptian citizens and the State must preserve their dignity in their homeland, and should not be punished because of all the Copts isolated incident on one end of the Muslims, demanding the enforcement of the prestige of the law to everyone." The work of sectarian violence and to the extent of aggression broke out Saturday in the city Forshat in the Qena Governorate because of the rumors about a young Christian raping a Muslim woman. Bishop Cyril, "the Bishop of Nag Hammadi" has said in statements published by Coptic sites, that the dean of Al-Azhar is the instigator of the violence that occurred against the Copts.

My opinion is if the discrimination continues and the Coptic community loses all types of protection from the Egyptian government and the global community, it will cause individuals to leave the country. In addition to leaving, there will be a lot of violence against Copts; so many people will become victims. These two factors will cause the future to fade away for the Coptic community in Egypt.

Morris Sadek is President of the National American Coptic Assembly. Contact him at morrissadek@ymail.com This appeared yesterday in Bikya Masr

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 30, 2009.

Sometimes I have a choice: either I laugh, or I weep. And, as my friends know, while it's not always possible (I cannot laugh about a nuclear Iran), I do try to choose the former. Without laughter, I'd lose it completely in this insane world.

That said... I look at a piece by Barry Rubin. The settlement freeze, he tells us, has improved US-Israel relations. No surprise there, and nothing funny either. This, clearly, is what Netanyahu was about with that freeze: attempting to make the US administration happy, or at least less discontent.

The freeze will have no effect, however, Rubin advises us: "On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab states will complain that it isn't enough and that they have more demands."

Then, says Rubin, whom I respect as a frequently savvy, "tell-it-like-it-is" observer of the political scene, "In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it."

That's when I started laughing. For, rather than feeling appreciation and recalling that he let us down, Obama has already tightened the screws. Hope? We can expect nothing from him, and any expectation that it is otherwise will turn out to be, well, laughable.


Consider this report from today's Haaretz, which is right in line with what I wrote about yesterday. Israel is now announcing that the number of prisoners to be released to Hamas, if there is a trade for Shalit finalized, will be 980, released in two stages (if this progresses, I'll follow with details). However, this does not account for "the hundreds of prisoners Israel is likely to release in a bid to furbish the image of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas."

The release would be done at the behest of the American president, if reports are correct. Some gratitude. At the end of the day, we may see close to 2,000 prisoners released. This is cause for weeping and wailing.


In passing I would like to mention one other possible motivation for Netanyahu to have decided on that freeze. I doubt that this was the major factor, but a factor it indeed may have been:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is head of the Labor party, has been having trouble within his party with dissidents who are threatening to split. They had been sorely discontented with the leader of their left-wing party holding a major position in a centrist/right government. Then, lo and behold! the centrist/right prime minister out-does leftist prime ministers with his offer to freeze building in Judea and Samaria.

Yesterday, Barak told his party's executive committee that he was responsible for the decision to freeze building. See? he declared to the rebels, there is good and solid reason for us to be in this government. And at least some of the rebels are listening.

All of this plays to the stability of Netanyahu's coalition.

What is unsettling is one comment that Barak made, which has the absolute ring of truth. "Everyone should close their eyes and ask themselves who would be in the government without us. [National Union MKs Ya'akov] Katz,Uri Ariel and [Michael] Ben Ari. Would a narrow right-wing government have frozen settlements and could it have begun a diplomatic process?"

Well, never mind that there is no diplomatic process because the PA doesn't want one. Barak's point is clear. And we are left to ponder precisely what Netanyahu had in mind when he chose Labor as a coalition partner over National Union.


I spoke today with the Chief of Staff for MK Danny Danon, who says that Netanyahu can make declarations as he wishes about not honoring requests to hold a debate about the freeze in the Likud Central Committee, but the law is not with him. Danon has collected the necessary 500 signatures on the required petition and expects to gather some 200 additional signatures. I will be following with more on this.


Iran. It is behaving as obstinately and non-cooperatively as possible, which is stiffening backs somewhat. The latest ominous announcement is that there will be another 10 uranium enrichment plants developed. The decision to do this was made, it seems, as an act of deliberate defiance. According to the Washington Post:

"Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi told state radio that Iran needed to give a strong response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution Friday demanding that Iran halt...construction of its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility and end all other enrichment activities."

But stiffened backs is not enough. What is needed is international outrage of such proportions that actions are actually taken. And somehow, that point is never quite reached.

For example, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday:

"If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself....Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program."

Time is running out??? It ran out a long time ago.

But the Washington Post also cited "a senior official" as saying:

"Iran will face a 'package of consequences' if it does not soon become a 'willing partner' in talks on its nuclear ambitions. "

That allusion to Iran as a willing partner is worth at least a chuckle. If anything, Iran would be dragged kicking and screaming, but even that is not going to happen.


And yet, and yet, we do seem to be at a turning point that will lead to actions against Iran. They better be taken mighty fast, and they had better be serious. The Wall Street Journal reports that discussions with regard to sanctions are focusing on specific areas that could be targeted: Iranian banks, shipping companies, insurance firms and energy assets. "U.S. officials said they have also focused on the assets of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard."

Iran is vulnerable and serious sanctions could have the desired effect. The Iranians are defiant now, but may face the point at which they must cave or collapse.


Please see this extremely important piece by Fouad Adjami in the Wall Street Journal, "The Arabs have stopped applauding."

"'He talks too much,' a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

"He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

"He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will..."

"...There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies — he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled 'Arab street' that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands — he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam — he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

"...Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

"The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. 'My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger,' goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion. "Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with 'the people' and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy — Mr. Obama was out to 'engage' the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

"On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to 'engage' Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.

"Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it — it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.

"...Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many peace plans' that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity — statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism — Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.

"...The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon — engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making."
http://online.wsj.com:80/article/ SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html


Switzerland has passed a law that forbids the building of new minarets — the towers on mosques from which the call to prayer is done.

Daniel Pipes sees this as a possible turning point.

"The constitutional amendment does not ban mosques, it does not pull down the country's four existing minarets, nor does touch the practice of Islam in Switzerland...

"But on another level, the 57.5 to 42.5 percent vote represents a possible turning point for European Islam, one comparable to the Rushdie affair of 1989. That a large majority of those Swiss who voted on Sunday explicitly expressed anti-Islamic sentiments potentially legitimates such sentiments across Europe and opens the way for others to follow suit. That it was the usually quiet, low-profile, un-newsworthy, politically boring, neutral Swiss who suddenly roared their fears about Islam only enhances their votes' impact."

Commentator Robin Shepherd agrees:

"It looks as though a backlash against Islam in Europe by nationalist forces energized by the failures of multiculturalist orthodoxies is now really starting to take hold. There's more of this to come. You can rely on it."

Let us pray that Europe will respond now, at the 11th hour, before it is too late.

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 30, 2009.


Druze not in IDF (A.P./Dan Balilty)

A higher percentage of Israeli Druze serve in the IDF than of Israelis. The figures are 83% and 72%, respectively.

Druze are serving in increasingly more responsible positions, as pilots and doctors. They win many commendations (www.imra.org.il, 11/27).


"Israel wants to make a distinction between Jerusalem and the West Bank.

There cannot be a distinction," the [Palestinian Arab] official said, adding that the PLO believes accepting such a proposal would amount to surrendering Jerusalem." (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). He did not put it as "East Jerusalem."

By that logic, extending the freeze to eastern Jerusalem would amount to Israel's surrendering Jerusalem. Now we see the importance of the freeze to the Arabs. It lends some legitimacy to their demands. Obama's demand for a total freeze on Jewish building not only was discriminatory ethnically, it was prejudicial politically. Otherwise, why Obama asked for a freeze of construction by Israelis, but not by Arabs?


Thomas Wilner, counsel to Guantanamo detainees, approves of the decision to try the 9/11 jihadists in a civilian New York court. He thinks that terrorists intimidated us into abandoning our rule of law, in dealing with them. To him, the coming trials show we are stronger than that. Concluded trials had a very high rate of conviction, not of coddling. Nor were citizens attacked over them.

He prefers civilian trials, because the murder of civilians is not an act of war but of a criminal. He contends that the laws of war allow us to detain combatants until war-end. Calling them combatants gives them undeserved status as prisoners of war. "They were never intended to authorize the detention of people for terrorist activities far from the battlefield."

Security has not been compromised, he states, because courts use pseudonyms, paraphrasing, summaries, etc... (Wall St. J., 11/27, A19).

The blind sheikh's attorney compromised security, as an earlier piece stated.

Terrorists did not intimidate the U.S., the U.S. had not figured out how to deal with them. I think that Mr. Wilner has an obsolete concept about modern war. Radical Islam is a loose confederation of fanatics at war with civilization, carrying the fight directly to civilization and its cities, thereby conducting it by means that violate the rules of war. Therefore, we are not bound to treat them by the rules of war and consider them POWs. We are entitled to treat them equivalent to pirates. Therefore we could detain them indefinitely, and there is no end of the "war" with Radical Islam.

Can Wilner guarantee that terrorists will not attack us during trials in New York, merely because they did not do so before? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy keeps changing tactics.

As for coddling, Wilner considers it a finding of not guilty. I would include how they are treated, and civilian courts treat them much better than do military courts.


Pres. Bush rejected subordinating the U.S. to International Criminal Court (ICC). He wanted to avoid its possibly treating the U.S. unfairly. Sec. of State Clinton regrets not joining it.

Chief ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo already claims some jurisdiction, because U.S. troops fought in Afghanistan, which did ratify the Rome Statute that founded the ICC. He is investigating NATO and U.S. conduct there, but is coy about saying so, falling back on generalizations that could include them.

At first, he confirmed what the ICC website explains, that the ICC was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serous crimes of concern to the international community." Any war crimes by NATO and the U.S. would pale by comparison with the mass-murders in Sudan and Congo. If the ICC diverts scarce resources to minor problems, it may let major crimes elude justice.

Mr. Ocampo, however, believes in investigating the worse crimes in each arena. He does not want Muslim states to claim he has a double standard. In other words, he is expanding ICC effort beyond its purpose and because of invalid criticism. He boasted that NATO trainers advise troops that if they transgress, they are subject to arrest and trial by ICC (Daniel Schwammenthal, Wall St. J., 11/27, Op.-Ed.).

Mr. Schwammenthal objects to U.S. troops falling under foreign jurisdiction. He does not state why. He does not attribute his objection to wanting to rely upon the U.S. constitution. He does not assert that the U.S. has high judicial standards, though it has taken time for the U.S. to adopt them to the new kind of warfare undertaken by international jihad. He does acknowledge that so far, Mr. Ocampo has done exemplary work. He does not attribute his objection to foreign public opinion turning increasingly and non-objectively against the U.S.. He does not deny objecting to U.S. being held to account.


Departing IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei (A.P./Mustafa Kuraishi)

Israel applauds the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) finding, a new approach for it, that Iran has violated IAEA and Security Council Resolutions, secretly was building an enrichment facility in Qom, also in violation of IAEA safeguards, and must halt construction immediately. Israel warns, however, that the IAEA and UN must be prepared to impose binding schedules for implementation of the finding's resolution and penalties that should have the desired effect. Otherwise, what's the point? ((www.imra.org.il, 11/28).


Arab Refugees in Lebanon (A.P./Mohammed Zaatari)

Lebanon did not grant Arab refugees from the war against Israeli independence citizenship or even residency permits. Their descendants still need permission to pass checkpoints and go out of the original refugee camps. Lebanon partly may have been concerned over the delicate population balance between Muslim and Christian populations (www.imra.org.il, 11/28 from Maan News).

Why no outcry against those checkpoints, only against the ones in Judea-Samaria? However, later, the PLO oppressed southern Lebanon.


PM Netanyahu weakened Israel, recently, but Pres. Obama may demand more.

To appease Obama, Netanyahu imposed a new building freeze on Jews in Judea-Samaria. To appease the anti-Zionist UN, Netanyahu agreed to a measure that would strengthen Hizbullah. Again to appease Obama, Netanyahu appears ready to release a thousand convicted terrorist in exchange for one Israeli.

Netanyahu suggests that the freeze was to balance the benefit to Hamas from the terrorist release with the building freeze of benefit to Fatah. Both measures, however, injure Israel. Fatah claims the freeze does not benefit it. (Nothing strengthens Fatah. Bigger question: why should Israel strengthen an enemy?]

When Netanyahu was in the opposition, he demanded that Olmert not agree to a lopsided prisoner exchange. Now in preparing it, Netanyahu let Hamas leaders and their kidnapping appear legitimate.

Strengthening Hizbullah? Ghajar, controlled by Israel, straddles the Lebanon-Israel border. The UN and U.S. have been demanding that Israel evacuate from the northern half. They know that as soon as Israel does, "it will again become a smuggling capital for drugs, terrorists, Hizbullah spies and ordnance." Appeasement is counter-productive.

Reports indicate that Obama is demanding that Israel allow U.S.-trained Palestinian Authority (P.A.) troops to deploy in areas of Judea-Samaria under Israeli military control. Obama is demanding that Israel let Fatah control land in the Jordan Valley, critical for Israeli security from invasion [as part of a natural tank barrier]. Those may be U.S. preconditions for starting negotiations. Yediot Aharonot has the impression that during negotiations, Obama will demand that Israel include part of Jerusalem in an Arab state and ethnically cleanse that part and Judea-Samaria of Jews [and not Israel of Arabs].

To relieve immediate U.S. pressure, Netanyahu started down the wrong path. He should not have left the question of where Jews may live up to foreign powers. He had better rescind that concession. He made it for nothing, for immediately, the P.A. called it worth nothing. Why should the P.A. be impressed by it, when it knows the U.S. will demand more for it? [As part of its diplomacy, it criticizes the U.S. for not already insisting on more. It probably encourages further demands.] Indeed, when Israel announced the freeze, Sen. Mitchell professed to be unmoved by it (www.imra.org.il, 11/28 from Caroline Glick).

Netanyahu talks differently, but acts as if his job were to bring down Israel, at Obama's behest. Obama acts as if his job were to bring down the U.S., too, one way by overloading its economy with debt and taxes and stifling business.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 30, 2009.
Glass Refections

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 30, 2009.

This was written by Paul Shindman and appeared today in Front Page Magazine
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/30/ sheltering-extremism-by-paul-shindman/

Paul Shindman is a veteran freelance journalist in Israel who has worked with several North American media outlets and the BBC. He is the former Jerusalem bureau chief for United Press International.


Jerusalem — Dr. Neve Gordon of Israel's Ben Gurion University is known as one of the most radical academic Palestinian sympathizers. However, his activities appear to have peaked this year with a call for an anti-Israel boycott, and revelations that he hosted a convicted Palestinian sentenced to house arrest.

Despite being the chairman of the political science department at Israel's Ben Gurion University, Gordon wrote an L.A. Times op-ed calling for a worldwide boycott of Israel, including Israeli universities, to achieve what he calls "ending our apartheid."

Gordon's call was widely seen as an anti-democratic attempt to undermine Israeli democracy and sovereignty and drew scathing criticism from his peers in both the academic and activist communities.

The president of BGU, Rivka Carmi, went so far as to say Gordon's call meant the university " is being threatened by the egregious remarks of one person, under the guise of academic freedom." In a rebuttal editorial, Carmi had to point out that it was only Israeli labor law that prevented the university from firing Gordon. In a harsh assessment, she said his boycott call meant "Gordon has forfeited his ability to work effectively within the academic setting, with his colleagues in Israel and around the world."

Veteran Israeli left wing anti-Zionist activist Uri Avnery was with Gordon and other Israeli extremists when they barricaded themselves in Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound during a prolonged siege by the Israeli army in 2002. Despite their common background, even Avnery rejected Gordon's op-ed, saying it was an "example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy." This was harsh criticism from a political colleague that raised questions about Gordon's professional abilities as an academic.

Gordon is viewed in his own country as notorious for his venomous anti-Israel writings and statements. The Israeli media reported when Gordon and other activists illegally entered Ramallah in 2002 to serve as human shields inside Yasser Arafat's headquarters. They wanted to prevent the Israeli army from arresting the suspects wanted for the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister. Gordon was shown in newspaper photos embracing Arafat. The terrorists were eventually apprehended, tried and convicted.

Gordon also has a fractious track record in his teaching career with numerous run-ins with students who hold opposing views. Gordon regularly denounces Israel as a fascist apartheid entity and admitted that his boycott call was a tactic to force Israeli concessions with the Palestinians. Gordon's articles are so openly anti-Israel that they are often published on neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial web sites.

Around the same time as the boycott call, Gordon turned his own home into a refuge for convicted Fatah organizer Mohammed Abu Humus, a resident of the Issawiya neighborhood of East Jerusalem. As a local Fatah organizer, Abu Hums had previous convictions for several security related offenses including arson and assault. Despite the latest conviction for directing demonstrators to throw rocks, Gordon described Abu Humus as a "political prisoner" and "a Fatah leader."

A Jerusalem district judge earlier this year convicted Abu Humus and handed down a nine-month sentence, converted to house arrest. Gordon organized a group of far-left academics to testify on behalf of Abu Humus, and Gordon offered the court to host Abu Humus in Gordon's own home in Beersheva for the duration of the house arrest. It is evidently the only case on record of a Palestinian terrorist being released to house arrest in the home of a Jewish Israeli citizen.

Abu Humus and Gordon have collaborated in the past in an organization called Ta'ayush, which Gordon himself is on record as describing as a seditious group, but according to its website its activities appear to have petered out in 2007.

Abu Humus provided an interesting complement to Gordon's position. Interviewed at his office in the Alternative Information Center, a pro-Palestinian lobby group in Jerusalem, Abu Humus stated that archeological excavations in the Old City prove that despite Jews worshipping at the remaining wall of the ancient Jewish temple, the Jews had no claim to Jerusalem. After years of archeological digging, he insisted no evidence of the Jewish temple exists.

"Have they found anything of the Jews? They didn't find anything," Abu Humus said.

Talking about the holy sites appeared to get Abu Humus riled up. Despite Gordon's testimony that Abu Humus was a tolerant pacifist opposed to violence, the activist continued on a roll.

"If somebody believes in (the Jewish or Christian) religion, he has to change his religion," Abu Humus said. "And after Jesus came, it says Mohammed will come. And Mohammed came. If you are religious as a Jew, you have to believe in Mohammed. You have to believe in Jesus."

Gordon is the father of two small children and stated in the media that the time Abu Humus spent in his home under house arrest was "in a way, it's a wonderful experience, probably the best political education that you can give to a child."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 29, 2009.

Several things need to be done to deal with this matter. Since Iran has stated that its policy is to wipe out the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, it should be sued in the International Court of the Hague as an official Declaration of War.

Using its funds, from its copious sweet oil to subvert American Universities to follow its murderous policy and oft-proclaimed goal to commit Genocide, each University and collaborating Professor ought to be sued in a class action litigation for teaching hate crimes.

Clearly, this is a matter for lawyers who practice International Law. This should be worth a great deal in contingency fees. As starting number could a as much as a Billion Dollars against each of the participating Universities, plus separate penalties for each Professor.

Separate suits against Iran and Iran's assets in the U.S. and abroad would be appropriate.

This article is by Malkah Felisher and appeared November 24, 2009 in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com),


(Israelnationalnews.com) An Iranian front organization is donating huge sums to American academic institutions who employ pro-Iran, anti-Israel professors and speakers, according to back-to-back reports by the New York Post and New York Times.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the prestigious Columbia University and Rutgers University for Middle East and Persian studies programs, according to the papers. The courses are taught by professors who openly slur Israel and express sympathy for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, as well as terrorist groups Hizbullah and Hamas.

The Alavi Foundation, which recently had up to $650 million seized by United States federal law enforcement, donated $100,000 to Columbia University in 2007 after the institution agreed to host Ahmadinejad, who is responsible for a bloody crackdown on protesters last summer following a controversial election in Iran, and who frequently denies the Holocaust, as well as Israel's right to exist as a state.

Last year, Britain's director of the Brunel University Center for Intelligence and Security Studies, Anthony Glees, reported that up to 48 British universities have been infiltrated by Muslim fundamentalists heavily financed by major Muslim groups, to the tune of more than a quarter billion Sterling.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, November 29, 2009.

This was written by James Lewis and it appeared today in American Thinker


It is an interesting exercise to question all the assumptions of American foreign policy for the last sixty years — that is, for as long as we've provided the defense umbrella for Europe, the free countries of Asia, and for our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

That's after all the meaning of Pax Americana. We do the work, they do the bitching.

Obama and the Left don't have the least inkling of the vital peace-keeping role of America as the cop on the world beat for the last six decades. They hardly understand the idea of peace officers on domestic beats. It just doesn't get through those hard plastic space helmets around their heads.

Let's pretend there is no Pax Americana. Obama sounds like he's ready to shaft Israel, which certainly would be consistent with his whole upbringing and his locked-in Leftist worldview. Jerusalem, according to the administration, is doing the dirty on the Palestinians by adding housing in the city for Jews. Funny thing, nobody seemed to mind much when Obama sent that message to Benjamin Netanyahu. Least of all the Israelis, who just ignored it.

Well, the Left has managed to conceive an inveterate hatred of Israel while not losing many Jewish liberal votes. Shafting Israel is a no-lose proposition for them. And still they keep their liberal Jewish voters. It is a miracle to behold.

No wonder Obama wants to walk away from that troublesome little country that gets all the Arabs so angry. What's he got to lose?

Well, Taiwan, for one thing. There's another troublesome little country right off the coast of mighty China, which owns a lot of US debt, and has had lines into the last two Democrat administrations that have looked mighty suspicious. Nothing would please China more than having the US Navy withdraw its protection from Taiwan.

See, Obama's making peace already.

Then there's South Korea, another troublesome partner.

Why not have the Kim family take over the South? It's no skin off our noses. The conquest of South Korea could probably feed the hungry people of the North for years and years before the whole peninsula went kaput. And Kim Jong il could finally get his nukes to work.

We could dump Afghanistan, too. Obama is turning up his nose at Hamid Karzai because his re-election looked dubious. Which makes Kabul sound just like Chicago. It takes awesome gall for a Chicago Machine politician to criticize an impoverished and nearly ungovernable Third World country for its electoral imperfections.

Well, let's send Mayor Daley over there to fix Afghan politics. Maybe he can teach them to make the dead rise up on Election Day. That way Afghanistan will come up to high Illinois standards of democratic probity.

That solves our biggest foreign policy problems, right?

But that's not all. Why should the United States defend Europe against the Russians? Or protect the free nations of Asia against China and North Korea? Why not let them all go down? And why do we have to defend free trade in the world? Why are we in the Persian Gulf? Just think of all the money we can save — and we'll need that money if O-Mob-O-Care passes Congress.

We've subsidized Europe's and Asia's defenses for sixty years. Maybe Uncle Vlad the Poisoner over in Moscow would be willing to protect Europe against militant Islam just the way he did with Chechnya. For a price, of course.

To be sure, if we walk away from our allies they will inevitably build up their own nukes and missiles. Japan could have WMDs rather quickly, with South Korea and Taiwan not so far behind. The French would be happy to supply nukes to the emerging EU army. Israel and the Saudis both want to stop the mad Twelver Cult in Tehran before it gets nukes. All nations want to survive; they may hate each other, but that has never stopped alliances. Europeans who hated each other still made alliances for a thousand years before the United States became a world power. They can do it again.

Pax Americana has been the most benevolent imperial enterprise in all of human history, bar none. Our good friends in Europe love to rant at us, especially if they can get us to knuckle under to Euro-Socialism, which puts them in charge of the United States. That's after all the reigning goal of the EU and UN corruptocracy. That's what the Global Warming Fraud has been all about.

The newly appointed President of the EU just declared that 2009 is the first year of global governance. Guess who gets to do the global governance? It's not us. No, this is Year One of the Belgian Empire.

Americans forget that we've defended the civilized world for almost a hundred years because the Europeans couldn't be trusted to do it. Europe has been the source of almost every single aggressive imperialism in the last two centuries, from Napoleon to Bismarck, Karl Marx, the Kaiser, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin in the Cold War. Imperial Japan is the sole significant exception. Our liberal media constantly cover up that inconvenient fact.

But it is true, and we forget it at our peril.

Euro-Imperialism is rising again today under the smiling face of EU socialism. That's Obama's creed, as we know. That's why he keeps apologizing for the United States to all the socialists of the world.

Obama's mental blinders come straight from Karl Marx's Prussia in the 19th century, and from V.I. Lenin in 1917. Now those were real imperialisms, not the Coca-Cola kind that has our European friends crying in their beer.

If we walk away from the world, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Brits, the Czechs and Poles, the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans have to accelerate their own nuke and missile defenses, because in the nuclear age that's their only chance for survival. China may not really want to see Japan owning nuclear weapons and missiles. They still smart from the pain of Nanking. Obama's deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not buy him any friends in Beijing.

Tehran already tried to stir up riots in Mecca. Without the United States to control the Gulf, what is to keep the Iranians from overrunning Saudi Arabia? They have the population and the military power to do it. If the US goes home, all the Iranians have to do is bust through the desert (good tank country) and go straight to the Holy Cities of Islam. Think they wouldn't dare, if they owned a nice set of nukes and missiles? Who would stop them? Obama?

For sixty years we've lived with the fantasy that the world has become a safe place at last, and that peace is the natural condition of mankind. Let's see if Barack Obama is fool enough to tinker with that delicately balanced contraption.

The last time a delicate power balance broke apart, the immediate result was World War I, Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution and Hitler. If Obama walks away from Afghanistan, Israel and Taiwan, we will see Europe and Asia switching all their alliances very fast. Pull out that American peg from the Big Circus tent, and it won't look like peace on earth, good will to men, forever and ever, amen.

It might look a lot more like August, 1914.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, November 29, 2009.

"President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations ...."

This was written by Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries. He is an author and retired attorney,


Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama's policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.

We heard it in Jesse Jackson's "HYMIE town" remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright's remark about "them Jews" not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a "Jew" problem.

Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were "greedy cheaters" who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were "evil". Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community.

In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of "The Nation", but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, "he speaks the truth" and "stands up for the black man". What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived "enemies" of the black community — white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery.

The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan — Wright's friend — to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what "good" he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support.

The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World," he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation".

Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest — albeit undeclared red — sensibilities

Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.


Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, November 29, 2009.

"Philadelphia Attorney Asks US Justice Department to Investigate "Peace Now" as an Unregistered Agent of Foreign Governments"


Atty. Lee Bender is the head of the Philadelphia based ISRAEL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE, which has perused documentation which shows that the government of Norway has allocated a new grant to "Peace Now" in the amount of 1.3 million Kroner, which is something over $200,000.

Since Peace Now is a legal entity in the US and NOT in Israel, Atty. Bender has asked the US Department of Justice as to why Peace Now has not registered itself as a foreign agent in the USA.

The consequences of Peace Now not registering itself as a foreign agent are that Peace Now runs the risk pf prosecution for functioning in DC as an unregistered foreign agent, since it has been receiving funds from foreign governments for many years.

Here is the letter filed by Atty. Lee Bender with the U.S. Justice Department:

Lee S. Bender, Esquire
1800 J.F.K. Blvd., 14th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

November 23, 2009

U.S. Department of Justice
10th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.
National Security Division
Counterespionage Section/Registration Unit
Bond Building- Room 9300
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: Americans for Peace Now
Potential Violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act

Dear Sir/Madam:

I write to request that the United States Department of Justice open an immediate investigation into a group known as Peace Now. Peace Now is a registered entity in the United States under the designation, Americans for Peace Now. Even though many of its members and events are in Israel, Peace Now is not a registered legal entity in Israel. However, Peace Now has received millions of kroner from the government of Norway since 2001, including approximately 1.35 million kroner this year, and appears not to have registered as a foreign agent, in accordance with the requirements of the Foreign Agent Registration Act. If this in fact is the case, it is a clear and serious violation of the statute, subject to criminal penalties.

Thank you for your prompt attention and consideration of this matter. I look forward to your response.

Lee S. Bender, Esquire

Translation of the article from Karmel Israel-Nytt, a Norwegian newspaper published in Oslo, Norway with its editorial offices in Jerusalem

No. 23
December 2009
By Vidar Norberg
"Peace Now gets 1,35 million Kroner from Norway"

Norway has the latest three years given a yearly amount of 1,35 million Kroner to the Israeli movement Peace Now.

First secretary Annika Evensen at The Norwegian Embassy in Tel Aviv confirms to Karmel Israel-Nytt that Norway in 2008 gave 1,35 million Kroner to Peace Now.

"We give the same amount in 2009...". confirms Evensen.

Norwegian support

The Norwegian support to Peace Now is not something new.

The Foreign Ministry has supported Peace Now Settlement Watch since 2001, confirmed Embassy secretary Pål Klouman Bekken at Norway¹s Embassy in Tel Aviv to Karmel Israel-Nytt No. 7 in April 2008.

Klouman Bekken, gave a view over the funds which have gone to Peace Now Settlement Watch the latest years:

2007: 1,35 million Kroner.
2006: 1,2 million Kroner.
2005: No grants.
2004: 1,2 million Kroner.
2003: 1,2 million Kroner.
2002: No grants.
2001: Nearly 1,3 million Kroner.

"Knesset Committee Conducts Investigation of Alleged Espionage Activities of "Peace"

Mon May 16 2004

This week, the Israeli "Peace Now" organization revealed that it has been conducting aerial surveillance of Israeli Jewish communities in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria, to determine the extent of settlement expansion. At the same time, the Israeli Knesset Parliamentary Interior Committee held a special session to discuss foreign government funding of Israeli left wing movements

Documents shared with the Knesset Interior Committee confirmed that the Peace Now organization received a budget in the amount of 50,000 Euros from the government of Finland to conduct intelligence activity in the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Jerusalem. Peace Now is a political organization in Israel with an IRS tax deductible affiliate in the United States.

The Knesset Committee examined a Peace Now grant application to the government of Finland, that indicated how Peace Now intended to use the grant. This included regular bi-monthly ground surveys to be conducted with the purpose of documenting the numbers of empty houses in settlements and ongoing construction in settlements. This work engages tens of volunteers, who travel around the West Bank in cars (armored if possible) tracking developments. "Settlements" has come to be used in the press now as a euphemism for Jewish communities and towns, no matter how big or developed.

Also included was a provision for aerial photography: Twice a month a light plane is rented in order to allow "settlement" watch staff to ascertain the extent of ongoing physical expansion in existing "settlements." Once a baseline survey is completed, subsequent surveys can be used to measure expansion using GIS satellite positioning overlays. The document stated that this "mechanism will yield tangible graphic and quantitative data for the public."

Peace Now defined its objectives to the government of Finland in the following manner:

"To monitor settlement developments on the ground, accurately and reliably; To make this information available to the Israeli and international publics; To advance the fulfillment of the Road Map."

Peace Now identifies the "target groups" for the government of Finland as the "Israeli public, The Israeli political leadership, International Diplomatic Corps and Israeli and international press."

Peace Now defined the "final result of the activities" for the government of Finland as "Regular and reliable reports, in real time, disclosing the situation of settlement construction; Regular and reliable reports, in real times, monitoring the dismantlement of outposts and settlements according to requirements of the Road Map; Contacts with diplomats, leaders and press in order to convey reliable information on all aspect of settlement issues."

Peace Now further informed the government of Finland that it would use the $50,000 grant in the following manner: "$17,000 Coordinator, $13,000 Jeep, $20,000 Aerial Surveys." Peace Now informed the government of Finland that "funding is necessary to support the staff and rent the vehicles for aerial photography.

Peace Now defineed itself for the government of Finland as an "educational foundation". Peace Now indicated in that grant request that it also received $100,000 from the Americans for Peace Now and 150,000 Euros from "European Foundations" for its "settlement watch project."

A spokesperson for Peace Now indicated that the "European Foundations" mentioned in their grant request to the Finnish government were actually funds from the European Union. In other words, from other foreign European governments...Far from being an indigenous Israeli organization, Peace Now it is obvious actually acts as an agent for foreign governments.

The Israel Penal Code for Espionage was distributed to Knesset Interior Committees. Clause 3 of that code defines "photography of sensitive areas of Israel for any foreign power" as an act of espionage, punishable by ten years imprisonment if convicted.

Dr. Yuri Stern, Chairman of the Knesset Interior Committee, announced that he would ask his legal counsel to examine the matter and report back to the committee if there were indeed grounds for application of the Israel Penal Code's special clauses on espionage against Peace Now.

While the Knesset interior committee members from across the political spectrum carefully listened and examined the documents relating to allegations of felonious activity by Peace Now, the Peace Now lobbyist in the Knesset, Behira Bardugo, screamed at Committee Chairman Dr. Stern and accused the committee of not investigating those who financed the campaign to defeat Ariel Sharon in the recent referendum campaign over the Prime Minister's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza.

When Stern explained that there is a difference between funding from a private individual and funding that is received from a government, Bardugo reacted with surprise, and simply said that there is no difference.

The Peace Now settlement expansion maps do not only wind up in the hands of European governments and they do not only include the civilian expansion. The Peace Now settlement expansion maps also include military installations and the maps are featured in all PLO offices...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 29, 2009.

When Netanyahu came to into office he continued the freeze that Olmert had started in August 2008 and came under withering pressure from Obama for more. Why Olmert agreed to it in the first place has never been discussed.

Last summer it appeared that the quid pro quo would be normalization steps by Arab countries. Nothing came of it. Then Netanyahu and Obama counted on getting Abbas to accept the freeze when they were all in New York. Abbas didn't bite.

Finally, Netanyahu decided to announce the freeze unilaterally which he did on Wednesday.

Surely he doesn't want endless negotiations with no hope of progress. So one must conclude that its all about gaining time to deal with Iran.

Herb Keinon in his article Gaining Grace? points out that Yossi Beilin knew about this 9 days ago,

Yossi Beilin — former MK, minister and one of the architects of the Oslo accords — was downright prophetic nine days ago when he accepted a French honor from visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Within a few days, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will declare a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction that would not include Jerusalem and would make exceptions for "normal life" in the settlements, Beilin said in his remarks, breaking the formula of banal acceptance speeches and getting the reporters in the audience to take up their pens.

The US, Beilin continued, would say that this was not everything they had asked and hoped for, but that it was enough to resume Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And the Palestinians, Beilin prophesized, would reject the deal.

Beilin never revealed his sources, but within a week, his scenario played itself out.

How did he know? Everything unfolded as he foresaw with one exception.

Beilin, in short, went three for three in his predictions. But then he made a fourth prediction, that the Palestinian refusal to resume negotiations under these terms would create a "dangerous vacuum" that would trigger a chain of events that could very well lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.

Keinon maintains that

The prime objective of his settlement-start moratorium was to get the burden of being blamed for stalling the diplomatic process off of Israel's back.

Netanyahu keeps repeating that the ball is now in Abbas' court.

BUT WHAT is even more important from Netanyahu's point of view is that the Americans — as evidenced by Mitchell's statement — don't see the step as hollow.

The US realizes that it hadn't delivered on normalization or the end of incitement so it took what it could get from Netanyahu. It had no choice.

The moratorium was never meant to be a unilateral step, but ended up being one because no one moved on the other side. The expectation is that this will now be appreciated in Washington.

Netanyahu managed to convince

right-wing ministers like Bennie Begin, Moshe Ya'alon and Avigdor Lieberman to vote for the moratorium, something done because — one government source said — they had sat in the discussions over the last few months and seen what was initially demanded, what was agreed upon, and the whole array of pressures coming to bear on Netanyahu and the country.

Keinon believes that Netanyahu's moves in accepting a Palestinian State, all be it with conditions, and announcing a freeze, although limited, are cut from the same cloth.

Netanyahu is now gambling that as a result of what he gave, the world will press the Palestinians to take the gestures and run with them. If the Palestinians don't do so, Netanyahu seems to be assuming, it will be clear who will get the blame.

But considering recent history, that seems a somewhat risky assumption. Back in 2000, at Camp David and then at Taba, then-prime minister Ehud Barak justified his generous offer to the Palestinians by saying that if they accepted it, there would be peace, and if not, then the world would see who should be blamed for the failure and what came after.

I agree with Keinon when he writes

Wednesday's move may have bought Netanyahu some temporary grace in Washington and the international community, but that grace — judging by other unilateral steps Israel has taken in the past — may prove fleeting. Netanyahu will only get temporary relief from pressure.

It would appear that the revelations in the Yediot Aharonot's Thursday article which Caroline Glick referred to in Bibi's Bad Week,may not have any import.

Now we will have to wait to see if Beilin's fourth prediction comes true.

Keinon makes no mention of any agreement on Iran.

But Alex Fishman does in Saving Abbas published Thursday. He also said its about avoiding Beilin's fourth prediction.

The construction freeze in the settlements is yet another oxygen tank en route to reviving the "diplomatic horizon," without which we shall see the Palestinian Authority increasingly disintegrating.

This is not about getting sentimental with Abbas or a sudden love story between the Israeli government and the diplomatic process. Even the tough "ideologists" within the cabinet realized Wednesday that there is no other choice, and that every effort must be made in order to preserve regional stability, even for a limited time. The Palestinian Authority must not collapse.

Abbas has turned into a key player; the stability of his regime maintains the calm and stability everyone needs until matters clear up on the Iranian front. Even those who object to making concessions to the Palestinians realize that we have to buy time. And buying time means maintaining the diplomatic process vis-à-vis the PA.

Hence, when officials around here debate the Gilad Shalit question, they simultaneously discuss the question of how to minimize the damage to be caused to Abbas and the PA in the wake of the mass release of prominent Hamas terrorists. Even before the Shalit deal, Israeli officials estimated that the PA will not survive without a diplomatic horizon. Abbas would eventually give up and quit, and this will mark the beginning of disintegration that may lead to anarchy and to a third Intifada, which Fatah heads are already characterizing as a "popular struggle."

A popular struggle, for the benefit of those who may have forgotten, may indeed start with stone-throwing, but will end with fire. And who needs fire on the eve of fateful decisions on Iran.

And Israel must prove she is serious about enforcing the freeze.

Barry Rubin has speculated that Clinton's statement on the parameters for a peace deal was negotiated as part of the moratorium.

This raises a fascinating question: Was it coordinated with the Netanyahu government as part of the freeze deal? If so, the Netanyahu government has certainly proved itself to be flexible and peace-oriented. Certainly, there isn't everything Israel wants in this statement yet it does encompass some important points taken out of the cabinet's position on peace arrangements.

This makes eminent sense. Remember that Netanyahu once remarked that he wants to know where he is going while negotiating short term deals. Aslo his BESA speech setting out Israel's conditions that must be present in a peace deal were part of these negotiations. Clinton's statement gave him what he demanded except she was silent on Jerusalem.

Obama made it clear to the Israelis in Washington that he is willing to try this move in order to promote the revival of talks, but expects much more later on.

Evidently then there are mutual commitments.

A comment from a reader of the original article, drjb:


According to the sense of logic prsented here there is only one possible outcome in the Middle East and that is the one that will be dictated by the USA. Israel (i.e. Netanyahu) will have to bend over backwards to make that outcome a reality, and it will happen by hook or by crook, irrespective of the wishes of the general israeli public. Even if Netanyahu were to put up a fight, the Left elite of Israel (Peres, Beilin, etc) would further undermine him to ensure that the US desired outcome materializes, even if at the cost of cutting the country in half and returning it to the "Auschwitz borders", while at the same time the US wouldn't guarantee its survival.

According to this logic, we're just witnessing a charade, a game, where the end of the story is known to all, not just Beilin. If this is so, then why bother playing the game?

No, I believe something different is happening here. Feiglin has discussed it at great length and also predicted the settlement freeze and the negotiations for Shalit's release and the negotiations with Syria. One one hand Israel (i.e. the government) has lost its compass, on the other, Israeli leaders are not equipped to deal with the current situations. A new paradigm is needed, a Jewish paradigm. It's not really new, it's the same thing that maintained the Jewish people for 2000 yrs of diaspora. That's what's going to save Israel. We need leaders who are strong Jewishly. At this point, the only one who fits that bill and has something sensible to say about anything currently taking place in Israel is Moshe Feiglin. At what point will you give this man a break?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2009.

I begin today with an article I co-authored with David Bedein, which appears in today's Jerusalem Post: "Questions people are afraid to ask Salam Fayyad."

It was written in response to a column by Post editor David Horovitz a week ago, which described PA Prime Minister Fayyad's plans to build a state; Horovitz failed to inform his readers of the very serious problems inherent in these plans. These stumbling blocks make the establishment of a "moderate" Palestinian Arab state impossible, for the PA is not "moderate" — in spite of the face of moderation that it offers to an "eager-to-believe" Western world. The issues that the article touches upon:

[] The constitution of Fatah (the predominant element in the PLO and the PA) to this day calls for the destruction of Israel within the Green Line via "armed resistance." This is not an anachronism, or an idle academic issue: Fatah held a major conference in August and declined to remove references to "armed resistance" from its constitution.

[] The PA-produced textbooks are rife with incitement against Israel. Dr. Arnon Groiss — who translates and evaluates the texts for the Institute for Measuring Peace and Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT http://www.impact-se.org) — reports that these books "deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine," "fail to recognize the State of Israel," "demonize Jews and Israel," "assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians," "stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement."

[] The PA continues to express willingness to form a unity government with Hamas, a terrorist entity, at the same time that it professes a desire to negotiate "peace" with Israel. This is, as I wrote, "the elephant in the room." People talk about negotiating peace as if Hamas was not in the picture.

[] The PA refuses to relinquish its demand for the "right of return," even though this is a recipe for destruction of Israel from within. It is time for the PA to accept the principle under which the UN High Commission for Refugees operates — that of resettlement of refugees — instead of encouraging the current policy of UNRWA, which, for political purposes, maintains the refugees in a frustrating (and enraging) limbo.

"Lastly, Horovitz writes that 'most of the international community completely supports [PA] demands for a 100% Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank," noting that "Netanyahu... is intent on driving a harder bargain.'

"...Left unsaid is that the Israeli electorate is most definitely not in favor of complete withdrawal, and that the prime minister simply reflects the will of the nation in this regard. What is more, Horovitz neglects to say that neither does international law support this: UN Security Resolution 242, which does not demand full Israeli withdrawal, acknowledges Israel's need for secure borders."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243025529& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Please, see this, save it, and share it broadly. It touches upon the key issues that the world prefers to ignore.


I had suggested last week (and a computer virus prevented me from returning to this more quickly) that there was a possibility that Netanyahu might have frozen building in Judea and Samaria communities for 10 months in a quid pro quo deal with Obama regarding Iran. There was this possibility implicit in the secrecy of the last meeting Netanyahu had with Obama, and I indicated that I had seen sources after that meeting that suggested this. Since I wrote that, Dr. Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA (www.imra.org), suggested the same possibility in his weekly commentary.

But, sadly, I confess that I'm less and less of this mind, as the Netanyahu decision seems to be a case of caving that is nothing if not regrettable. Part of what is moving me in this direction are the reports that Obama is already making MORE demands of us. This would be the case if we were seen as having caved, and would much less likely be so if there had been a deal.

It does seem that Obama will never be satisfied, and will always project that "you made a concession yesterday, what can you do for me today?" attitude towards Israel.

In response to this, there is only one acceptable response: strength. There must be an ability to say, NO! Particularly is this so as the current occupant of the White House has no regard for Israeli rights or security.


The demands? These, also reported elsewhere, were delineated by Caroline Glick in her Friday column :
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243021505& pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

First, apparently Obama wants the IDF to pull out of the Jordan Valley and allow PA security forces to take over. The Jordan Valley is essential for our security, and Netanyahu had made it clear up front that we would want to retain this in any deal.

What is more, in spite of attempts to represent the case as otherwise, the PA forces are not capable of going it alone anywhere in Judea and Samaria. Note this quote from a piece by Ethan Bronner of the decidedly not pro-Israel New York Times:

"...But without nightly Israeli raids into Palestinian cities, the violence would never have stopped.

"'Last night we carried out between 15 and 20 actions,' a top Israeli commander said of the West Bank raids, in a recent interview under military rules of anonymity. 'That was a fairly typical night. It's like throwing a blanket on a fire. If we stop for a minute, we will go backwards very quickly. We call it cutting the grass.'"


I've written that there is concern that if we trade 1,000 terrorists for Gilad Shalit it will strengthen Hamas in the street and make Abbas even weaker than he already is. Well, not to worry, Obama has a solution. That's his second demand: When we release those 1,000 prisoners to Hamas, Obama apparently wants us to release ANOTHER 1,000 terrorists to Abbas. What's another thousands killers on the loose, when it's only Israelis they'll be aiming for?

This policy is so bad it's a parody of itself. But I fear Obama may be serious.


G-d forbid, G-d forbid! our government should cave to such dangerous nonsense. But I must note this, which has already transpired:

Last week the Shin Bet (Israeli security) "pardoned" 92 Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade members who were fugitives. This means we will no longer pursue them and they are free to move about in the areas controlled by the PA (Area A under Oslo). Above, you read the description by an IDF officer of the nightly IDF raids to maintain peace. It might have been in an operation such as this that we would have gotten these guys, who have now been removed from our "wanted" list. In return they had to promise to renounce terrorism.

This is hardly the first time we've cooperated in an arrangement like this with Al Aksa Brigades, which, by the way, is part of Fatah. I am especially impressed with the idiocy of having them promise to renounce terrorism. The deal is that ultimately they will have the opportunity to join the security forces — then they can carry their guns legally.

And why did we do it now? To strengthen Abbas, of course.

Does anyone ever consider the implications of this: That if we refrain from pursuit of members of a terrorist group it makes Abbas look good?


We are witnessing a strong response to the decision made by the Netanyahu and the Security Cabinet regarding the building freeze:

Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) has filed an appeal for a debate with the government secretariat: "This is a central issue in the state agenda, and it is essential that all members of government get a chance to express their opinions." He is pushing for a debate within the full Cabinet (the Security Cabinet constituting a smaller group).

Within Likud it amounts to a power struggle, and I say forthrightly (and regretfully) that when it comes to playing power politics, Netanyahu gives no quarter. His concern is for sustaining his decisions, not for democratic voice within the party.

Earlier today, MK Danny Danon addressed a rally of activists in Ra'anana, under the banner "Real Likudniks don't surrender." He told those gathered that:

"The prime minister should have told the Americans that on Judea and Samaria he would not surrender. We are starting a campaign to put the breaks on what Netanyahu is trying to do. We will be attacked for this and it won't be easy, but we, the silent majority of the Likud, will struggle and succeed."

He promised to promote a debate on the issue of the freeze within the Central Committee of Likud.

The prime minister's office, anticipating this, last night released a statement stating that Netanyahu would avoid convening the Central Committee (even if signatures were garnered by Danon calling for a Committee debate). Said Netanyahu associates, if the Committee were to be convened, it would discuss only procedural matters. In addition, Netanyahu leaned on Likud MKs not to attend Danon's rally.

Well, Danon today garnered the requisite number of signatures of Likud members on a petition demanding that the debate in the Central Committee be held. He has turned it over to Chairman of the Likud Central Committee, Minister Moshe Kahlon. And Kahlon has advised Prime Minister Netanyahu to convene the Committee for a debate on the construction freeze.

Now we shall see. Danny Danon is to be praised highly.

Perhaps you'd like him to know how much you appreciate his efforts:
E-mail: ddanon@knesset.gov.il
Fax: 02-649-6044 (In the US: 972-2-649-6044)
Phone: 02-640-8659/8 (In the US: 972-2-640-8659/8)


Chair of Ihud Leumi (National Union), Ya'akov Katz, is challenging the government on another issue. The Shamgar Commission had been charged with examining the implications of a prisoner exchange with Hamas, but the findings, which were completed in 2008, have not been released. Katz has now filed an appeal with the High Court of Justice, asking that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu be ordered to publish the findings before a trade for Shalit is done; he says that the Commission found that the effect of a trade would be negative. "Netanyahu must reveal the findings before we make any decision to release terrorists, and he must have a debate in the government and in the Knesset before he reaches any conclusion."

Don't know that he can succeed with this, but Bravo! to him, as well.


Today is Kaf Tet B'November — the 29th of November — when the UN voted Palestinian partition in 1947. I will return soon to some matters regarding the UN and the international community.


It is a hopeful matter, that Iran is behaving so defiantly that nations that were hedging are beginning to be genuinely irked and ready to think about taking some action. There's more to say on this, as well... Tomorrow is another day.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Benami, November 29, 2009.

This is actually a true story and shouldn't be missed at all for its ironic & humorous content. Please do go through it.

A lady Canadian libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the government, complaining about the terrible inhuman treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She received back the reply shown below and an offer.

P.S. - Gordon O'Connor never heard from her again in spite of several reminders regarding acceptance of his offer.


National Defence Headquarters
MGen George R. Pearkes Bldg,
15 NT 101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letters expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.

Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa. You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself; we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defence, to be called 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers' program, or L.A.R.K. for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to divert one terrorist and place him in your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday. Ali Mohammad Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers.. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommend in your letter.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his 'attitudinal problem' will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counselling and home schooling.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and religious beliefs' as described in your letter.

Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man. You take good care of Ahmed and remember, we'll be watching. Good luck and God bless you.

Gordon O'Connor
Minister of National Defence.

Contact Benami by email at farme@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 29, 2009.


President Obama postulated a linkage between Iranian nuclear development and the Arab-Israel conflict. He contended that if the Arab-Israel conflict were resolved, Iran could more readily be isolated. He then postulated a linkage between Israeli building in Judea-Samaria, which are disputed Territories, and Israel-Palestinian Authority negotiations.

Israel protested that there were no such linkages in logic or in fact. They said it was necessary to deal with Iran before it is too late. Pundits pointed out that the Iran issue will come to a head long before the Arab-Israel conflict could be resolved. They saw this as Presidential pressure on Israel, not constructive, for it encourages Arab recalcitrance. They found that Arab states privately approve of an Israeli or U.S. raid on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Arab states did not want to endure further risk because of waiting for this misconceived linkage, not that they favor Israel. Neither does Israel want to defer action and find a mushroom cloud rising during their negotiations with the Arabs.

What does one reader dispute on this? He said that Bibi Netanyahu conceived the linkage with Iran, not Obama. Apparently, Bibi conceived it privately, but the reader has a mole who informed him of it, Obama publicized it, and Bibi objected, but it really was Bibi's idea though it could get Israel destroyed. Wow!

The same reader also disputes calling Israel's freeze a freeze. Why? It is a partial suspension. I call that a partial freeze, openly stated as such. How can one deny it? Denial is not logical.

He also denies that this freeze is an Israeli concession. Why? It is not all that Abbas asked. That is no reason, ether. What was offered did not have to be offered. That makes it a concession.

In this, the reader either does not understand the Arab mind or has one. I state this with no disrespect for different cultures, which I realize have different ways of thinking and different values. Disrespect, though inadvertent, is by Westerners with the ethnocentric belief that the way they think, everyone else must think.

Muslim Arabs feel that the non-believers are wrong, and if Muslims accept a compromise from them, then they are sharing non-Islamic evil. Hence, they resist compromise except for their doctrine of accepting a truce during which they prepare for resumption of war.

Why didn't the Arabs make a concession? Disregarding Arab culture, again, that same reader gave these reasons:

(1) Israel did "nothing." It is not nothing for the many young Jewish couples, who have to move some distance away to find housing. Nor is it nothing for Israel to curb its national rights at outsiders' behest.

(2) If Netanyahu offered more, he would have been deposed. A reason he may have limited a concession does not make it a non-concession. Pure logic.

(3) Pres. Obama calls Jewish construction over the green (armistice) line illegal. An ideological politician is not the arbiter of international law.

(4) The Arabs already conceded 78% of the original Palestine Mandate, and see their way to getting only part of the other 22%. Bingo! Congratulations, reader, this is the first time I have read a layman's reference to the original Mandate area. Too bad you got the facts on this incorrect!

When the Mandate was proposed, its boundaries were drawn to coincide with the Biblical Land of Israel, and left 99% of the Mideast to the Arabs. The Mandate included the Golan and what now are Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jordan. Before the Mandate was ratified, Britain withdrew the Golan from it. Not long after that, Britain withheld what now is Jordan from Jewish national development, but not from the Mandate and passports from there still were stamped "Palestine." With independence, 78% of the original, ratified Mandate was emancipated from the Mandate, to become another desert kingdom.

The reader calls that a loss for Palestinian Arabs. Nonsense! The original population included villagers, Bedouin, and followers of the Hashemites, who had fled from Saudi Arabia. This was before the Arabs had a sense of nationality. They identified as Muslims. Most were Arabs. In 1947-49, many fled from their defeated attempt to drive the Jews out of Israel. Most Jordanians are descended from them. In other words, Jordan is an Arab Palestinian state.

That was not a loss for Palestinian Arabs. It was their gain, but a loss for the Jewish people, who had been promised, under treaties and international law, the whole of the Palestine Mandate. So now let's turn the reader's point on its head, and observe that there already was a division of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, most going to the Arabs. The rest is hardly viable for one state, never mind two. It makes neither sense nor justice for a second Arab Palestinian state to be formed.

(For more on the Palestine Mandate, check the original document or ask me to quote the substantive provisions of it. For the prior discussion of the freeze, goto:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~y2009m11d28-Israeli-Cabinet-approves-partial-building- freeze-in-West-Bank )


How realistic and fair are U.S. diplomacy and reporting on the Arab-Israel conflict?

Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reports that Israel's Defense Min. Barak has approved building 28 public and educational institutions in Jewish "settlements" in the "West Bank." He ordered a temporary freeze of other Jewish construction there. The freeze does not apply to Jerusalem. "Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of the city; the "Palestinians" want the eastern part as the capital of a future state (11/28, A5).

The U.S. asked Israel for a complete freeze and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to "crack down on anti-Israel violence" and the Arab states to somewhat normalize relations with Israel. The Arab states refused. Israel offered a partial freeze, more than any predecessor had offered, but less than Pres. Obama wished, and Abbas rejected the Israeli compromise. The opportunity to restart negotiations was lost. "At some point, extremists will try to provoke another war..." (Ed., 11/28.)

The framework of those presentations is slanted to obscure Israel's high legal and ethical position, the Arabs low position, and U.S. Executive branch exceeding its jurisdiction. One method of injecting bias is the terminology devised to make the Arabs seem justified in their demands:

(1) "Settlements," for Jews building in their historical homeland in an area that the Palestine Mandate reserved for them, including in their own capital, and not calling Arab construction "settlements.

(2) "West Bank," a term coined after Jordan seized Judea and Samaria, as those provinces have been known for thousands of years and still are officially named. This is another attempt to de-Judaize them;

(3) "Palestinians," coined for certain Arabs in a pretense of their having a nationality which notion they had rejected in my lifetime, until they found it expedient. This follows the Roman re-naming of the Jewish country, so as to de-Judaize it, but in this case, to give Arabs more of a national claim there; (4) "Extremists," a flexibly applied word that seems to cover both sides, but Jews never provoked wars in modern times, the Arabs did. Unstated by the Times is the news I reported that the P.A. is planning its third Intifada.

In another omission of what might lend truer perspective, Ms. Kershner ignored Israeli complaints that the public approval for more schools in Judea-Samaria was of an early stage in a series of approval steps, but that Min. Barak already had denied the next stage. These figures are misrepresented for domestic politics.

Israel doesn't just claim sovereignty over its whole capital, it has it, via annexation through a normal process. That the international lynch mob disapproves does not make truth. To mention what Arabs want of Jerusalem as if on a par with it actually being Israel's capital, is an attempt to equate what is not of equal right or entitlement. This is a similar technique to using those loaded terms mentioned earlier.

Nor is it candid to refer to the Arabs wanting eastern Jerusalem. By covenants, maps, school and TV presentation, Islamist ideology, and Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel, the Arabs signify their intent to take over all of Jerusalem and of Israel. Is the New York Times assisting the Arabs' next phase?

Notice that the Times referred to Israel and the Arab states not meeting Pres. Obama's requests, but did not refer to the P.A. not meeting it. The newspaper puts it as the P.A. is supposed to "crack down on anti-Israel violence." That is disingenuous, being incorrect and vague enough to allow claims that the P.A. fulfilled its obligation. The Oslo Accords, which have a legal basis, and the Road Map, which is advisory, both state that the P.A. must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Oslo does not require a building freeze. The Road Map suggests one after P.A. action. As many of my articles show, the P.A. has not done that.

Instead, the P.A. raised a new demand, the freeze, as a pre-condition for negotiation. If U.S. diplomacy and media reporting were fair, they would admit that the onus for non-negotiation is on the Arabs. (Not that I expect negotiation to bring peace with Arabs who use diplomacy to pursue Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel). And some of the onus is on Pres. Obama, whose suggestion for Israel facilitated making it an Arab pre-condition for negotiating.

Both U.S. diplomats and the Times make another false equivalency between the Arabs and Israel, in suggesting that both sides need to prove good faith before negotiation. The Arabs walked out of earlier negotiations, refused to negotiate, and set pre-conditions for it. Israel long has been willing to negotiate and without pre-conditions. That shows which side demonstrates bad faith. The New York Times reportage demonstrates advocacy journalism, in which it steers, rather than informs, the public.


I quoted one source, ZOA, and cited its source, MEMRI, about a new Arab blood libel against Israel: 'Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV 'that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians.'" Since the inner quotation starts with the word, that, a reader should be able to tell that it is my source's paraphrase of the broadcast, and I am not claiming it is a direct quote of the broadcast, with all its flowery verbosity, but just reporting the news.

The rest of my article discussed other Arab blood libels against Israel and the Jewish people.

A critic of mine replied that when I acknowledge membership in ZOA, it doesn't mean anything except beware of my prejudice. He does not understand that journalists acknowledge what, if they did not, might seem like concealing a potential conflict of interest. As some phrase it, it is "In the interest of full disclosure." I have found these sources accurate, though I sometimes reach different conclusions from theirs.

The critic called my article "lies." He calls it a "deception" by my sources and me, on the grounds that the original report [not sure if he means the Arab broadcast, reporting of it, or MEMRI) did not mention the word, "sexual."

I had noticed that the source did not use that word in the text, just in the title. I examined the quotation form the original Arab broadcast alleging brutal discrimination against women, in an alleged attempt to break up the family. It was clear enough to me that this was sexual harassment. Even without the sexual angle, what the Palestinian Arab statement that some of his, as he put it, "lowly" people were recruited to do, shames them and, because of its undocumented accusation, is a shameful broadcast. The critic' logic, even if it were correct, is like the tail wagging the dog.

That broadcast joins broadcasts and press releases by Abbas, Arafat, Egyptian clerics, a Syrian Foreign Minister, Ahmadinejad, et al that constitute a library of blood libel of Israelis and the Jewish people. I have reported accusations that Israel sends prostitutes to impair Arab families, attempts to inflict sexual and other diseases upon Arabs, leaves poisoned candy for Arab children to find, poisons Arab water supplies, and more, giving sex a prominent role. As to that, the critic totally spares his indignation over lies, harmful ones, at that. The critic ignores the mass of evidence, in behalf of quibbling. Strange ethics!

On the libel that Israel tries to poison the Palestinian Arab water supply (which uses the same aquifer), I reported years ago that Arafat's first terrorist mission was a failed attempt to poison an Israeli water source. On the accusation that Israel tries to deprive them of water, more recently, I reported that Israel restored Gaza's failed water supply twice, and continues furnishing Gaza with some water. On the libel that Israel tries to sicken them, I reported only a fraction of the incidents in which Israel's competent medical researchers who try to work with regional counterparts to eradicate diseases, but some Arab governments refuse to cooperate. As for the charge of Israel attempting to break up families, I reported that Israel has let many Arabs immigrate for family reunification, though the Arabs constitute a hostile minority largely sympathetic to their fellow, outside Arabs. You can see which side is obsessed with religious/ethnic/racial hatred. This is like a case of the pot calling the white kettle black.

The critic accuses me of hating Muslims, to explain his accusation that I regularly lie. Since I use the same sources as for the libel article almost every week, sources he claims engage in deception, then perhaps he thinks that they, too, hate Muslims. In other words, disagree with him, and you must hate Muslims and lie about them. Although the critic talks about responsible journalism, he accuses people of hatred, without showing hatred. How responsible is that?

I think that hating people because of their religion, nationality, or race is very immoral. I report on actions and doctrines that do and act on it. Some cultures are largely given over to such hatred. In such instances, one may generalize about its society, it being understood that there are some individual exceptions but that they do not govern or influence that society, for which the bigoted rulers speak and polls and actions confirm.

The critic of this issue, like several others, keeps harping on the same points, sometimes repeating the same exact comment immediately after the prior one. That is making a nuisance of oneself. It reminds me of an element of the big lie technique, repetition.

I recommend he consider the reliability and the characters of the many Arab leaders who engage in the documented stream of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish blood libel and of the Jewish leaders falsely accused of it but who do not libel the Arab people. There is the mass hatred and mass lying in this era of the big lie technique.


We've discussed the confusion besetting people over which sources to believe, in an era when there are more sources but fewer honest and informed ones.

To some extent, this is generational. People would be wiser to respect the older and the younger generations for what they have and can contribute to society. Generational rivalry or contempt hampers society. Both generations think they know everything. The older one can develop wisdom from experience. The younger one can bring to bear newer technology. I've seen older people naïve about the veracity of news sources, but younger people have less behind them, with which to evaluate. Educational institutions have not and do not educate enough. Hence so much floundering and repeated historical mistakes.

I've seen naivete about major threats to civilization repeated. I gained political consciousness during the Nazi era. Shortly before it, Nazism enjoyed some popularity in the West. European and American pacifism outside of Germany prompted appeasement of Germany.

Did the result, WWII, teach us the lesson that's appeasement fails? No. I remember objecting to Pres. Roosevelt's appeasement of the Soviets.

Did the Cold War and hot proxy wars by the Communist International teach us that appeasement is dangerous? No. Now we appease Radical Islam so much, that our political leaders are afraid to mention it as the current international enemy of civilization.

Now the old Nazis and successors, and the old Communists and successors, many liberals, and Radical Muslims and allied Muslim governments are working with their customers and independent rogue states in what I see is a ganging up on the Jewish state, because it is a Jewish state. That is the "international community" that sides with the Arab aggressors against Israel.

I've seen ganging up on individual Jews. I've seen ganging up on blacks, and rescued one black boy by driving him home. Internationally, it is similar. Many Muslims either deny the Holocaust or express intent to complete it. Facts are irrelevant to them.

I just saw photos of a monument and thousands of shoes that the Nazi S.S. had robbed from Jews in Lithuania. Holocaust denial presumes that Jewish public relations deceived all of Europe into thinking there was a Holocaust that tons of documentary and thousands of eye-witnesses confirm, and which Europeans do not deny. Denial is not rational. It is psychotic. It is mob behavior driven by bigoted ideology and the need for a scapegoat for frightening or puzzling modern society.

When my grandparents' generation fled the persecutions abroad, and found sanctuary in the United States of America, they called this country, in their native Yiddish, if I recall the spelling, the "goldene medina," the golden state. They meant the relative freedom and tolerance more than the economic opportunities, which they also valued.

Considering the growing intolerance and chaos abroad, all my Jewish friends express deep gratitude for living here and now. My generation was nurtured during and shortly after WWII, a time of patriotism. For example, in elementary school, we heard of Patrick Henry, who said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Sometimes I pass by the Manhattan monument to Nathan Hale who, about to be hanged for spying on the British during the American Revolution, says, "I regret that I have but one life to live for my country." That is just what my uncle did, in the Pacific theater of WWII. Nor have I forgotten the forlorn sentiment expressed in "The Man Without a Country," during his loss of U.S. citizenship.

I regret to see that esprit de corps waning, especially when young people are attracted to an alien spirit of intolerance. Seeing America's warts, they don't realize its overall and growing decency; they do not know how much they have to be thankful for. I think that our young soldiers do know, and so I am thankful for them.


Taliban leader (A.P./Anwarullah Khan)

The Taliban leaders are inspired by a harsh religious doctrine, but the U.S. is reassessing whether its troops are. Western officials believe that most Taliban troops are fighting to earn a living or for personal grievances. If they can be offered a living outside the rebellion, they can be peeled away from it. This is Gen. McChrystal's strategy. It was, with the surge, successful in Iraq. Winning enemy troops over requires treating them with respect. It may mean letting tribal elders be intermediaries. It means local application, not a heavy-handed or one-size-fits-all procedure by the national government.

The chief difficulty of instituting the strategy in Afghanistan is that the national government is so corrupt and incompetent, that it lured away thousands of insurgents on false promises of jobs and protection, left them in the lurch, and finds them back in the trenches now embittered (Agand Gopal, Wall St. J., 11/28, A8).

If the assumption be correct that most troops are not driven by their leaders' ideology, then I over-emphasized ideology.


Governments' intervention has reduced the number of foreign language Radical Islamic Internet sites from about 1,000 to 50, hampering Islamist recruitment. The number of English language Radical Islamic Internet sites, however, has risen in seven years from 30 past 200.

Most of the English-language Internet sites are not run by al-Qaida. They are run by individuals who share its ideology. Many of these individuals are radical clergy like the one who influenced the Ft. Hood massacre. Their messages are theological, not bomb-making. Hence, they recruit people. Most of the arrested native Canadian terrorists and some American ones were inspired to jihad by English-language sites, and formed their own bomb plots.

U.S. officials did not comment on the sites and there servers (www.imra.org.il, 11/27 from Naharnet, Lebanon). Can their numbers be reduced?


Clerics in militia chanting, "Death to Israel." (A.P./Vahid Salemi)

The total program is not clear, but Iran is having clerics take over or inserted into Iranian schools. This is part of a drive against Western influence (www.imra.org.il, 11/27 from Jordan Times).

The Iranian people overthrew the Shah for democracy, but the clerical counter-revolution deprived them of it. They still want it. The clerical regime is resorting more to totalitarianism, in an effort to defeat the pro-democracy movement.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 29, 2009.

This was written by Gil Ronen and appeared in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).


(IsraelNN.com) The Israel Air Force carried out a photographic reconnaissance sortie over Judea and Samaria in order to obtain an accurate picture of the construction being carried out in Jewish communities and outposts there.

The aerial photographs were transferred to the Civilian Administration in Judea and Samaria, where they will serve as a basis for enforcement of the construction freeze order issued Thursday by Central Command head Maj-Gen Avi Mizrachi.

Photographic reconnaissance is usually carried out to gather intelligence about the enemy. However, this is not the first time that IAF jets are used to collect photographic evidence on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. In early 2004, IAF jets carried out a photographic sortie over all of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. The photographs were then used to demarcate the communities' boundaries. This was done after then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon committed to then-President George W. Bush to allow construction only within previously-developed areas, and to forbid growth of the settlements' size.

The United States and Israel carried out negotiations over an agreed "building line," using the reconnaissance photographs as their guides.

The freeze order issued on Friday is more severe than the one agreed to by Sharon because it forbids construction within the communities' boundaries as well. The order strips the local authorities in Judea and Samaria of the right to grant permits for construction, be they for adding a second floor to an existing structure or for closing off a porch.

A house owner who wishes to add a floor to his house has to request a special permit from the Civilian Administration and give his reasons for wishing to add the floor. The Civilian Administration will then inform him within 14 days whether the request has been approved or not.

The authority to grant such permits, in communities with valid building plans, belonged solely to the municipal authorities until now.


From: Tom Carew


I have a strongly pro-Israeli Irish friend who is an academic researcher in law in the UK, at Cambridge University, and he asssures me that the Israeli Supreme Court is probably the most active on earth in overturning Government decisions. It is open to every Israeli citizen or group

[a] to challenge in the Court both the right of the Israeli Govt to make rules on construction, as well as
[b] their right to remove the existing municipal power to handle such issues, and
[c] to openly and democratically campaign to get the Knesset to pass or amend any laws they wish in this regard, as in any other.

Until its powers are so removed or altered, the Government of the day has the right to make rules — on construction or on anything else.

Any people — like 50 rabbis recently — who want the IDF or IAF to mutiny, or to become in effect the militia of some Hebron settlers, is an enemy of democracy and the rule of law in Israel. Either lawful authority lies with, and only with, the sovereign people, and the Knesset they elect, and the Government it elects, and all state institutions, especially the IDF, and all their members, obey that lawful Government, or else Israel descends to armed dictatorship or anarchy.

That is what is at stake. Who rules in Israel as a law-based democracy?

It is not about flight patterns of any IAF Squadron, or policy regarding construction. The answer to grievances is not disobedience or mutiny, but to change those who makes rules or policy you do consider offensive — by political or court action.

And if necessary, to demand a written Constitution which can embody clear definitions of powers and principles — which Israel incredibly still lacks — the Jewish People being the last people on earth who should lack such a fundamental guiding instrument for both law-making and public policy.


From: Yaacov Levi

Hello Tom

I agree on every count. It is absurd that Israel of all countrys doesnt have a Constitution, and a Judiciary chosen by the people instead of political hacks. The same with the Police who are a total politically motivated and controlled instrument, of the far left.

The current situation is just another one of a long string of political manipulations of power against its citizens. By a suicidal leftist amorphous political amoeba that constantly reshapes itself with different names but pursuing the same old far left failed policies of appeasement to our enemies and running rough shod over the people of Israel in one traitorious action after another.

We must have a Constitution, and a regionally represented government by popular vote and an independent Judiciary and Police that represent all of the people, not the privileged elite.


From Michael Devolin

Why doesn't someone start a petition demanding a written constitution? Would such a petition get off the ground?

From: RLF

The US is unique in the world in having a founding political philosophy that is designed to limit government's ability to interfere with basic rights of the individual. Interesting, according to one of the authors, George Mason, the concepts came from the Hebrew Bible (Torah).

Israel, as a modern state, was founded by European Jews who leaned heavily to the left and while they saw in Europe that systems where rights were granted by government ended up with persecution of Jews, they designed the Jewish State to be a European style state for the Jews, without much reference to jewish history, law, or political philosophy.

Regarding the Israeli Judiciary, though, I cannot say that it is worse than that in any other country, nor more corrupt, nor more interested in making law rather than judging. That problem is universal. Any branch of government tries to increase its power. Its up to other branches to set limits.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, November 29, 2009.

Barbara Ginsberg writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barhow@netvision.net.il Visit my blog for previously e-mailed Rav Kahane writings:
http:/www.barbaraginsberg.blogspot.com I am also posting Baruch Marzel's Activities at:


And the reality for American Jewry is that the Galut, the bitter exile of the Jewish people, did not stop at the western shores of the Atlantic and was not barred from entering the United States. The exile — that bitterest of all curses, punishments and sins — cannot and will not ever be a sweet refuge. The curse of the Tochach (admonishment) will never be changed even though Reform and Yeshiva men alike rip out its pages from their Torahs. "And the L-rd shall scatter thee among all peoples... and among these nations shall thou have no peace." How we ignore those Torah parts that disturb our tranquility! How superb we are at rationalizing them away! How angry we become at those who persist in speaking about it. How we prefer to create the myth of American Jewish bliss that nothing can disturb since "it cannot happen here!" but, the reality is that it will because it must, because the All Mighty knows full well that unless we are forced to, we will never go willingly back to the Land.

And the reality of Soviet Jewry is that never since Stalin have they faced such a potential for pogroms and physical threats. The illusion was that public protests and demonstrations could only hurt and when Jewish militants disproved that, the myth arose that it was really the twice-a-year establishment picnics and the respectable protests that had been the true cause of the sudden emigration flow and that became a delusion that everything would always remain as a permanent victory. But, the reality is that Jewish refusal to mount ever-greater attacks on détente and Jewish betrayal of Henry Jackson and now the worst perfidy of them all — the Israeli and Jewish treachery and selling out of all Soviet Jews who will not go to Israel — are all things that are aiding a potential Holocaust for Soviet Jewry. Where is the sense of urgency, where is the note of emergency? They are the realities and in the delusion that is born of such apathy, we prefer not to see the danger and be forced to act and do unpleasant things.

We are a people that dearly loves to fool itself and deeply resents those who refuse to allow us to. But the reality is here and it is clear. Jewish destiny and Jewish history are not things of chance, of permutations and combinations. They are directed and ordained and we cannot avoid that which shall be unless we do that which should be. A refusal to be Jewish under the pretense of being "practical" will only make us un-Jewish and the most impractical of peoples.


Only this is the key to the redemption and salvation of the Jew and how tragic it is that from one end of the spectrum to the other, from the secularist and Marxist Jew to the pious, practitioner of ritual in the yeshivas, real faith and real understanding of this era and the call of Jewish destiny is so lacking. It is the era of the final redemption that can come so quickly and so magnificently if only we are prepared to believe in the G-d of history, the Jewish Creator of all and director of that which will be. There is a Jewish destiny that awaits us and this is ours for the asking and taking. The Messiah knocks and the door waits to be opened if only we turn the key. The key is faith; real faith. Faith based on courage and boldness and sacrifice. Faith that is more that lip service but is measured by three intensely practical concrete yardsticks:

  1. Faith and courage in knowing that the rise of the State of Israel is the decree of the L-rd and the end of the humiliation of the exile. That every victory won by Jews is proof that the L-rd, G-d of Israel, is the true Creator and the Decreer of history. That every retreat and defeat is a retreat to that Hillul Hashem that saw two millennia of humiliation for the Jew and his G-d. That retreat from Jewish land, from any part of Eretz Yisroel is a Biblical prohibition and is more than a retreat from land. It is a retreat from Kiddush Hashem, a retreat from redemption, a retreat from faith in G-d, a retreat from Jewish Destiny. "Not one inch" is not a political or military imperative — it is a theological and Torah cry. If we stand firm and call out to the L-rd, rejecting fear of man and rejecting need of man if that need is based on prostration and fawning flattery — then we will have been true in one aspect of our faith. Then we will have rejected the stupid, impractical and unrealistically mystical belief in the gentile — in Man — and returned to the practical realistic, Jewish believe in trust in the All Mighty.

  2. Faith and courage in leaving the comfortable Exile with its fleshpots and luxuries that so tempts us and seduces us. The strength to leave comfort for duty, obligation and commandment. The courage to choose to fulfill the difficult mitzvah of living in the land rather than wallowing in the impurities and spiritual filth of the Exile. The faith in G-d that allows us to admit that we, irreligious and religious alike, small and great together, have sinned against the land. Rejection of the rationalizations and false "pilpul" that helps us to stay and rot in the inevitable graveyard that the Exile will become. Faith in the land, strength to go home.

  3. Faith and courage in doing what we must for fellow Jews. Feeling the pain of each and every Jew who is in pain and the readiness to sacrifice and suffer with him, to save him. A rejection of apathy, a throwing off of indifference, a burial of fearful contemplation and selfish interests. Massive and powerful demonstrations and attacks on the Russians — clear warnings at what awful thing could happen should Soviet Jewry be under physical attack. Massive and powerful protests now, even before the full United States pressure begins, against any possible US strangulation of Israel. Jewish action instead of reaction. Massive and powerful demands that American Jewish leadership become democratized so that the poor and the elderly and the weak will be aided — so that Jewish funds go only to help Jews. Faith and courage to consider what the gentile wills say and to reply: Who cares? Faith and courage to know that if we do what the All Mighty wishes — the love or hate of the gentile is irrelevant.

Three acts of faith that can absolve us of our three transgressions. Only thus can we be practical, realistic, pragmatic. Only by being Jewish can we stop being ridiculously mystical and believe that our salvation lies in the hands of the gentile. We are a people that is different, that is chosen, that is great, that can never be destroyed. Why do we persist in refusing to recognize ourselves? Why, if we are giants, do we insist on being dwarfs?

Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il This essay is taken from the magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea, January 1977.

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, November 28, 2009.

This was written by Daniel Schwammenthal and it appeared November 26, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704013004574519253095440312.html

Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.


The Hague

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.

The ICC's chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court's authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction — at least with respect to Afghanistan.

Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute — the ICC's founding treaty — all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC's oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.

"We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan," Mr. Ocampo told me. "There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government." Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, "there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture."

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.

Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that "we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned."

The fact that he avoided a straightforward "I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers" showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Appointed in 2003 for a nine-year period, the 57-year-old Argentinian has — so far — established a record of cautious jurisprudence.

Mr. Ocampo is famous in his home country for prosecuting military juntas as well as starring in a reality program where he adjudicated private disputes. And in his first six years at the ICC, he pursued real evildoers. He indicted Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony, militia leaders from the Congo and Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, responsible for the genocide in Darfur. Yet collecting information about possible war crimes by American soldiers smacks of just the sort of politicized prosecution critics of the ICC had always warned about.

Mr. Ocampo remained tight-lipped about the specifics of his preliminary examination. Asked whether waterboarding — a practice that simulates drowning without causing lasting physical harm — is a form of torture produced a telling "no comment." Yet if the Obama administration considers this practice torture, one has to wonder if the ICC's chief prosecutor would give it his stamp of approval.

There is also the issue of whether Predator strikes of unmanned drones targeting terrorist leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan — as carried out in the very first week of the Obama presidency — are part of the bombings he's looking into. Mr. Ocampo chuckled and answered evasively. "We have people around the world concerned about this," he said, and when pressed, added, "Whatever the gravest war crimes are that have been committed, we have to check."

"Gravest" is the operative word here. The court was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," as stated on the ICC's Web site. This would suggest that even if U.S. soldiers have committed war crimes by the prosecutor's definition, the ICC would have no reason to get involved as those transgressions would surely be insignificant compared to the butchery in places like Sudan or Congo.

Mr. Ocampo's own words, though, suggested that he disagrees. I asked him if he was going to prosecute the worst crimes in his jurisdiction or the worst crimes in a particular case, such as Afghanistan, irrespective of how they compare to crimes around the world. He paused before answering.

"Normally," he said (another pause) "we select situations which are grave, for instance when I choose. . ." Mr. Ocampo didn't finish the sentence, sighed and began afresh: "Both [scenarios] are right. Normally, we open investigations in the worst situation in the world and in some cases [countries] we investigate the worst situation."

This is an expansive and controversial interpretation of the court's mandate, one that may put an end to the debate about whether former President George W. Bush, fearing just such judicial activism, was justified in unsigning the Rome Statute his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had endorsed. Although the prosecutor's preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans.

In any event, the ICC's very existence is already changing the way Western nations fights wars. Mr. Ocampo recounted how a legal adviser to NATO told him that troops these days are trained to realize that, in case of transgressions, they could be arrested and brought to the ICC on war crimes charges with the help of evidence provided by NATO itself.

"That is the new world," Mr. Ocampo said proudly. I asked the obvious follow-up. "If this is the 'new world,' why do you bother collecting information about NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan?" Why, in other words, when his task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does he spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world — which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals? Mr. Ocampo got slightly irritated.

"You are suggesting that we are a court only for the Third World. That's what the Arab world said about Bashir, that we are using double standards," he explained. "I said no, I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate, if they don't, I shall investigate. That's the rule and we have one rule for everyone."

Mr. Ocampo — who has a photo of himself with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, on his windowsill — could have pointed out to his Arab interlocutors that the real double standard was their own complaining about alleged Western aggression against Muslims while they protect Sudan's Bashir, the greatest butcher of Muslims in modern history. The fact that Mr. Ocampo mentioned the Sudanese perpetrator of genocide in the same breath with alleged crimes of NATO soldiers shed light on what the International Criminal Court may have in store for the U.S. in the future.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Perry Ashley, November 28, 2009.

On the eve of the 62nd anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan for Palestine to create a Jewish and an Arab state), Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel said "If there was a vote to admit Israel to the United Nations today, there is no doubt in my mind that we would not get in."

Ayalon also said that in 1949, when Israel was admitted, two-thirds of the nations represented at the United Nations were democratic, whereas today the opposite is true. "Many of these nations are dictatorial and human-rights abusers who form an automatic majority against us which is formed by political expediency and group-think," Ayalon said. "If the Arabs or Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority."

The Deputy Foreign Minister also talked about how Israel has to make creative strategies to counter this situation. He made the comments at a forum sponsored by Hadar: Israel Council for Civic Action, at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem

To see more of the speech, please click on the link below

Contact Perry Ashley by email at ashley.perry@mfa.gov.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2009.


Like the press, the Internet has become an arena for ideological combat, though people still think of it as a source of information. Truth and knowledge may fall by the wayside. A small percentage of readers key in whatever insults they can imagine, against author or source. Sometimes they just pass judgment on the author. They do not promote any exchange of ideas. There is no point to their comments.

For example, they accuse me of being a paid Israeli agent. Amusing, but sad that they can sink to nasty libel. Sometimes there is just nastiness. There is no good reason for personalizing their comments, especially since they do not know the author.

For one thing, they accuse me of lying. It doesn't occur to them that someone can have studied the issue and honestly disagree with them. They will claim that I do not know the subject but also that I know the subject and will not admit their truth. Alternatively, they cover their own dissimulation by accusing opponents of it.

Citing counter-arguments that I already have disproved, sometimes in the same article they comment about, they urge me to "admit" the case against Israel. How can they expect me to admit what I have just disproved? That is a failure of logic on their part.

Another failure of logic is to denounce Israeli defensive measures, such as checkpoints, without seeming to understand that those measures were forced on Israel by Arab terrorism. They should blame Arab terrorism as the cause of checkpoints. They do not blame Arab terrorism for its many crimes. It is they who do not admit obvious truths.

These illogical responses are not just by my readers. Human rights organizations and the State Dept. also make such errors, even after having been advised of the errors. Truth is no object, to them, either.

In a failure of chronological logic, some critics assert that the Israeli presence in the Territories caused terrorism. They seem unaware that terrorism preceded the Israeli take-over of the Territories. And Arab aggression caused the Israeli take-over. Terrorism now is a continuation of terrorism earlier. What came later can't cause what came earlier. Elementary logic. They do not grasp it.

Some of the comments are frankly antisemitic.

I have explained the rules to readers, that the Examiner does not tolerate insults. The critics would not submit insulting comments to the New York Times. They know that newspaper would not publish them. I delete them. Too bad those critics do not try to contribute to adult discussion. If they disagree with decorum, their comments stay.

Some complain of censorship, when their nasty posts are deleted. They imagine they have a right to force nasty remarks upon a publisher. How absurd! It reveals either lack of understanding of democracy or an attack upon civilized behavior.

One tells me I cannot properly judge the Goldstone report without having read the whole report. I explained how, from numerous admissions by and about the Goldstone mission and the UN, from reading its conclusions and many excerpts, from understanding its sources and the material that it copied, from noting that one of those sources, Human Right Watch, has recanted several of its accusations, from logical analysis, and from knowledge of the situation, I could judge the UN effort. Nevertheless, he keeps repeating his claim. That means he keeps turning into that blind alley, because all he cares about is having something to accuse one of, not to discuss. I think such people suffer from a deliberate inability to learn contrary notions.

This deliberate inability to learn contrary notions prompts critics to comment about the general Muslim-Israel conflict, as if in answer to my specific points. That is either a failure of logic on their part, implicit admission that they do not know about those specifics, or a ploy for changing the topic. The general points they make I have refuted. Their bringing them up, again, makes no sense. I have tried to engage them in debate, but they ignore my specifics, change the topic, repeat what I have refuted, and inject more churlishness. It doesn't pay to bother with them.

If I report a specific war crime by Hamas, the anti-Israel critics retort by asserting a general war crime effort by Israel. They remind me of when I condemned some move by the Soviet Union, and Communist "fellow travelers" replied, "What about Little Rock?" (A locus of school segregation.) Arkansas had segregation, but did that excuse Soviet purges? As for Israel, I had explained that it fought more honorably than all other armies, did not commit war crimes, kept civilian casualties low, but not being omniscient, did make some battlefield errors, bound to happen in war.

The critics probably did not read my refutation of their general doctrine. They dabble, picking out very few samples of my 1,400 articles. That leaves them in a poor position to judge the whole opus. Nor do they want to be in such a position. They reject in general and in specifics whatever runs contrary to their ideology. Prejudiced in their review, they do not realize how little basis there is for their views.

When I discuss the specific reasons that the Israeli presence in the Territories is legal and proper, they ignore my points and just assert what my points explain are not correct. They go on to tell me that since most of the world now agrees with them, I must be wrong. But the world did not come up with new arguments. It came up with new or more widespread prejudice and vested interests. Bandwagon propaganda, does not persuade an intelligent person. It reflects badly on its disseminator. Truth cannot be determined by vote.

Arabs spread blood libel against Israel, as I report, but so far my readers have not joined in. However, neither have the critics expressed disapproval of those libels. Where is their moral fiber, they who claim to represent ethics?

They have the same moral lapse as Goldstone, in accusing Israel (erroneously) of war crimes, but exhibiting no indignation for the obvious war crimes by Hamas, which fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and endangered their own civilians. Since their ethical bias or blindness is apparent, they forfeit credibility.

Ethics, credibility, truth — they make much of it. However, they have made no comment about my demonstrating that Goldstone witnesses contradicted themselves, were proved to have lied, were sent by Hamas, and were not vetted. Likewise about my showing that the Palestinian Authority makes statements in Arabic indoctrinating its people in bigotry and war, while making more pleasing statements in English to Sec. Clinton. Like Clinton, the critics assert that Abbas recognizes Israel and wants peace, assertions that I disproved by quoting Abbas. The blood libels by Arab leaders forfeit credibility, but the critics ignore it.

History, they simply pervert. During the wars I lived past, the news about Arab aggression and Arab flight was clear. As memory fades or witnesses die, the critics call it Israeli aggression and expulsion of Arabs. They revise the historical record to suit their prejudice.

They coin misleading terminology that implicitly makes the Arab case: "Palestinian" nationality, "West Bank," "occupied," "settlement" within an existing and historically Jewish city. Israeli leftists and the New York Times use adjectives such as "extremist" to denigrate opponents.

They constantly lament in behalf of the Palestinian Arabs, but ignore the oppression of those Arabs by their rulers. Their rulers run dictatorial or even totalitarian, regimes. That means murder, embezzlement, arrest of dissidents, lower status for women, sacrificing their own people a human shields, making war instead of peace, etc.. Critics' silence about that indicates lack of compassion for the people they claim to champion. If they do not care about the Palestinian Arabs, then they must be against Israel out of sordid motives.

Enough, for now.


Israel's Cabinet approved PM Netanyahu's proposal for a 10-month freeze in new building permits in Judea-Samaria, except for buildings needed to serve the existing population. The freeze reportedly would apply even to: "...building a fence around a yard, a balcony on the second floor of a home, an extension to the back of a house, or even a porch or pergola over the front steps — if it is carried out anywhere in Judea and Samaria."

Jewish community leaders in the Territories complain that to win election, Netanyahu had promised to reverse the prior regimes' withdrawal policies. They consider this freeze a betrayal. They and others worry that the 10-month period would be extended. Some have noticed that he has caved in on other matters of principle. They suggest replacing his regime. Min. Benny Begin countered that Netanyahu has not offered a withdrawal, as did Ehud Barak, when he was prime Minister.

Community leaders do not consider this freeze new. The Defense Minister has withheld approval of most new housing construction since taking office. His disapproval included public buildings such as classrooms and nurseries for toddlers. In many cases, construction basically was approved, but Defense Min. Barak withheld his final signature, apparently the last step. [Is he toying with people, again? The government earlier had allowed construction to proceed, but withheld final authorization for no apparent reason, and then indignantly rebuked "illegal" construction.] PM Netanyahu said he made the proposal to show that Israel is serious about wanting peace negotiations. The State Dept. praised the Netanyahu regime for going further than any prior Israeli regime, but would prefer he have gone all the way. Abbas called the proposal insufficient. He still refuses to negotiate.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA, said that the freeze "only serves to encourage more pressure for Israeli concessions in the future (www.imra.org.il, 11/26).

In earlier reports, I had noted that the Netanyahu regime admitted having imposed an informal freeze. Including even a fence in the freeze seems excessive.

The last time nationalists brought down his regime, they ended up with one more appeasement-minded.

Concern about the 10-month period being extended makes sense, because if negotiations are not concluded in that time, can you imagine Netanyahu ending the freeze that he had imposed in order to induce negotiations? There is no reason Abbas could not negotiate without these demands. They amount to blackmail.


"Makor Rishon correspondent Ariel Kahane reports in today's edition that last week Minister of Housing and Construction Ariel Atias (Shas) presented Jerusalem construction plans to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu including 130 units in Har Homa, 30 in Pisgat Ze'ev and 20 in Ramot and that Netanyahu allowed Atias only to issue the tender for the 20 in Ramot and instructed Atias not to issue other tenders. The instruction, According to Kahane, effectively voided the decision his mini-cabinet of 7 had made before to implement the construction plans in Pisgat Ze'ev."

The government replied that it already had approved hundreds of applications in eastern Jerusalem. Min. Atlas explains that that approval was an earlier stage, but PM Netanyahu disapproved most of the first 180 in the next stage (www.imra.org.il, 11/27).

Leaving several stages of approval up to total government discretion allows it to block later what earlier it seems to have approved. This enables the regime to appease critics while pretending to please supporters. It hides intent, for a while.

(For more on construction in Jerusalem, go to
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY- Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Israel-plans- 5000-apartments-for-Arabs-in-Jerusalem ).


"...the claims of each side amount to half-truths, as the other is the first to note," writes Ethan Bronner of the New York Times.

[An old polemicist trick is to claim that one is moderate if one's stance is in between those of the two sides', who then are called extreme. Here Mr. Bronner illogically implies that when both sides accuse the other of half-truths, then both sides committed half-truths.]

"In recent years, the international community has demanded that Israel stop building on Jewish communities where the Palestinian Arabs want a state, and that those Arabs "dismantle terrorist networks and end violent attacks on Israelis." [That is a nice-sounding equivalency, until one realizes that the "international community" is equating murder with building houses. That the Palestinian Arabs want a state somewhere does not give them authority to insist on it. Their wish is not Israel's command.]

It might seem that both sides complied, "and peace talks would move forward." Israel announced a 10-month freeze on Jewish building in the Territories, and the Arabs "essentially" ceased violent attacks. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has been keeping order in its cities for almost a year. But that is misleading. The freeze is not total. Its exception for public service buildings includes "the kind of 'natural growth" banned by the dormant 'road map' for peace."

The IDF points out that it took the nightly IDF raids into the P.A. cities to stop the terrorism. Typically, there are 15 raids a night.

Israeli officials state that since the P.A. has no authority in Gaza, it cannot be said to have dismantled terrorist networks.

Based on having kept order, the P.A. asks for more withdrawals of Israeli troops. An Israeli commander answers that to keep the P.A. from becoming another rocket launching site like Gaza, Israel must have troops on the ground there (11/27, A16).

The half-truth that the P.A. stopped terrorism was promoted by the New York Times. The Times still promotes that notion, as by seldom reporting Israeli raids and the continuing terrorist attacks, such as the one in Kiryat Arba that I reported the other day. Then it reports that terrorism has been repressed by the P.A..

Israel's government and major media also contributed to that half-truth. Trying to encourage Arab anti-terrorism, and trying to put a good face on matters, they praised P.A. maintenance of order. By contrast, I reported the P.A. effort as against street crime and hardly against terrorism. I have reported the continuing P.A. indoctrination in jihad, threats to commit terrorism, and attacks, as well as P.A. failure to disarm the Fatah militia. Any efforts the P.A. undertook against the Hamas militia was self-preservation, not anti-terrorism.

Therefore, even excluding Hamas from the discussion, the P.A. cannot be said to have dismantled terrorist militias. It actually recruited many terrorists into the P.A. police. Arming terrorists that way is not dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, it is subsidizing it. The Times ignores that point.

The NY Times refers to the "international community." What is that? Another half-truth. The Security Council cannot handle most international security measures. Its members sabotage efforts to do so. But the UN can gang up on Israel. Does that organization of vested interests and log-rolling lobbies have moral authority? Not earned.

By what rationale does it take up the Arab demand that only Jews should stop building in Judea-Samaria. Why do the Times and the President make that a parallel demand to ending terrorism? The U.S. does suggest that the P.A. could negotiate without a total freeze, but where is the world indignation against the P.A. for stalling negotiations unless its demand for one be accepted?

Mr. Bronner made up the notion of PM Netanyahu's announcement of a building freeze being a misleading half-truth. Netanyahu did not claim it was total. He specified what it includes, what it excludes, and his reason for it. He was open about it. If anyone committed a half-truth, it was the NY Times for pretending that Israel was pretending.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2009.


We live in the period of the industrial revolution. The current emphasis on services and computers has prompted some to call this era "post-industrial" or "the computer age." I think we also can call this the era of the "big lie technique."

The "big lie technique" characterized Nazi propaganda. The bigger the lie, and the more often repeated, the more believed. The Nazis used that technique effectively against the Jewish people and others. So did the Soviet Communists. For me, those were contemporary events that I well remember.

Inspired by a combination of Islamic, Nazi, and Communist tactics, many Arabs also employ the "big lie technique" against Israel, the Jewish people, and the U.S.. They inspire Western leftists to adopt the lies about Israel without questioning the whole campaign based on Jew-hating prejudice.

Governments that appease the Arabs, or that, like the State Dept., an heir to Christian and especially missionary prejudice, promote their own anti-Israel bias.

Now that the Internet has made anonymous, networked, and swift communication available to uneducated people and bigots, big lies get disseminated widely.

Counter-reaction is weak. The major media and schools systems did not do their jobs of informing people and training them to think and question assumptions. They did not inculcate wholesome values. Colleges allowed youths' impulse for challenge and reform to become nihilistic and yet imagine they were idealistic.

Not only did the academic world lose its integrity. So did publishers. There always were rogue books, but now, so many embrace the big lies, that it is difficult for people to know what the truth is. Many don't care. They stick with their ideology against observable evidence, just as did hard-core Communists.

There is little societal challenge to the mass of libel encircling our planet, absorbing people's energy, and diverting their attention from real problems.


This is not a case of "settler violence" and of Hebron Jewry attacks on Arabs. A Palestinian Arab walked into Kiryat Arba, which is in the Israeli-controlled part of Judea and practically adjoins the Jewish sector of Hebron. He pulled out a knife and stabbed two Jews, strangers. A soldier stopped him by shooting.

Noting that the area had been quiet recently, the Hebron Jewish community spokesman suggests that the action was not an individual action an authorized reaction to Israel's acquiescence to U.S. pressure to freeze Jewish construction in the Territories and to renew negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

The answer, according to the spokesman [David Wilder], is to reject U.S. pressure and to expand Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria (11/26).

His suspicion is not a certainty. However, there has been a pattern of terrorism following Israeli concessions. There is sense for Israel to foreclose some terrorism, by absorbing more of the Territories and the vacant areas in between Jewish towns.


Marwan Barghouti is thought to be among the convicted terrorists Israel may release, so Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post analyzed how popular he is.

The analysis includes Fatah rumors about motives and popularity. They often are falsely conspiratorial and self-serving. I omitted the more speculative ones.

Barghouti wants to get out and become president of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Polls show he would win. He represents the [aging] "young guard" whom Abbas has been keeping down. The young guard [says it] opposes corruption. Barghouti wants to reconcile with Hamas.

The favorable polls may be mistaken. Popular? He headed Fatah's legislative ticket that lost to Hamas. The esteem for him may be just general solidarity with Israeli prisoners. Other young guard eminences may fear his competition.

Skeptical Palestinian Arabs ask whether he has Israeli backing. "Since when does Israel allow a security prisoner to give media interviews or hold meetings with Israeli, Palestinian, European and American officials in his prison cell?" (www.imra.org.il, 11/26).

Good question. Why are only a few right-wing Israelis asking that question?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, November 27, 2009.

Another hour and a half and it will be Shabbat. The Sabbath starts early this time of the year.

I've been thinking back. A week ago today I was in New York, staying with friends in Queens, getting ready for our annual Hebron Fund dinner. Shabbat there was very pleasant; a quiet and holy atmosphere, nice people, and of course, great food.

Saturday morning I spoke in a neighborhood synagogue. The people were very warm and the Rabbi's introduction almost left me with little to say. But, spokespeople, as it goes, always have something to say, and so I did. But the 'interesting' part of the prayer service, as far as I was concerned, wasn't my speech. Rather it was what the wise Rabbi mentioned to me after my 'aliyah,' making the blessings over a portion of the Torah reading.

According to Jewish law, when a person has survived a 'dangerous event' he or she recites a special blessing of thanksgiving, called "HaGomel." Plane trips, being over a great distance, also require recitation of this blessing, upon arrival at one's destination, when receiving an 'aliyah.' So following the final blessing over the Torah portion, I dutifully repeated that particular blessing, thanking G-d for my safe arrival in New York.

When I returned to my seat and shook hands with the Rabbi, smiling he said: "you, who live in Hebron, and walk the streets of Hebron every day — here in New York you have to give thanks to G-d for your safety!?

That certainly is an interesting way to view our lives, and in truth, we don't even pay attention to that thought of 'walking the streets of Hebron' and the seeming 'dangers' involved. After all, that's our life.


Last week in New York, and yesterday, 'covering' a terrorist attack at the entrance to Kiryat Arba, at the gas station where I fill up every time my tank gets thirsty. An Arab stepped out of a taxi, holding a knife, and according to some reports, also an axe, starting screaming, not 'HaGomel,' rather Allah HuAkbar — and started slashing. Only true Divine miracle prevented anyone from being killed.

That kind of event brings a person back to 'everyday reality' very quickly.

But, thinking back is not only yesterday or last week. This Shabbat, exactly seven years ago, three terrorists attacked Jews outside the south gate of Kiryat Arba, leaving 12 dead, including 3 civilians from Kiryat Arba's emergency squad, and nine officers and soldiers, among them, Col. Dror Weinberg, commander of the Judea Brigade, the highest ranking officer killed during the "Oslo War," aka the 2nd intifada. Thinking about, not only those men we lost, but the bravery of those who stood and fought, and finally killed the terrorists, still sends chills down my spine. Several of those heroes are from Hebron, but the person I remember most was a Druze officer name Siach, who drove over two and a half hours from his home in the north of Israel to Hebron to take part in the mission. Arriving and hearing that the last terrorist was still hiding on the roof of a house, he climbed up by himself, all alone, and faced off with the terrorist, killing him before the Arab killed him. Courage and faith so strong; it's beyond my human comprehension.

And yet, with the terror, past and present, we continue to live 'normal lives.' The dinner last week on Saturday night at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows was a tremendous success, and in some ways, even an answer to terror. How so?

I don't just measure the success only in terms of dollars and cents, or number of people attending. Of course, both are important; that cannot be denied. And in these respects I think the event was also successful. However, at least this year, success had another aspect — that being, the very fact that dinner took place, where it took place. American and Israel left wing organizations, Jewish and Arab, worked very hard to have the event cancelled. They wrote letters to the NY Mets, owners of Citi Field, initiated media events and protests, demanding that the event not take place, at least not at the home of the Mets. Newspaper and internet accounts, in Israel and in New York, were publicized.

To no avail. The Mets and the major league baseball commissioner refused to kowtow to these cowardly demands, and this is, in my opinion, part of the overwhelming success of the event.

It would be nice to see others, especially here in Israel, learn from the Mets, and refuse to accede to these types of terror. Like maybe our own Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu?! Last night minister Limor Livnat stated in no uncertain terms that the Israeli government has fallen on 'an awful American administration' and that the Prime Minister is going through heavy hardships and is 'under a lot of pressure' from the Obama administration.

So, what to do? To stand up, as did a soldier yesterday who shot the axe-wielding terrorist, and as did Siach 7 years ago and say "NO" — we will not accept this, and do something about it, or to cave in, to surrender, to declare a 'construction freeze' and again acquiesce to diplomatic terror?

I know what the answer is, as did those 12 men seven years ago, who gave their lives for Am Yisrael, for the people of Israel. As did all the people who today filled up their tanks at that same gas station where yesterday an Arab wounded two, attempting to murder them. You cannot run away, you cannot hide your head in the sand, you cannot make believe that ignoring it will only make things better. As someone said to me today, it's like feeding the crocodile, hoping that if you feed him long enough he won't eat you.

It doesn't work that way because in the end, you wind up being the crocodile's desert.

Advice to Bibi: take note of Obama's big teeth and hearty appetite.

Shabbat Shalom.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, November 27, 2009.

This essay was written by Karl Pfeifer, a Vienna-based journalist. It appeared today in Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1130957.html It's such a good refutation of the mindless comparison of Zionism and the Nazis.


I am an 81-year-old survivor of the Holocaust. Strange things happened to me last week in Germany.

A journalist, I had been invited by a student organization at Bielefeld University and College to give a lecture on "Racism and Anti-Semitism in Hungary." My host was the left-wing anti-fascist group Antifa AG at the Bielefeld campus, located in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

My lecture was scheduled to take place on November 19 at a youth center that serves as the home of a number of left-wing organizations. The event had been announced in late October, but two days before I was to appear, at a meeting of people who frequent the center, several raised an objection about my speaking there. They said they had received information that during Israel's War of Independence, when I served in the Palmach (the pre-state elite strike force of the Haganah), I had participated in a massacre in a Palestinian village. They went so far as to allege that I myself had actively participated in the killing.

Those accusing me did not name the place where this alleged massacre was committed, or provide any other details, and even acknowledged that their information was incomplete. But when pushed for corroboration, they settled the matter by explaining that "Pfeifer is a Zionist." At the same time, in an apparent — and bizarre — attempt to appear even-handed, those in attendance resolved that they also would not be willing to host someone who had been a member of the militant Palestinian organization Black September in the 1970s.

Of course, no one at the youth center asked me to respond to the accusations before they decided to rescind the invitation. Nor have any of them been willing to answer the questions of German journalists who learned about the incident regarding just why they excluded me. I only learned about what happened because it was reported to someone in Antifa by two of its members who had been present at the decisive meeting.

Fortunately, my hosts were able to organize an alternate space with limited notice, and I gave my lecture in the end. My subject was Hungary, where a recent resurgence of racist acts and statements can be observed. This includes the murder of eight Roma (Gypsies) in racial attacks during the past two years, and the shocking anti-Jewish verbal attacks in the right-wing media there and on YouTube.

As for me, I did indeed serve in the Palmach and the Israel Defense Forces from 1946 until 1950, after arriving in Mandatory Palestine in 1943. And although I left Israel in 1950, I am proud of my service as a soldier there, when we were defending ourselves against aggression and fighting for the right to have our own state. I did not participate in any massacres, but I know that improper acts were carried out by both sides in the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, as happens during wartime.

But the comparison of the Palmach with Black September, which carried out murderous acts of terrorism against civilians in the name of the Palestinian struggle, is an outrageous and ignorant one.

To accuse someone of having participated in a "massacre" — in this case, with no details and no proof — is an act of projection that is unfortunately not unusual in certain European circles. The best-known and by far the most widespread example of projection of guilt is the defamation of Israelis as the "Nazis of today." This is one of the most objectionable forms of anti-Semitism in the era after Auschwitz. As far as I can tell, my real crime apparently is being a "Zionist," which I can only understand as being guilty of being a Jew who defended himself and who favors the existence of a Jewish and democratic state. In Germany, I had the feeling that I was being judged by those arrogant anti-Semites not on the basis of what I have done or am doing, but for what I am.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 27, 2009.

This comes from the Daily Alert and was written by Amos Harel. It appeared today in Haaretz


Arabic media outlets reported yesterday that the Gilad Shalit deal will be completed after Id al-Adha, the Muslim feast of the sacrifice, which ends on Monday. The Syrian press, however, reported that the head of Hamas' Damascus-based political bureau, Khaled Meshal, took an even harder line than the organization's senior officials in Gaza, as he has done at most of the critical junctures in the protracted negotiations.

According to Syrian publications, with Gaza's leadership under pressure to present an achievement for its besieged population, Meshal is loath to forgo even a single, small potential concession for the sake of a Hamas victory in the internal struggle against Fatah. In the meantime, Shalit's family continued to meet with cabinet ministers and rabbis, exactly as in the previous round of talks in March. It's an embarrassing, not to say humiliating, spectacle.

A veteran European intelligence official with a great deal of experience in captive-release deals recently spoke with an Israeli colleague. He said he found it hard to understand what Israel was up to. "Why don't you end this wretched affair already? Look at the blows you inflicted on Hamas and the siege you imposed on Gaza because of one kidnapped soldier. All you have done is build up the organization. Who would even have looked at Gaza if it had not continued to hold the soldier?" he asked.

Israeli decision makers have great professional respect for the German mediators in the three deals negotiated in the past decade (the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum and the return of the bodies of the soldiers snatched from Har Dov in 2004; the 2008 return of the bodies of soldiers captured at the start of the Second Lebanon War in 2008; and the current talks for the return of Shalit, possibly this year). But the mediator's interests are not identical to Israel's. Despite the Germans' deep humanitarian commitment to resolving the Shalit issue, it's worth remembering that released Hamas prisoners are liable to strike here, not in Europe. It's Israel that has something to lose.

But despite everything, a deal now appears to be closer than ever. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to end the problem once and for all; on the Palestinian side, 11 months after the drubbing it took in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas in Gaza needs a success that will go some way toward offsetting its failure then. If Netanyahu goes for the deal — which the Palestinians must approve — he will have the support of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi is playing up his commitment to bringing home Shalit, a combat soldier. In conversations with soldiers and officers in field units, they express support for a deal. But senior officers do not all agree: Two officers, from two different units, expressed anger regarding what they see as Israeli society's obsession with Shalit and concerned that the exchange will be a shot in the arm to the terror organizations.

A few days ago a simple but effective clip objecting to the proposed deal began making the rounds on the Internet. It cuts between the recent video of Shalit issued by his captors with images of sites of terror attacks, and ends with smiling photos of their victims, many of them young. The photos are a painful reminder, not least because the Shin Bet security service is known to impute the murder of dozens of Israelis to terrorists who were released in the Tennenbaum deal.

For a long time Israeli leaders debated between settling for a fundamentally humanitarian measure and trying to make the deal part of a strategic arrangement on the Gaza Strip border. On Saturday Hamas proclaimed a full cease-fire, vowing to use force to keep the smaller factions from firing rockets at Israel. This is unlikely to be a coincidence: Hamas undoubtedly expects a quid pro quo in the form of an end to Israel's siege of Gaza in addition to the release of the prisoners.

In recent weeks the Obama administration has pressed Netanyahu to extend good-faith gestures to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, intended to compensate for the predicted blow to Fatah's popularity as a result of the deal. Netanyahu's declaration on Wednesday of a 10-month hiatus in settlement construction is not only a tardy response to Washington's requests. The U.S. administration will try to present it as an achievement for Abbas as well, despite the Palestinian Authority's disappointment with East Jerusalem's exclusion from the building freeze. Additional ideas were also raised in talks with the Americans — from transferring responsibility for security to the PA in more areas of the West Bank, to a massive release of Fatah prisoners as a gesture to Abbas. One possible scenario involves delaying by a few months the release of Marwan Barghouti, the emerging successor to Abbas, in order to separate it from the Shalit deal and thus also from a sense of obligation to Hamas.

Off-the-shelf attacks

The site where Shalit's abduction took place is clearly visible from the observation tower north of Kibbutz Kerem Shalom. Here, on the morning of June 25, 2006, a terrorist squad made its way via a tunnel from the Rafah area and crossed the border. They approached the Israeli forces deployed along the border fence, who were looking west, toward the Gaza Strip, from behind, surprising them. Two of the Palestinians charged the observation tower and were shot dead at its base. Others fired at an armored personnel carrier to the north and also attacked Shalit's Merkava tank. Under cover of the ensuing chaos, a few of the militants crossed back into Gaza with Shalit, who had been slightly injured in the incident.

The Hamas cells operating in Rafah and in neighboring Khan Yunis are considered more fanatic, compartmentalized and dangerous than those in the center and the north of the Gaza Strip. Israeli intelligence coverage of the area is less than ideal. The working assumption of the intelligence community is that Hamas, and likewise the smaller Palestinian militant groups, are constantly digging tunnels toward the border. An analysis of previous terror attacks near the fence indicate that in some cases, there was no prior intelligence warning.

The Palestinians have become more like Hezbollah in that they are moving from daily attacks to sophisticated, well-planned operations that are less frequent, but have the potential to be more lethal. These could include the incorporation of new tactics, such as firing antitank or antiaircraft missiles into Israeli territory from the tunnels. There is little doubt that the small factions — two of which were involved in Shalit's abduction, but have been been kept away from the negotiations and from enjoying a share in the political spoils by Hamas — will try to emulate the larger organization's success by trying to abduct more soldiers. These are "off-the-shelf attacks," which can be executed within a fairly short time and from close to the border.

The big question is whether Hamas itself will seek to challenge Israel again after the swap, or will instead try to engineer a Palestinian "velvet revolution." That would involve exploiting the organization's expected surge in popularity in the wake of the prisoners' release to work against Fatah and toward presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010, in the hope of taking over the West Bank as well.

Blood ties

This week Colonel Eran Niv, 39, concluded two and a half intense years as commander of the Ephraim Brigade, whose sector includes Qalqilyah and Tul Karm, in the West Bank. "He is a rare example of an officer who can run with a knife in his teeth and think at the same time," says a company commander who served under him.

The document summing up his tour of duty as brigade commander is studded with quotations from "Alice in Wonderland" and "Tom Sawyer" — not an everyday occurrence in IDF reports.

Even though he came up through the chain of command, as a company and battalion commander in the Nahal paramilitary brigade, Niv, thanks to his technological training, also oversaw the integration of computerized systems in operational activity. He was considering switching from combat to technology when the Second Lebanon War began, spurring him to rush to the aid of his Nahal Brigade buddies at Saluki and Randuriya. "I realized that there was no other option: In a nation that continues to live by the sword, not everyone can do what he wants," Niv said.

The most significant event in his military career was probably in November 2002, when terrorists killed 12 Israeli soldiers and security personnel from Kiryat Arba and Hebron, including Hebron Brigade commander Colonel Dror Weinberg. Three Islamic Jihad snipers shot them. Niv, then a battalion commander who was on leave in Tel Aviv, was called to the scene. He organized a team that attacked and killed the militants. In the months that followed he killed more terrorists in short-range firefights after they had killed settlers in the Hebron area.

Typically, Niv relates that story in talks which he gives to soldiers in various army courses. His focus is on the importance of conceptual flexibility in this type of situation. Niv also speaks warmly about Hebron. "It's a place with which I have blood ties. I lost soldiers there and I fought shoulder-to-shoulder with settlers."

How stable is PA rule in the West Bank? "I don't think anyone can really know," Niv responds. "What I can say is that in 2007 the cities here were in a state of neglect and the louts from Fatah collected protection money and harassed women on the street. Now the PA is demonstrating sovereignty here. A few days ago I visited an amusement park in Tul Karm after having been at an amusement park in Tel Aviv with my daughters on Shabbat. The same Chinese manufacturer sold the equipment to both places."

Asked what he has learned from his service, he says: "That there is nothing new under the sun: Good intelligence, operational freedom of action and the separation fence are what prevent terrorism. And if the PA is helping us with this, so much the better."

Niv also has a message about the importance of being earnest. "I was a company commander in Gaza after Oslo and I got burned there, like everyone. At that time we didn't know how to behave. Today we insist on every last detail in the agreements with the PA being carried out. There is no rolling of eyes and no backslapping. I am not their pal, but I work with them. Honoring agreements is a far better basis for success than eating hummus together."

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 Yaacov Levi, November 27, 2009.

This was written by Yehudit Katzover and Nadia Matar.


The announcement of the building freeze in Judea and Samaria is proof that Netanyahu, to our shame, is following in the path of Ariel Sharon — betraying the will of the Jewish majority that elected a right-wing government, and betraying Eretz Israel. There is only a single goal to the freeze: to persuade the Arabs to participate in negotiations to advance the establishment of the Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, and thereby relinquish Eretz Israel.

There are those among us who say, "These are only words," "This is just tactics with the United States," "Don't worry, the Arabs won't agree to any plan." We cannot make light of words. Netanyahu already failed when he said "two states," which means surrendering Eretz Israel, just like when he said "freeze," which means "construction in Eretz Israel is illegal." Words have power, and they strongly penetrate. If our stance since the Six Day War had been consistent and we had used the suitable words: "This is our land" and had acted accordingly and immediately annexed these portions of the homeland, we would dwell securely in it.

Now we must respond powerfully. If we continue with routine life, we will fall victim to the other planned decrees that apparently aim to eliminate the entire Jewish settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. in order to establish a Palestinian state here. As is well-known, this would constitute an existential threat to all the small State of Israel.

As long as we thought that the State of Israel is a democratic country, we could make do with demonstrations in order to try and influence the government. For a long time, Israel has not been democratic. The leftist policy rules it, despite the voters' desire for nationalism and Zionism. Now we must channel all our energy and strength to the cancellation of the decree, by construction, construction, and more construction. We must build throughout Judea and Samaria, within the settlements, in private houses, and outside the settlements, on the surrounding hills.

The call of the hour is therefore to establish a fund for the construction of Eretz Israel, in which millions of dollars will be invested in order to enable continued construction throughout Judea and Samaria. We are convinced that if the left found donors in Israel and abroad who are willing to contribute enormous sums for their slanderous, anti-Israel propaganda activity, that surely there are more donors, friends and lovers of Israel, who will be ready to contribute to the struggle to build the land and materialize the Zionist dream of returning the Jewish people to its land.

All the information for the "Construction of Eretz Israel" project is ready. We are in contact with Jewish contractors who are capable of building a 48 square meter house within five days, at a cost of NIS 100,000, or a 70 square meter structure for NIS 200,000. Many young couples are willing to live in such simple structures, on the hills and/or in the settlements. All that is missing is a flow of budgets.

If we are successful in raising large sums, resulting in the construction of dozens of new structures throughout Judea and Samaria, this will constitute a Zionist response to the Prime Minister's collapse. They might succeed in destroying one or two structures — we will have to immediately rebuild them, and realize that the building was not for nothing, since the construction of the structure that was later destroyed raised the flag of the struggle and kindled the fervor to continue to build.

A week ago, two houses, each costing NIS 250,000, were destroyed in Negohot. Now, five families are waiting to build their homes on the same hill in Negohot. In Mevo Dotan a sheep pen worth NIS 200,000 was destroyed — that very night they began to build a new sheep pen, within the ruins, of much smaller dimensions. If the Build the Land of Israel Fund had already existed, we could have rebuilt the pen in its previous size, and even added housing units for young couples who are standing in line to populate the hills of Judea and Samaria.

With stubbornness and devotion for each clod of earth in Eretz Israel we will merit possessing it. In this month of Kislev, let us draw strength from the Maccabees, who heroically and fearlessly violated the decrees of the empire. With G-d's help, we will raise from Israel's friends in the country and abroad the necessary budgets, and we will set forth on a construction drive all over Judea and Samaria. In place of a freeze — construction. In place of halting — breaking through. In place of fallen spirits — we will raise the people's spirit. With G-d's help, this is within our power.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 27, 2009.

Joseph Farah rips into those who condone 'blatant ethnic cleansing' of Jews.


For more than five years, I have been conspicuously alone in pointing out the racist, anti-Jewish nature of policies that require the evacuation of Israelis from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and, more lately, the halts on building and repairing homes and businesses owned by Jews in Jerusalem.

Finally, someone in Israel has figured this out and called the policies advocated by Barack Obama and the international elite what they are.

"Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews, Muslims and Christians or between eastern and western Jerusalem," said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. "The demand to halt construction by religion is not legal in the United States or in any other free place in the world. I do not presume that any government would demand to freeze construction in the United States based on race, religion or gender, and the attempt to demand it from Jerusalem is a double standard and inconceivable."

Barkat was responding to Obama's remarks on Fox News Channel about the approval of 900 new apartments in the southern Jerusalem community of Gilo as "settlement activity," suggesting, irrationally and irresponsibly, that it justified Palestinian violence. The Palestinian Authority quickly adopted Obama's line to rationalize future terrorist attacks.

However, even the most appeasing Israelis — people like Shimon Peres — see Gilo, with its existing population of 30,000 Jews right in the heart of the Israeli capital, as undisputedly Israeli territory, land that will never be negotiated away.

It's clear now Obama, like the Muslim world, doesn't believe any Israeli territory is beyond dispute.

This is what I have been saying and writing since 2004: No more ethnic cleansing — not in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. — see

When the Palestinian Authority demanded that all Jews leave Gaza in anticipation of declaring it to be part of a future Palestinian state, the world did not notice the implications.

Why would Jews not be welcome living in a Palestinian state?

Because the Palestinian leadership is racist.

Why would blatant ethnic cleansing of this sort be embraced by the world when ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world is roundly denounced? Why is there an exception made for Jews? Why is it OK to remove Jews from their homes and businesses in the Middle East? Why is it acceptable to forbid Jews from building and repairing homes and businesses on the basis of their religion? How can this be tolerated, let alone condoned and championed as progressive policy by people like Obama?

I made the same point in 2005 — see

What would you say if I told you the United States is backing a plan to uproot forcibly people from their homes because they are Muslim?

You would probably be incredulous, I said.

You would probably be shocked, I said.

You would probably be outraged, I said.

And you would be right.

Well, rest assured there was no plan backed by the United States to uproot forcibly peaceful Muslims from their homes anywhere in the world.

There was, however, a plan to do just that to several thousand peaceful Jews, many of whom have lived for a generation in thriving communities — showcases of prosperity and freedom for their neighbors.

This anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing plan was known as the "disengagement" plan in Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

There is only one reason these people were displaced — because they are Jews in a land where Jews are not welcome.

And the world condoned it.

Earlier this year, I pointed it out, again at

In May, Obama announced he would be taking what he and his administration referred to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy."

I explained what that meant.

"It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank," I wrote. "I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel — let alone their own country." I returned to this theme in September after what I called "Obama's Judenrein speech." See:

"The Nazis had a word for what Barack Obama declared in the United Nations General Assembly last week," I wrote. "When a city or a district or a nation was 'clean of Jews,' it was pronounced 'Judenrein.' The goal of the Nazis was, of course, for all of Europe to be cleansed of Jews — then the whole world."

Was I being harsh?

Not if you understand the nature of Obama's demand for an end to "Israeli settlements" in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem — and, now apparently, the entire city.

Since Obama took office in January, the U.S. government has greatly increased pressure on Israel to halt any and all of the following:

  • building of new homes and businesses by Jews in these areas;
  • building additions on existing homes and businesses by Jews in these areas;
  • repairing of existing homes and businesses by Jews in these areas;

Why would the U.S. government want to stop Jews from building homes and businesses in lands that have been under Israel's control for the last 42 years and a part of Israel's history for the last 3,000 years?

Because the U.S. government has predetermined that these lands are going to be part of a future Palestinian state — one that will be conspicuously Jew-free.

In other words, Barack Obama is in favor of an ethnic-cleansing operation — one that will eventually require the forcible removal of all Jews, no matter how long they have lived in these areas, no matter what they paid for their properties, no matter what.

I'm gratified to see an Israeli awakening to what has been the plan from the beginning.

Jews in the Middle East are starting to get the picture — if a little late.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi Unsdorfer, November 27, 2009.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I mean no personal disrespect to you but feel impelled to write and express my outrage at the sullying of the illustrious Rothschild name and lineage by your son's association with the Gadaffi family.

As a Jew and a committed Zionist I have always been aware and immensely proud of the achievements of the Rothschild dynasty and its contribution to my people and its state.

But to see the next generation openly socialising with such rabidly anti-Semitic and murderous despots truly sickens me. For our people, no amount of commercial profit or dividend can possibly justify such associations.

By what right does young Nat presume to trample and trash a reputation built up over centuries of professional excellence and communal endowment?

It truly saddens me to the core.

I hope you share the same sentiment ... and perhaps enough shame to do something about it.

Contact Zalmi Unsdorfer at http://zalmi.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 27, 2009.

This was written by Dan Barkey, a writer and a poet.


Israeli and Jewish Patriotism, Israeli Anarchist and Communists, and Brest-Litovsk — a condensed anti-Israeli academia Fascist Left tirade.

Yes, there is such a thing as patriotism, yes, there is such a thing as Israeli and Jewish Patriotism, and there is such a thing as patriotism without Oppressive Nationalistic Despotism.

All this in Israel of today.

All this as witnessed in its all-inclusive participatory democracy, which accepts parliament members from among its avowed enemies, as witnessed by its basic democratic freedoms of speech, thought and gathering, and witnessed as well in its high living standards enjoyed by all of its minorities together with its main ethnic group, the Jewish majority, for which the country had been erected. And a country to envy it is already, in spite of its short modern history and of its beleaguered state of affairs. Not for nothing you see hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in its midst, even from Muslim countries from far and near, and not for nothing you don't see hundreds of thousands of legal emigrants from among its Arab minority to their sister countries, which still live in dust and squalor. Certainly not to the Palestinian Authority, and absolutely not to the Gazan Hamastan.

But for a few but noisy to an extreme, highly indoctrinated 200 plus persons in Israel that claim the unsavory appellation of Anarchists, and but for a few thousands of hardened Jewish Communists and another few thousands of Arab Extreme National-Communists, which can be compared only to the Hitlerian National-Socialists of Nazi Germany in their depth of hatred for the Jews that provide them with such envied amenities of modern life as described above, all Israelis are patriots, and all jump to attention when "tsav 8" lands in their hands, calling them to army service as reservists in times of need. Add to this their international collaborators screaming at the top of their lungs their hatred for Israel, who are Palestinians in their majority and a handful of self-hating West Coast US Jews, and you have a collection of insanely blind to truth and decency extreme camp that is dead set to wipe Israel from atlas books, for more than that they cannot do.

You'll have to trust me on all that I say here about Anarchism and Communism, otherwise you'll have to read volumes of chatterbox babble, of rant and empty vent, full of irresponsible naiveté about the inherent human good nature to be trusted in a lawless, ungoverned world, full of hatred for anything that is civilized, beautiful, good and considerate, decent and honorable by basic, commonsensical, intuitive human norms, in the case of the Anarchists, and full of a determined will to hate with a passion all that is not of the proletariat class and of a proved determined will to annihilate such individuals, in the case of the Communists.

Let us start, with a determined and vigorous move, to unveil the shroud of illogical contradiction encasing the Anarchist, Israeli and International, world view, regarding the unsolvable, life and death, Jewish-Muslim/Arab, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just the other day I perused some anarchistic literature. Now, I'm confused. Which is not my usual state of mind, I attest to myself with modesty.

Why peddling for a Palestinian state, when all they are against is STATE, all and any State? Why clamoring against the alleged theft of Palestinian property by the returning Jews, when all they are against is, you guessed right, property? Didn't Prudhon, Bakunin, Nechayev and the Russian Prince Kropotkin et al, the anarchist infamous fathers, maintained that ALL property is theft? You read right, they hold it that all property is theft.

If to follow the modern Israeli Anarchists, helped by their no less violent international collaborators, if Palestinian property is to be sanctified, then will not The Land of Israel, claimed by its lawful owner, the Jewish Nation, be an identical case of sanctified property? Why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? On the other hand, if all property, including Jewish, is theft, shouldn't we include Palestinian property in it? Equality for all, I say, goose and gander included.

If the anarchists Kobi Snitz, and Uri Gordon, an Israeli Jew Muslim convert and one of the most avowed anti-Israeli anarchist activists if there were any among them, both academicians preaching their hatred here and abroad, are able to say with a straight face that their anti-West Bank Separation Wall demonstrations are non-violent, whereas policemen are seriously wounded by stones hurled at them in these demonstrations, then you understand with whom you deal. And I mean STONES, not gravel, ok? More like boulders. In the US, and probably not only, stones are considered a lethal weapon. But what are for them, the local and foreign anarchists, 1,130 Israeli lives, slaughtered, murdered barbarously and untimely by the Palestinian terrorists BEFORE the Wall? Nothing, if to judge from their pooh-poohing dismissal of the Defense Wall logic. What do they care that this appalling number in itself and its grim meaning was reduced to 30 in 2006? Not that 30 murdered lives count to naught, but less dead are just that, less deaths, and this is good, very good, and no one will dare tell me how to defend myself after years of attacks on my body and property, separation or not, proportionately or not. You'll have to read Gordon's article "Right of Reply: Anarchy in the Holy Land!"
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1181570256861&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) to understand the depth of naked, unabashed hypocrisy, make-believe innocence, condoned sabotage, and utter disrespect for anything decent that this man of academy writes in response to the scathing article on Israeli Anarchism "Power and Politics: Anarchy has its place"
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid= 1178708666164&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). In effect, what he writes there comes to saying to you: "Let me shit on your porch, you'll clean it anyway, but before that let me slap you in the face and spit you between the eyes". And all this, mind you, in the name of his hatred for you, the Israeli Jewish Patriot.

In all of this, he and the other anarchists walk in the footsteps of their mentors, the above mentioned fathers of Anarchy, the wild offspring of Rousseau's and Weishaupt's philosophies of the fateful 18th century, both radical monster parents of anti-civilization, anti-State, anti-family and anti-property detailed ideology (and, yes, I stand firmly behind what I say), the bastard child of Socialism initiated by these two; they walk in the footsteps of the above mentioned fathers of Anarchy, who were followers with murderous fury in their eyes of Robespierre and Marat of the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution the First, and of the other two, no less violent, French Revolutions.

Now I ask, if the STATE as such is to be forfeited, why start with the Jewish one? Why not start with the Palestinian, which is nonexistent anyway — and will forever be so, because they show themselves incapable for it to a pathetic extreme, so let us not erect one in order to eliminate it later on the wake of a fulfilled anarchic world. And no pitiful, made-up explanations from Gordon's mouth will do away with his self-contradictory illogic. Let such men of academia not poison our children's minds with their naively misconstrued, fanatically inhuman philosophies.

They, Gordon and Snitz, won't tell you, but they will implement, if it were in their power, the fanatic murderous philosophies of same Rousseau's and Weishaupt's militant Socialism.

What this criminal ideology brought ultimately on its subjugated population where it was implemented, will be monstrously clear immediately below.

After being done with them Anarchists, let us tack to the bureaucratic, governing, Statist and militant form of Socialism, the ultra-violent one, the Communist form.

On this, Prof. Anat Biletski, the B'Tselem organization's ideological life and soul and the main influence in it, attesting to herself, says: "I see myself both as a leftist — a communist, a Marxist — and as a humanist."

Let me make it clear. Not for nothing does she say "I see myself both as a leftist ... and as a humanist.": If being a Marxist would imply being a humanist, and if being a humanist would imply being a Marxist, she would have no need whatsoever to say so.

But, for all I know, and soon enough you will know this too, the two terms, "Marxist" and "humanist" are mutually exclusive. This is a maxim on which I stand equally firm.

No achievement of Communism anywhere in its realm can be justified by the systematic, ideological, institutional murder that ensued in its places of rule worldwide, because:

Between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the 20th century were caused directly, and justified, by its one-class rule, the proletariat class-based ideology. This class-genocide was rivaled only by the Nazi race-genocide, and even then, the numbers are infamously on the Communist side, this inhuman class-based conflict ideology death factory.

The cobbled streets of Paris of the three French Revolutions were covered in blood, Russia in particular, and its satellite subjugated Eastern Europe colonies, and the other countries following it, were equally drenched in blood and sufferings, extreme sufferings, among which Cambodia is The ultimate fearful example of the militant Socialist extreme hatred for the human race civilization: During his four years in power, Pol Pot, the leader of the Cambodian communist movement, known as the Khmer Rouge ["Red (as in 'red' of the Communist flag) Cambodian", the name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Cambodia], imposed a social engineering version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero", in which the intelligentsia per-se was to be exterminated. The combined effects of slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions, the systematic murder of members of various groups, the complete destruction of individual rights, forced labor, disease, and starvation in Cambodia's "killing fields", the transformation of a developing country into a xenophobic agrarian society, and other horrors that can be ascribed to the cruelty or ineptitude of the totalitarian dictator Pol Pot, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people, approximately 21% of the Cambodian population, a fifth of it!! (Wikipedia, and other sources).

All these widespread crimes were done in the name of a fanatic, blind attempt to re-civilize the world on the ruins of the existing civilization, on the ruins of basic human decency, on the ruins of culture, family and peaceful government however flawed it is or can be.

All this frightful "human" systematic, ideologist philosophies, both Anarchist and Communist, are based on a certain analysis of the human praxis, in the words of Marx, based in its turn on the philosophies of Rousseau and Weishaupt as their ultimate source.

Those two are The Fountainhead of an extremely rationalized attempt to analyze the human situation, in the wake of which certain conclusions were drawn, which, to be turned into action, demanded an equally extreme kind of (revolutionary) action, one which justified any and all means to be taken in order to implement the said conclusions.

For it is found written black on paper in countless books and pamphlets and expressed countless times by the leaders and proponents of these two camps of the Extreme Left for more than two hundred years, starting with the the First French Revolution in 1789, and continuing to this day in Cuba and North Korea, that the revolution justifies all and any means toward its full implementation. Machiavelli mentioned this dictum in his book, "The Prince". They, adopted it verbatim, lying and deceiving, killing and imprisoning, wrapped it in blood and buried in human suffering wherever and whenever it was tried.

No, I don't have the slightest respect or consideration for the Israeli Anarchists and Communists. Certainly not for the Arab members of these camps, who are of the most nationalistic brand and who use the militant Socialist ideology for their ulterior ends, to deprive The Jewish Nation of its lawful property, The Land of Israel.

As Lenin betrayed and sold Russia to Germany in the WWI in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the opportunity and money that they gave him to return to Russia and start his longed for revolution, something which he admitted in his trial at the time, before his coming to power, and which took Russia out of the war, a prize for the Germans and a blow to the Allies, so the Extreme, Fascist Left in Israel is willing to sell their motherland for their lunatic ideology, no matter what the price will be.

The Fascist Left Anarchist and Communist exponents in the academia, who pose the gravest threat to the Israeli society because it is they who teach and influence our children, are to be expulsed forever from any and all academia posts that they hold in Israel and hopefully abroad too.

May the higher education committee in Israel see this before it's too late, and may the donors see it too, before they open their wallets. Amen!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 26, 2009.

Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria is based on a series of erroneous assumptions:

1. A Freeze will not soften — but will intensify — President Obama's criticism of "settlements" in particular and Israeli policy in general. For instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14, 2009 Two-State-Solution-speech triggered exacerbated pressure by Obama. Moreover, Netanyahu's willingness to exchange hundreds of Palestinian terrorists for Gilad Shalit was followed by US pressure to release more terrorists.

2. A Freeze will not moderate — but will wet the appetite of — the PLO (Abu Mazen) or Hamas (Haniye'); it will radicalize their demands and fuel their terrorism. Former Prime Minister Barak's sweeping concessions, offered to Arafat and Abu Mazen in October 2000, were greeted by the PLO-engineered Second Intifada'. Furthermore, Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented offer of concessions (including the return of some 1948 refugees) was rebuffed by Abu Mazen.

3. A Freeze re-entrenches the misperception of Jewish presence in Judea & Samaria as a/the obstacle to peace. It diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Abu Mazen-engineered hate education — the manufacturing line of terrorists — and Arab rejection of the existence — and not just the size — of the Jewish State.

4. A Freeze and the adherence to Presidential dictate will not transform the White House position on Iran-related matters. Besides, a Freeze and the adherence to Presidential dictate do not constitute a prerequisite to maintaining constructive strategic relations with the USA (e.g. supply of critical military systems and crucial strategic cooperation). In fact, a Freeze and a serial submission to Presidential pressure — just like any other form of retreat — erode Israel's strategic posture in Washington and in the Middle East. Such an attitude ignores the role and power of Congress — especially when it comes to the Jewish State — at the dire expense of Israel's national security.

Is Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria an/the obstacle to peace?

1. In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas, and induced more smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel.

2. President Obama defines Jewish presence in Judea & Samaria as a root cause of Arab hostility toward the Israel. However, Jewish communities were first established in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War of 1967, the 1956 and 1948 wars, the 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, the 1964 establishment of the PLO, the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc.

3. President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?!

4. Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?!

5. Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria would he tolerate Jewish opposition to Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within pre-1967 Israel. Doesn't such a reality highlight the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?!

6. Obama pressures Israel to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Arab construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Doesn't the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome of negotiation?!

7. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan. The most recent internationally-recognized sovereign over Judea and Samaria was the League of Nations-authorized 1922 British Mandate, which defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish history. Article 6 of the Mandate indicates the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School and former Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Security Council Resolution 242, asserted that 242 entitled Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Oslo Accord and its derivatives do not prohibit "settlements." Moreover, Israel has constrained construction to state-owned — and not private — land, avoiding expulsion of Arabs landowners.

Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is not a peace-enhancer; it is an appeasement-enhancer.  

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il This article is #230

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 26, 2009.

I wrote last night not long after the announcement had been made by Netanyahu that there would be a 10 month freeze on building in communities in Judea and Samaria. Now it is time to take a closer look at some of the details of what is happening, and possible implications.

The original announcement made it sound as if there would simply be a freeze on issuing new tenders for building, and that no new permits for starting building projects would be signed. The number that is being used is 3,000 — 3,000 housing units already in process or about to start that presumably would continue, not affected by the freeze.

But, in point of fact, the situation is more complicated than this. If construction has already started on a site — if there are bulldozers digging the foundation, or masons pouring concrete, or whatever — the work will be allowed to continue. But if work has been contracted and permits signed, but no actual physical work has begun, then it seems the process will be put on hold.

I am a bit vague as to where in the process of getting started the freeze would occur. That is, for example, if workmen have been hired and have gone out to the site, but the foundation hasn't been started and all they've done is unload materials — will they be allowed to continue? (I've heard nothing in this regard, but it seems to me that this creates the potential for leaving in limbo families who were depending on a new home being constructed and believed everything was in place.)


What is more — and this is certainly something that was obvious to anyone considering repercussions, and a source of much concern — there have been statements regarding the fact that if "productive" negotiations were going on, the freeze would not stop at the end of 10 months, but would continue for the duration of those negotiations.

So, what would constitute "productive" negotiations and who would determine this?


The only member of the Security Cabinet who actually voted against the motion was Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu). Landau left Sharon's cabinet rather than support the expulsion from Gush Katif. The man has retained his integrity, and we should remember this.

The two Shas ministers — Interior Minister Eli Yeshai and Housing Minister Ariel Atias — absented themselves. The other 11 ministers voted for this proposal.

That means that the two nationalists, supporters of building in Judea and Samaria, whom I alluded to last night — Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon — voted for it. Which leaves the door open to many questions. Begin made light of what had just been approved, saying all that will stop is the issuing of new permits. "During these 10 months thousands of housing units and public buildings will be built in the West Bank to allow [people] to lead normal lives, and once the 10 months are over the government of Israel, just as it has declared, will resume construction in the West Bank in accordance with the policy of past Israeli regimes." And indeed, that is what Netanyahu did declare last night: "As soon as the suspension period concludes, my government will resume the West Bank construction policy of previous governments." But that's only what will happen if the PA doesn't come to the table. There's a good chance it won't, and the prime minister may be counting on this. But it's not quite as simple they say, and this way is fraught with dangers. Netanyahu claims he is doing this to bring the PA into negotiations. Does he imagine, by any stretch of the imagination, that if they did come to the table, they'd remain there if we started issuing new building permits after a 10-month halt?

It was Uzi Landau who was realistic about this, saying that it's obvious that at the end of 10 months Obama will seek an extension. He's right, and this might be the case even if the PA hasn't come to the table. (In typical Obama mode, he might want to give them another chance.)

Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon said this action was taken to "avoid a confrontation with our allies," but "the goal is to preserve our interests." He maintained that it was the right thing to do.


So now we ask: What the hell is going on? What is it that we don't know? Binyamin Netanyahu, whatever his faults, is not Ehud Olmert. Or Tzipi Livni. He does not have a genuine longing in his heart to give away our country. No one should think this of him. And I will defend him against anyone who does.

What Netanyahu has, is a reputation for caving under American pressure. And he developed this reputation, it must be noted, in a situation that was less pressured than the present. Right now he is confronting an enormous amount, with regard to the demands of Obama and company, coupled with the horrendous campaign of Israeli delegitimization that is taking place, and which has led to Goldstone and more.

So, is this what we're looking at? A caving to the Americans and an effort to avoid international criticism? If so, this is a serious error.

Ya'alon's comment about avoiding confrontation with our allies makes it seem so. So does Lieberman's statement:

"We've been more than fair with the Palestinian Authority, both in our intentions to resume negotiations and in actions on the ground, including the removal of roadblocks....

"We've allowed this irresponsible group to hold the Fatah convention, where decisions that do not differ from those upheld by Hamas were reached. [The Fatah Congress this summer voted to retain the option of armed resistance.]

"We have a commitment to Israel's allies, who supported us on the Goldstone Report issue, not to the PA. We also have a commitment to the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, so we must reiterate that construction will be resumed at the conclusion of the 10-month period."

Because we received support from the US on Goldstone, and Obama's government is committed to vetoing it in the Security Council, we have an obligation to compromise an essential right of ours? Don't like the sound of this, at all.

This is not the way to secure legitimization for our nation, but would achieve the opposite — as we diminish ourselves. Now, more than ever, is the time for us to present a strong and secure face to the world. Now we must be firm in our rights.


And yet, there's a "but" here.

I alluded to it last night and several times before. When Netanyahu walked away from his secret meeting with Obama, he said that in time we would understand why it had to be secret. I do not believe that the secrecy was simply with regard to getting a promise on Goldstone in return for a settlement freeze. They didn't need an hour alone without aides to discuss that. There's more... whatever the "more" is.

At the time, there were hints and rumors regarding some discussion that took place about Iran. I still don't know if those rumors and hints were true. Ra'anan Gissin, journalist and former Sharon associate, for example, wrote a commentary in which he said that discussions about Iran should be kept away from public attention. And his was only one of several comments.

The fact remains that while I do not know with any certainty what the situation is, I feel a responsibility to mention this. I suggest that, even as we protest and feel angry (and appropriately so), we must keep in mind that there may be more than meets the eye. At the end of the day, we might learn something that helps us to understand that Netanyahu had reasons for acting as he did that were genuine expressions of his concern for the nation. We might see a quid pro quo that made some sense. Might.

Post editor David Horovitz suggests that Iran is involved in this because Obama believes he cannot rally the Arabs against Iran without progress on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. For me, this is shtuyote — nonsense, although indeed Obama did make such a linkage many months ago. Surely Netanyahu is aware that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are terrified of Iran in their own right and frankly eager to see action against it. This would not be a good reason to freeze building in our communities. Not in my book. I don't believe the Arab states even care about their fellow Arabs here. (See Michael Freund on this very subject:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1259010982966&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull .)

But an American readiness to assist indirectly if we decide to attack would be a good reason. As might a serious effort to promote and levy tough, meaningful sanctions against Iran. Remember that as Netanyahu went to Washington, Obama, for all his public bravado, was feeling extraordinarily frustrated by Iran, which had just spit in his outstretched hand.


And, before we leave the subject of Iran and Israel, let me share this:

Very recently, for the first time in years, both Russia and China, which have been stumbling blocks to action against Iran, said they would support a toughly-worded statement critical of Iran. A statement won't make anything happen, but it was good news because it signaled a shift on the part of these two nations.

Now we learn that the US promoted the shift, at least on the part of China. At the beginning of the month, before Obama visited China, two White House officials, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, went to Beijing and told leaders that, for Israel, Iran is an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries." That is: Israel may bomb Iran, and no one would be able to prevent it. But this could cause problems in this part of the world that would adversely affect you. So, the more you're on board with stopping Iran, the less likely this is to happen.

I thought this fascinating. And if the US can do this with China, could they not with the Gulf states? Makes more sense than trying to "lure" them by promising peace negotiations for the PA, no?


On another front, the negotiations on Shalit have for the moment been stopped by Hamas. They are accusing us of blocking the trade by refusing to release certain terrorists. (Terrorists, of course, is my word and not theirs.)

There's a lot of talk about how this trade would strengthen Hamas in the street, and thus further weaken Abbas and Fatah. Hamas has, astutely, asked that some of those released be Fatah people, so it can make the claim that it acts on behalf of all Palestinian Arabs and that it brought Fatah people out of prison when Fatah couldn't.


Please, see this piece by Daniel Pipes that discusses the threat to Western society poses by Islamists who infiltrate. It's a more serious problem than terrorists and it merits serious attention.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259010982966& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


"The Good News Corner"

Israel is the world's leader in developing responses to and promoting research on Alzheimer's. For example:

[] Research at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva may lead to the development of a vaccine that reduces neural damage and brain inflammation.

[] NexSig Neurological Examination Technologies — an Israeli company — has developed software that can help assess patients at risk of Alzheimer's before the illness sets in. This is exceedingly important, as there are now drugs available that help delay the on-set of the disease. If the disease is already in progress, it's too late for some of these medications.

[] The blood-brain barrier is a thin membrane that protects the brain from chemicals and potentially harmful substances in the blood. But this barrier also serves to block medication to the brain. Now scientists at Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, and Rabin Medical Center, working together, have developed a molecule small enough to pass through the brain's defenses. An anti-oxidant, known for short as AD4, it is expected to prove useful in the treatment and prevention of Alzheimer's.

[] Dr. Ramit Ravona — Springer MD, head of the Memory Clinic, Sheba Medical Center has done research that reveals a correlation between personality and the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's. People who tend to "ruminate" over problems in their life in middle age are — surprise! — less likely to develop Alzheimer's. This was surprising to us," the doctor said, "as rumination [chewing over something and not letting it go] is a cognitive style characteristic of neurotic individuals."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 26, 2009.

The following is a Fox News report from yesterday.


Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

Neal Puckett, an attorney representing McCabe, told Fox News the SEALs are being charged for allegedly giving the detainee a "punch in the gut."

"I don't know how they're going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom," Puckett said. "But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they're going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia."

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.
(Source: Fox News)

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, November 26, 2009.

At about 3:30 this afternoon, an Arab stepped out of a taxi next to the gas station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba. Walking through the gate, he pulled out a knife and stabbed two people near the gas pumps. An Israeli soldier at the site immediately shot the terrorist, wounding him very seriously.

The two Israelis injured, a man and woman, were evacuated by ambulance to Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem. Their conditions were reported to be, thank G-d, only slightly wounded.

A Hebron spokesman issued the following statement:

This terror attack is clearly the Arab response to Israel's continued acquiesence to American pressure, both to stop all building in Judea and Samaria, and to renew 'piece negotiations' with Abu Mazen and the PTA — the palestinian terror authority. This area has been quiet for a long time; certainly this terrorist did not act on his own, planning and perpetrating a terror attack just outside Hebron. If Israel continues to concede to Arab-American demands, this is only a small taste of things to come.

It should be remembered that hundreds of convicted terrorist murderers, including Marwan Barghouti, are scheduled to be released in return for Gilad Shalit, should the deal be finalized. Abu Mazen himself spoke of continued 'resistance' at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem a few months ago.

The only response to terror is to declare in no uncertain terms: 'NO' to the Obama administration and to continue to expand communities in Judea and Samaria. Any other answer will only lead to more terror and bloodshed.

See video here.

You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Don Feder, November 26, 2009.

Is there any doubt that the ADL has become an adjunct of the DNC? The Anti-Defamation League pushes a leftist agenda in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry.

The ADL and the establishment left have a Vulcan mind-meld. The left thinks a wave of anti-Obama hysteria is sweeping the land, driven by ignorance and prejudice. So does the ADL. The left believes Islam is a benign force, and frets that terrorist acts like the Fort Hood murders will negatively impact American Muslims. The ADL couldn't agree more.

The left abhors the Tea Parties and protests at town hall meetings, as does the ADL. The left views talk radio a vampire considers a stake smeared with garlic and immersed in holy water. Holy glatt-kosher cow...so does the ADL.

The ADL's latest contribution to agitprop is its report "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies,"
(http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/_ which should have been subtitled "Those beastly conservatives are being so mean to our president."

Among other instances of conspiracy-mongering and "demonizing" Saint Barack, the ADL cites the Tea Parties. Tea Party activists "express their anger at the government," the ADL observes in the hushed tones of revelation. Imagine that: Americans who are angry at their government. Such a thing is unheard of in the annals of U.S. history.

Also, the ADL informs us, many at the Tea Parties express views that "fall outside the mainstream." What, are they in favor of same-sex marriage, nationalized health care, and gun confiscation? Do they view the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as prohibiting saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes in a legislative chamber?

No, silly. In the ADL's alternate reality, only conservatives harbor views that fall outside the mainstream. Thus do the 21% of Americans who call themselves liberal categorize the 40% who identify with conservatism.

To confirm its judgment, the ADL discloses that "Angry protesters have frequently made claims ranging from proclaiming Obama's 'socialist' intentions to making explicit Nazi comparisons to suggesting that the president is defying or even subverting the Constitution."

Socialist intentions — like taking over the U.S. auto industry and trying to federalize health care so bureaucrats will make life-and-death decisions about who gets what medical services? Subverting the Constitution — as in appointing a plethora of policy-making czars who aren't accountable to Congress?

The self-styled extremist-watchers claim that "Various conservative and far-right organizations encouraged people to attend the town hall meetings," where "protesters expressed rage at elected officials." Also "anti-Obama anger was the focus of many town hall meetings." The Anti-Anti-Obama Anger League?

But the real target of the ADL's ire is none other than the left's chief bête noir: talk radio. Makes sense. They've yet to figure out a way to apply the Fairness Doctrine to political rallies.

In August, the ADL's grand inquisitor, National Director Abraham H. Foxman, was incensed (his default mode) when Rush Limbaugh compared Obama's health care logo to the Nazi emblem of an eagle with wings spread on a Swastika in a circle. But they do look alike. Obama's is a caduceus with wings spread perched atop a circle bearing his campaign symbol (the wavy-lined road to nowhere).

I doubt the similarity was intentional. More likely, it reflects the fact that the White House is staffed with historical ignoramuses, like the president himself.

Foxman fumed that Limbaugh's comparison was "outrageous, deeply offensive, and inappropriate." The "inappropriate" was thrown in for good measure, just to show that Abe is really serious.

The ADL's disdain for Limbaugh is nothing next to its revulsion of FOX host Glenn Beck, whom the report dubs the "fear-monger-in-chief." Beck deals in conspiracy theories, the publication charges. If that weren't enough, he's said "that President Obama is a dangerous man." Has he no shame?

We pause to note that in a recent interview, Dr. Richard Land, a prominent figure in the Southern Baptist Convention who's always nuanced in his remarks, said the president's economic policies are "very dangerous" and his foreign policy is causing "severe damage."

"Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing President Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration," the report whines. "Beck has even gone so far as to make comparisons between Hitler and Obama and to promote the idea that the president is dangerous." I too find this comparison inappropriate. At least Hitler got the Olympics for Berlin.

During the Bush years, did the ADL object to the left demonizing the president (as in "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader" and "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi)? Did it warn against conspiracy theories from the other side (example: the "9/11 truthers," who believe the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job engineered as an excuse for a war with Iraq)? Did it kvetch about anti-war rallies — run by the Marxists at International ANSWER — whipping up anti-government rage? That would be no, no, and no.

The Anti-Defamation League is the love-slave of the establishment left. What MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post, and Bill Maher find deeply offensive, the ADL finds deeply offensive.

Consider its antipathy to Christian political activism. When the late Jerry Falwell (a stalwart friend of Israel) put out bumper stickers which proclaimed "I vote Christian," Foxman was ready with a rebuttal.

The slogan is "directly at odds with the American ideal (as enunciated by the ACLU) and should be rejected," Foxman explained. "Understanding the danger of combining religion and politics, our founding fathers wisely created a political system based on individual merit and religious inclusiveness," the ADL honcho insisted — which, of course, is why James Madison (father of the Bill of Rights) said that "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

That was not what Falwell wanted. The former Moral Majority leader explained that he meant conservative Christians should vote their values "which are pro-life and pro-family" — and also happen to be the values of Judaism (hence, the Judeo-Christian tradition).

In 2005, Foxman warned that evangelicals wanted to "Christianize all aspects of American life." "Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!"

So, what are we talking about here — forced conversions, compulsory church attendance, mandatory caroling throughout the year?

Abe believes the essence of a "Christian America" is a non-denominational prayer at the beginning of the school day, a ban on abortion, public celebration of Christmas (including crèches), and pastors offering public prayers in Jesus' name. But we had all of that in 1961 — when John F. Kennedy was president. Would returning to the status quo of the Kennedy-era Christianize America?

Exquisite is the irony of the ADL's latest caper: The guys it's bashing (Limbaugh, Beck, et al.) are unabashedly pro-Israel. The dude Foxman and company are running interference for — you know, the one with the Muslim middle name — makes Jimmy Carter look like a Hadassah lady.

The president wants engagement and seeks "common ground" with the Nazi jihadists who run Iran. Tehran continues to fund Hezbollah and Hamas, denies the Holocaust (but threatens to launch its own by "wiping Israel off the map"), and claims an unqualified right to nuclear weapons. Perhaps Obama can enlighten us on the common ground here.

While previous administrations have grumbled about Israeli "settlements" in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, Obama is in deadly earnest.

In the spring, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the president "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth exceptions.'" This includes East Jerusalem (occupied by Jewish settlers for millennia). The "common ground" here is Israel dismantles the "settlements" in Judea and Samaria, and gets to keep the settlements in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Obama also intends to see the creation of a Palestinian state in two years, regardless of anything the Palestinians do or don't do.

By demonizing the president's detractors, the Anti-Defamation League is a danger to the survival of the Jewish state. This article appeared in American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ antidefamation_league_runs_int.html

Don Feder was an opinion writer for the Boston Herald and a syndicated columnist. He is currently a political/media consultant.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2009.

After rockets struck Israel, the IDF bombed a Hamas weapons factory. The IDF said it would not tolerate terrorist attacks on Israel (www.imra.org.il, 11/24).

Bombed weapons factory, probably in a house (A.P./Eyad Baba)

The IDF won't? Then why did it wait for an attack on Israel to bomb the arms factory? While it waited, how many weapons did the factory produce, for future attacks? A factory might produce the very rockets that Israel retaliated against. Why not protect Israeli civilians for the IDF to bomb all the arms factories it knows of, when it discovers them, and prevent some attacks? Sporadic IDF retaliation does not teach Hamas to find another industry besides war.


Dr. Yitzhak Geiger of the Institute for Zionist Strategies studied the Israeli public school curriculum. He found that it emphasis equal civic society at the expense of the Jewish nation-state, for which the country was founded. Knesset Member Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) identifies the problem as a leftist approach.

One book describes the Oslo Accords as "another step toward peace among the nations." Another book asserts that "a nation-state model increases tensions among the country's citizens." [Oslo did not bring peace but war.]

A new curriculum is scheduled to be introduced in three months (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). Its approach was not stated.

There would be little problem if the Arabs were tolerant and non-violent. Instead, they sympathize with the hostile Arabs surrounding the country and periodically waging war on it. The Arabs inside and outside the country tried to expel and/or exterminate the Jews. The Arabs still vie for the country, house-by-house. For the Jewish people to preserve their sovereignty and lives, they need education about the continuing struggle and their national rights.

The Palestine Mandate distinguished between Jewish national and Arab civil rights. Anticipating Jewish sovereignty from the edge of Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean, it allotted political rights to the Jewish people and religious and civil rights to the Arabs. Israel allots political rights to the Arabs, but faces the difficulty of maintaining the country as a Jewish state offering equal rights to Arab citizens except the right of return. Even there, Israel has poor control over immigration, and lets many Arabs in; others sneak in. Israel may be carrying democracy too far to survive, but not far enough for the Jews, considering that the parliament is based on parties and not districts, government control over the broadcast media, leftist control over the courts and prosecutors, and police who beat up religious nationalist Jews.


Israel still is negotiating for the U.S. jet F-35. Such a plane could give Israel a deterrent against invasion or long-range attack, because it cannot be detected by radar. The U.S. still refuses to let Israel insert its own systems into the plane. Then when the U.S. sells models to the Arabs, Israel would lack a deterrent (www.imra.org.il, 11/25).

When Israel lacks a deterrent, it more likely would be attacked. A war is born.


Turkey's Foreign Minister denied that the crisis with Israel was severe and asserted that it ended. An Israeli Cabinet Member said that Turkey could help mediate with Arab countries. Turkey suggests renewing its mediation between Israel and Syria (www.imra.org.il, 11/25).

Is the impasse ended? They spoke in diplomatic platitudes. Being Islamist, the government of Turkey cannot be an impartial mediator.


PM Netanyahu announced a building freeze in the Territories. How is a unilateral move justified? Why not freeze building by both sides, if any, or get some other concession by the Arabs? Doesn't such a freeze by Israel, alone, lend color to the Palestinian Arab claim that Jews have no right to live in the Territories, although there never was any legitimate "Palestinian" Arab authority over the Territories? How ethical was the Obama administration to press Israel to make the concession, when it linked this issue [without any logical, factual connection] to the Iran nuclear weapons issue (11/25 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) on which Israel's survival is at stake?

I think that Netanyahu cold-bloodedlly is getting ready to cede the Territories.


PM Netanyahu announced a building freeze in the Territories. How is a unilateral move justified? Why not freeze building by both sides, if any, or get some other concession by the Arabs? Doesn't such a freeze by Israel, alone, lend color to the Palestinian Arab claim that Jews have no right to live in the Territories, although there never was any legitimate "Palestinian" Arab authority over the Territories? How ethical was the Obama administration to press Israel to make the concession, when it linked this issue [without any logical, factual connection] to the Iran nuclear weapons issue (11/25 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) on which Israel's survival is at stake?

I think that Netanyahu cold-bloodedlly is getting ready to cede the Territories.


Mahmoud Abbas (A.P./Gregorio Borgia)

Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV "that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians."

"ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "This is simply the latest example of another Palestinian blood libel against Israel and the Jewish people. Tragically, because it is said to Arabs, in Arabic, and not to Westerners in English, these hateful, vile and monstrous assaults on the name of the Jewish people receive precious little attention, especially where it matters most — among leaders of Western democracies, including the United States.


From 1939-45, the Third Reich broadcast Nazi propaganda to many areas, including the Mideast, where its influence on the Arabs has been debated since 9/11. Scholars find that Nazi style antisemitism grafted onto the Islamic variety.

"In a 2007 book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press), the German political scientist Matthias Kuentzel details how Nazi ideology influenced Islamist ideologues like Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as the Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini. More recent examples abound. The founding charter of Hamas... recapitulates conspiracy theories about Jews that were popular in Europe in the 20th century. Al Qaeda's war against 'the Zionist-Crusader Alliance' and the anti-Zionist rants of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran also display a blend of anti-Semitic themes rooted in Nazi and fascist, as well as Islamist, traditions."

Iraqi and Palestinian Arab leaders assisted the Nazi radio effort. The broadcasts warned the Arab nationality that if the Allies won, the Jewish people would dominate it. The programs encouraged the Arabs to murder Jews. A warning was issued that in anticipation of having to evacuate from Egypt, Britain had issued pistols to Jews and European residents so they could slay Arabs. A lie, of course, as was the claim that the Jews appropriated the Arabs' wealth, and plan to violate Arab women.

"Two German historians, Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, recently uncovered evidence that German intelligence agents were reporting back to Berlin that if Rommel succeeded in reaching Cairo and Palestine, the Axis powers could count on support from some elements in the Egyptian officer corps as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Mallmann and Cüppers also show that an SS division was preparing to fly to Egypt to extend the Final Solution to the Middle East. The British and Australian defeat of Rommel at the Battle of El 'Alamein prevented that from happening."

With the fall of Nazism, Banna said he hoped that Grand Mufti Husseini would "continue the struggle" the Nazis had started. Qutb asserted that Hitler was sent on a divine mission to punish the Jews. He justified the Holocaust that Abbas denies. Those were the mentors of Hamas. Hamas Charter blames Jews for the French and Russian Revolutions, WWI and WWII, and the UN, to further Jewish world domination (Jeffrey Herf in www.imra.org.il, 11/24). What domination?


Gaza relatives of Arab prisoners (A.P./Hatem Moussa)

Some of the most revealing insights into officials and reporters came out in an update to the Israel-Arab prisoner trade.

Germany was attempting to broker the trade. Its Foreign Minister Westerwelle said, "I can simply express the hope that the talks will lead to a good and human solution."

One of the Arabs whom Israel may release is Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for terrorist murder. Tens of thousands of Arabs have spent time in Israeli prisons, in the past 40 years (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 11/25, A14).

Hamas has asked for 1,000 convicted Arab terrorists to be released. At the 40% rate of recidivism, 400 would resume terrorism. They probably would murder and maim at least 50 Israelis. Thus the trade means that Israel would end the suffering of one person but facilitate suffering and death for 50. By what measure is that humane or a solution? Does Germany believe that is either? Doesn't Germany know that Hamas works only to advance its oppressive cause, which makes problems not to resolve problems?

The reporter mentioned Barghouti's sentences. It did not mention his likely involvement in much more terrorism, considering his former position. He also was Arafat's man in charge of launching the second Intifada, which he did not succeed in doing until his supposedly moderate regime pretended that Ariel Sharon's quiet visit to the Temple Mount was an affront to Muslims. As the Palestinian Authority prepares a third Intifada, rather than negotiate peace, Barghouti is likely to lead it. How many will he get to murder, then? Why doesn't the reporter or the editor put 2 and 2 together, on this?

If, as the reporter keeps stating, Barghouti is popular among his people, doesn't it reveal that people to be eager for terrorism against Israelis? Considering that tens of thousands served time in Israeli prisons for terrorism, what does all that indicate about them? Not moderate!

In connection with this proposed release, let us review the other releases. Did they bring about the goodwill that some of them were said to be done for? No. Did they "bolster" Abbas' power to make peace? No. The requests for concessions to Abbas to "bolster" him keep coming, like a continuous gravy train. He refuses to negotiate and threatens war.

Prior releases were marked by recidivism, more Arab demands, ill will toward Israel, and a boost in the Arabs' war morale. When their morale rises, they are less likely to make the reforms in their mores needed to make peace with other faiths.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 26, 2009.

1. The miraculous eight days of Hanukka, 5770:

On the first day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's have a settlement freeze.

On the second day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's agree the savages can have their own state.

On the third day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's agree to judicial activism.

On the fourth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's let the Court kill prison privatization.

On the fifth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget reform of water policy.

On the sixth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget about splitting the Attorney General from Legal Advisor to the government. because such a split upsets the Left.

On the seventh day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget about doing anything about the violent "anarchists" who attack Israeli police and soldiers.

On the eighth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's just release all the terrorists we have to buy back a kidnapped soldier.

2. Well, Richard Goldstone has emerged as an Israel-bashing anti-Semite, willing to sell his soul to the UN in order to find favor with his leftist friends. Well, not only is Goldstone a liar willing to toady up to his anti-Semitic masters. It turns out he also has an interesting track record of groveling to the apartheid authorities back when he was a judge in South Africa. Read on:

"U.N. judge jailed 13-year-old for protesting apartheid.
Author of report condemning Israel ruled against teenage Mandela backers"
Posted: November 22, 2009
By Aaron Klein

Richard Goldstone, the United Nations investigator whose controversial report recently accused Israel of war crimes, once sentenced a 13-year-old boy to prison for protesting South African apartheid.

The case was one of several of Goldstone's questionable and highly criticized rulings during some of apartheid South Africa's most violent years.

Goldstone served as a judge on South Africa's Transvaal Supreme Court from 1980 until he was appointed judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1989 — all during South Africa's apartheid regime.

In a blog piece at the Huffington Post, researcher Ashley Rindsberg references a case in which Goldstone ruled against the 1986 appeal of a 13-year-old boy who had been sentenced to jail for disrupting school as a protest against apartheid and increasingly draconian "emergency laws" used to squelch opposition to the government.

The New York Times reported Goldstone provided no immediate comment on his decision to uphold the sentence of the lower court.

Rindsberg also pointed out that Goldstone ruled against two appellants who had been convicted for possession of a cassette tape that contained a recording of an interview with Oliver Tambo, who, along with Nelson Mandela, was a founding member of the African National Congress's Youth League. The ANC has been South Africa's ruling party since the establishment of nonracial democracy in 1994.

Goldstone ruled that by possessing the tape, the two young men had violated South Africa's Internal Security Act No. 74 of 1982 — a piece of legislation that some human rights scholars have called a crucial weapon in the regime's "arsenal of terrorism legislation."

Goldstone commented in that case that Tambo's opening words on the recording indicated "beyond a reasonable doubt that the cassette in question was published or disseminated under the direction or guidance or on behalf of the African National Congress."

According to Goldstone's Supreme Court ruling on the case, the tapes also included audio of Tambo encouraging the people of South Africa to resist the apartheid regime, as well as the leader's call to "let us change our own country into the kind of society we want it to be."

Rindsberg noted Goldstone's ruling against the 13-year-old boy transpired amidst a wave of national protests and school disruptions by South Africa's black youth against apartheid. Authorities at the time responded with mass detention of almost 2,000 children who participated in the protests or who were suspected of doing so.

Goldstone was slammed by South African human rights organizations for his 1986 ruling against the boy. He later told the New York Times that South Africa's emergency laws left him "no way out."

Goldstone recently penned a U.N. report that claimed both Hamas and Israel were guilty of war crimes during the Jewish state's defensive war in Gaza last December and January.

Goldstone's report claimed Israel deliberately targeted civilians during the Gaza conflict, which started after Hamas refused to extend a cease-fire. The terrorist group instead launched a rocket offensive against Israeli population centers. The U.N. report equated Israel, which worked to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, to Hamas, which utilized civilians as human shields and fired rockets at Jewish cities from Palestinian hospitals and apartment buildings.

During the Gaza war, Israel sent hundreds of thousands of text messages and placed tens of thousands of calls warning local Palestinians of incoming attacks against Hamas' military infrastructure in Gaza.

As WND previously reported, Goldstone's investigation may have relied on false witnesses and Palestinian misinformation.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, November 26, 2009.

For all their talk of standing by the Palestinians, the Arab regimes sure have a strange way of showing it. Despite reaping an oil-driven windfall last year of unprecedented proportions, few Arab states seem willing to dig very deep into their own pockets to back up their concern with cash.

Indeed, the hollowness of their pro-Palestinian pronouncements was unambiguously on display last week in Amman, at a meeting of the Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, better known by its acronym of UNRWA.

Among the central topics discussed at the gathering was the growing financial crisis confronting the organization, which relies on voluntary contributions from governments to fund its activities on behalf of Palestinian refugees.

In her remarks, Karen Abu Zayd, UNRWA's commissioner-general, bemoaned the group's financial state, describing it as "my most worrying preoccupation."

She told those assembled that the agency is facing a deficit of $84 million this year, and that it projects a budget shortfall of $140m. in 2010. "UNRWA's weak financial situation," Abu Zayd said, "hinders our ability to discharge our responsibilities to the standards Palestinian refugees deserve."

FOR THE past several years, it seems, UNRWA has been in increasingly dire straits. Indeed, on Tuesday of last week, the group's 16,000 employees in Judea, Samaria and Gaza held a one-day strike to demand better pay.

Why, you might be wondering, have the UN agency's troubles been mounting of late? After all, fuel prices surged last year, with oil peaking in July 2008 at a high of $150 a barrel, so the coffers of Arab treasuries throughout the region were hardly lacking for funds with which to aid their Palestinian brethren.

I wondered too, so I did some research and discovered a few surprising facts about the colossal gap between Arab rhetoric and Palestinian reality.

Consider the following: In 2008, 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA's general fund were from the West, with the EU contributing over $116m., and the US more than $94m. Others, such as Sweden and the UK, each gave over $35m.

Just one Arab country — Kuwait — appeared among UNRWA's top 20 benefactors. The Kuwaitis came in last on the list, having coughed up just $2.5m.

Given that Kuwait's oil revenues last year surged by 44 percent to nearly $78 billion, you would think that if they really, truly cared about the Palestinians, this would have been reflected in the size of their donation to UNRWA.

Nonetheless, when compared to the other five Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — the Kuwaitis come out looking generous.

In 2008, the combined revenues of the GCC states from oil production amounted to a whopping $575b. Yet their joint contribution to UNRWA's regular budget was a little more than $3.6m., signifying less than one one-thousandth of a percent of their total petroleum income! Bahrain gave a miserly $50,000, Oman forked over just $25,000, while Saudi Arabia coughed up zero.

I've been to Hadassah dinners where more money was raised in an hour than the Arab states seem willing to part with in an entire year.

In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%.

As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs.

Now don't get me wrong — I am not shedding any tears over UNRWA's difficulties. The organization has long been a vehicle for perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem as a lever for pressuring Israel, and it has not shied away from working closely with Hamas in Gaza, or serving as a vehicle for anti-Israel and anti-Western indoctrination.

But UNRWA's woes lay bare the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Arab states. They lambaste Israel at every opportunity over the condition of the Palestinians, even as they themselves do very little to alleviate the problem.

Sure, some Arab countries have kicked in funds to various UNRWA emergency appeals, while others provide aid to Palestinians via other channels.

But the numbers above lead one to wonder: do the Arab states really care about the Palestinians?

If UNRWA's ledger is any guide, the answer is a clear and resounding "no."

Michael Freund served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office under Benjamin Netanyahu from 1996 to 1999. He is founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which reaches out and assists "lost Jews" seeking to return to the Jewish people.

This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259010982966 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 26, 2009.

And Lavan answered and he said to Jacob, the daughters are my daughters and the children are my children and the flocks are my flocks and all that you see is mine.

And now, let us make a covenant.

If you will afflict my daughters and if you will take wives in addition to my daughters, no man is with us, see G-d is witness between me and you. (From this week's Torah portion, Vayetzeh, Genesis 31: 43-44, 50) It's strange. Time and again, Jacob catches Lavan in his lies, but Lavan persists in playing the role of the victim — and not of the perpetrator.

"The daughters are my daughters?" Jacob worked for them — above and beyond the time upon which they had originally agreed. Furthermore, he continued working for Rachel even after Lavan tricked him into marrying Leah.

"The flocks are my flocks?" Here, too, Jacob kept up his side of the bargain, while it was Lavan who dishonestly changed the rules.

Where does Lavan get the chutzpah to lie without compunction? What makes him so confident? How can it be that after Lavan makes a treaty with Jacob and bids him farewell, he makes new conditions; "If you will afflict my daughters," as if Jacob was some sort of lowlife from the Charan marketplace?

It seems that Lavan is playing on the last vestiges of Jacob's dependence on him. While it is true that Jacob honestly earned his family and possessions, the platform upon which they were earned belonged to Lavan. Jacob has not yet completely freed himself of the "womb" in which his family and wealth developed.

The evil Lavan immediately identifies Jacob's weak point.

Today, the Arabs in the Land of Israel will settle for nothing less than the entire Land. All of our groveling and attempts to "compromise" have not helped. They abduct a soldier and conduct negotiations for his release as if they were the lords of the Land.

Where does their chutzpah come from? Like Lavan, they have identified our weak point; the point at which we feel dependant upon them. Israel's leaders also believe that the Land of Israel really belongs to the Arabs, that their struggle against us is just and that they kill us because we have stolen their land. In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the daughters are the Arabs' daughters and the flocks are their flocks.

Our weakness allows them to portray themselves as victims and not as perpetrators.

Leadership that is incapable of relying on our covenant with G-d and declaring that this is our Land will come out on the short end of every negotiation.

Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Feiglin

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 25, 2009.

This was written by Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Karin Laub and is entitled "Muslims want tangible change on Mideast from Obama." First, observe how the Arabs blow smoke: The talk about their fury, as if we Americans have none toward them! We despise those who promote the bestial war machine called "Sharia" that cloaks itself in blood-soaked cloth.

"CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Respect for Islam, a prescription for Palestinian statehood and assurances of a speedy U.S. pullout from Iraq — that's what Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia want to hear from President Barack Obama this week when he addresses them from this Arab capital.

His (Obama's) speech Thursday from Cairo University will try to soften the fury toward the United States among the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, ignited by the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the hands-off attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of his predecessor George W. Bush.

Obama's offer of a new beginning is seen as an attempt to stem the growing influence of extremists — particularly Iran, with its regional and nuclear ambitions — and to bolster moderate Muslim allies. It comes just days ahead of crucial elections in Lebanon and Iran — where the appeal of militancy will be put to the test — and amid worsening violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.The American leader's soaring oratory and Muslim roots have kindled hope among Muslims. But they will judge him by his actions, not his words, said 20-year-old Mohammed Wasel, sipping sugar cane juice with friends after mosque prayers in Cairo's Abbasiya neighborhood."

Muslims want change? So do we! We are the American taxpayers whose purses have been plundered for to send billions to the Islamics who are organized into myriad warring forces. Americans have been forced to do this for decades supposedly for humanitarian purposes, but instead, our billions have been siphoned into secret bank accounts, hoarded to pay for elitist's pleasures or more often, used to fund hundreds of Islamic gangs of disaffected arabs expelled from Egypt and the surrounding oil states who are being paid a remittance to say they are "palestinians."

There has been decades of dishonesty associated with Arab expenditures of America's hard-earned funds and Americans want change from the Muslims. Tangible change. Not bloody rhetoric and hate-filled yammering about killing this or that group who refuse to be made into Muslims. But real change: Such as earning your own living in your own lands on the Arabian Peninsula instead of barging into countries where you don't belong. Israel being but one of those countries. We want all the land between the ocean and the sea to be restored to Israel. This is the ONLY honest path toward peace.

We want Obama to CUT OFF ALL AID to Arab countries. Stop bowing to Arabist extortion. We want our funds to rebuild America. Let the Saudis and the UAE fund Mubarak "for a change." Let Dubai stop building gaudy and useless structures and spend their trillions on relocating the Arabs trapped in Abdullah-of-Jordan's concentration camps. There's hundreds of millions of unoccupied acres waiting for them to settle on within the Arabian Peninsula. After all, we Americans made the Saudis and the UAE wealthier than God because we pay for their sludge, so these rich bigots can well afford to pick up the tab! As for the Arab states, especially new states like Saudi Arabia, they can begin purchasing our best stuff with cash — and pay the full price, instead of asking for loans through US taxpayer-funded OPIC. Obama must change this arrangement. We want American funds to be invested in America, not siphoned into secret bank accounts controlled by Islamic NGOs and Arab "royals".

No more billions to Jordan. Jordan's "king" and his father created the concentration camps holding the Arabs who want to become "Palestinians." They can do this in Jordan on Jordanian soil!

We Americans want to know what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish Palestinians. Where did they go after the Arabs divested them of their lands and drove them out of their centuries-old homes in the arab states now surrounding Israel? What about the Jews who lived and flourished in Medina? What about THEIR "right of return"? How much of the lands occupied by the ersatz "palestinians" are to be "frozen for peace"? How many of these Arab are illegal settlers? Has Nettie forgotten about this issue? Is he afraid to confront Hillary and her boss-man about the rights of Jewish refugees?

We want the Islamics to return to where they came from. They have their own states. They got them in 1948 when Israel's lands were taken from the Jews and handed over to the Arab Muslims. If the Arabs aren't satisfied with what they got, then the lands should be removed from their ungrateful grasp and restored to their rightful owners: the Jews and the Hebrew Peoples.

Yes, we want change. Big time. And we want it NOW!

Viva Israel!

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 25, 2009.


The House of Representatives took up a resolution urging the Administration not to approve the Goldstein Report. J. Street strongly opposed the resolution, and had momentum from its conference and lobbying. J Street co-founder Mort Halperin, an aide to (the anti-Israel) George Soros, ghost-wrote what Judge Goldstein sent to Congress in defense of his report. J Street claims that its P.A.C. donated more to Congressional candidates than any pro-Israel P.A.C.. The resolution passed 344:36, plus 22 voting "present" and 30 abstaining. Most of the chief beneficiaries of J Street donations did not vote against the resolution.

Disillusionment with J Street may have set in. Many members quit the conference host committee. Other than Jeremy Ben-Ami, its top leadership is anonymous. Who makes its decisions?

J Street is obliged to reveal donors to its PAC, but the names of its other donors are withheld. Circumstances have revealed that they include Saudi-connected individuals, National Iranian American Council directors, and Arab-American leaders. They generally defame Israel, defend Hamas, and assist Saudi Arabia.

To buttress its claim of being pro-Israel, J Street likened its policies to that of Israel's party, Kadima. When Kadima leaders heard that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran, they turned cold toward it.

Some J Street delegates proposed combining Israel with the Palestinian Authority. That would end Jewish sovereignty [and probably their lives]. (Lenny Ben-David, www.imra.org.il, 11/23.)

The donations to Congress amounted to about half a million dollars. Does not sound like much, compared to the big lobbies.


Keith Pablishek reviewed Michael Burleigh's Blood and Rage. I gleaned this:

Terrorists seek chaos, to start their takeover. "As endless studies of terrorist grievances reveal, they are mostly insane without being clinically psychotic." Grievances are ridiculous.

Most people want to be left alone.

Islamists are different from other terrorists. IRA men wanted to get away. Many Islamists want to die for the cause.

Thugs like to join terrorists, to inflict violence or to escape boredom. Intellectuals often support their violence. Many in the Communist movement did (Commentary, 9/2009).

Islamists state baseless grievances for propaganda. The widespread antisemitism and other ignorance and media timidity enables them to get away with it. Note how useless and unintelligent intellectuals can be.


Anti-terror militia, also called a Lashkar (AP/Anwarullah Khan)

Some military and security groups in Pakistan still favor the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization as a proxy force against Indian Kashmir and as a bulwark against India. Pakistan is reluctant to take on Lashkar at the same time it is fighting the Taliban. Lashkar has gained some popularity by dispensing charity. Pakistanis do not believe that it staged the attack on Mumbai. Pakistan's government does, arresting some Lashkar people, and banning its charity (Matthew Rosenberg, Wall St. J., 11/24, A 16).

The U.S. has banned charities that act as terrorist fronts. A terrorist organization can have a charity that does not act as its front, just dispenses charity. But that gains it popular support against anti-terrorism. Therefore, the standard should be to ban all wings of terrorist organizations.


"Israeli courts have become a central arena for engaging contentious social and political issues, with major advantages for groups that have the resources to devote to this activity. Extensive support from European governments and private foundations gives political and opposition NGOs the advantage" over NGOs depending on popular Israeli support.

These NGOs exert an alien influence against Israeli government. The NGOs discussed in the full article "...are highly active and visible participants in both the international and national debates on issues such as the status and future of Jerusalem, the disputed territories in the West Bank, and the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). These NGOs issue high-profile statements and reports, generate media publicity, organize demonstrations, speak to student groups and army units, and use the courts to advance their political agendas."

"In the international arena, the same NGOs submit statements to UN frameworks such as the Human Rights Council, run major media campaigns, and spearhead lawsuits in various countries." Because of their Israeli addresses, these appendages of foreign interests enjoy credibility (NGO Monitor in www.imra.org.il, 11/23).


Gazan wants her son's release (AP/Hatem Moussa)

A former head of Israeli internal security commented about the proposed prisoner exchange that although a real risk existed, "the past has shown that some of the prisoners do not return to terror and some portion are integrated in various operative positions" (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 11/24, A3) probably meaning in Palestinian Authority military positions.

A massive, Arab prisoner release could bolster Hamas' claim that abduction and other and recalcitrance about it work (Charles Levinson, Wall St. J., 11/24, A14).

The former security chief put it too delicately to be clear. Released terrorists have a recidivism rate of about 40%. Suppose we accept the bruited figure of 1,000 convicted terrorists to be released. That means about 400 will try again. If only 5% of them succeed, they will kill perhaps 30 Israelis. One Israeli would be released now, and 30 get killed later — that is PM Netanyahu's real trade.

The barbarians probably would conclude that terrorism is vindicated. That, too, means more Israelis killed. The Israel killed:release ration could rise to 50:1.

Again, the security chief misleads people with the term, "operative positions." Released terrorists integrated into Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces are in a position to commit terrorism, as P.A. troops have, before. Imagine the kind of morality they bring to the P.A. military!


WAFA, the PLO news agency reports that Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights demanded of Israel's Deputy Min. of Health and the Police Chief of Jerusalem that they stop requiring police escorts for ambulances entering Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, even in emergency.

"Ms. Reut Katz of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel stressed that 'the police escort of ambulances to transport patients coupled with their presence alongside medical staff during the treatment process also constitutes a flagrant violation of the privacy rights and medical confidentiality of the patient." It may be a violation of medical ethics and international prohibition of cruel and degrading treatment. [No international law was cited.]

Ambulances are instructed to wait in adjacent Jewish neighborhoods for the escort. If families try to transport patients to hospitals on their own, they risk aggravating the illness. The ambulances do proceed directly to Jewish enclaves in Arab neighborhoods, a seeming inconsistency that bespeaks discrimination. That is the only consideration in the Israeli rule (www.imra.org.il, 11/23).

If we have learned anything from events and not preconceptions over the years, Israel is humane and the Palestinian Arabs are inhumane. Fatah just confirmed its policy of armed struggle, while it defers ostensible peace negotiations until Israel makes further concessions. PLO Arabs went into an Israeli nursery and shot toddlers; the Israeli security forces often abort missions when they know a child is in the building. Israel lets enemy Palestinian Arabs into its hospitals and free, but the PLO, Jordan, and Egypt have kept Israeli medics away from Israelis, who were left to bleed to death. There must be more to this ambulance story.

I checked with my source, to confirm my recollection of the real background. Dr. Aaron Lerner explained that the ambulances aren't allowed into Arab areas without police escort to protect them from likely assault. That puts a different light on the story. Even though the ambulance would be entering to save the lives or health of Arab neighbors, fellow Arabs attack those medical saviors unless deterred by police.

Now we see which people is callous about the lives of Arabs, who may not make it to the hospital if the ambulance attendants themselves are incapacitated. Those purported humanitarian organizations, that claim to be outraged by alleged Israeli discrimination, are frauds. And the Palestinian Authority, which complains against Israel is trying to reap public relations benefits at the expense of its own people. What a people, those Palestinian Arab "innocent civilians!" Will any anti-Zionists, who purport to care about those Arabs, condemn the Palestinian Authority and the "humanitarian" groups for harming them?

(To see that Adalah is the prejudiced group, go to
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d13-Adalah-tried-to-bar-the- Hebron-Fund-from-US-fundraiser, but ignore the article's comment on Adalah-NY, which is a different organization.)


Marwan Barghouti and his men, before capture (A.P./Nasser Nasser)

Convicted lifer, Marwan Barghouti, has usurped the privilege of giving press interviews in behalf of his ideology, contrary to prison rules.

Some nationalist Members of Knesset demanded that prison officials stop Barghouti and punish him for his violation
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/24).

While anti-Zionists call Israel overbearing, I find the government failing to safeguard Israeli interests. The government's ideology conflicts with those national interests. It seems as if he is being coddled in anticipation of a deal. If you are a Palestinan Arab who murders Israelis, punishment is not too severe.

The article reiterates the supposition that Barghouti is popular among his people. I recall a poll that showed he is not.


The international boundary between Israel and Lebanon runs through the middle of the village of Ghajar. The UN cease-fire resolution calls for Israeli forces to stop operating in Lebanon. Accordingly, the government of Israel plans to withdraw from the village's northern half.

UNIFIL is prepared to patrol the Lebanese half of that village, but only to prevent fighting. It would not search houses for arms caches. Yet it states that Israeli law would continue to be enforced in the northern half. Who would enforce Israeli law there? Not the departed IDF. Hizbullah? (www.imra.org.il, 11/23.)

A Druze official in Israel's government finds it crazy to make the same mistake there, as Israel did in the general withdrawal from Lebanon in favor of UNIFIL, which lets Hizbullah build up for war.

Apparently, Israel has to honor the UN resolution and Lebanon does not. But Israel is accused of violating the UN resolution. A friend of mine, formerly with the UN, accused Israel of violating UN resolution 242, in not withdrawing to the 1967 armistice line, that he carelessly called a border. I pointed out that 242 does not at all demand that extensive a withdrawal, and Israel is not in violation, because the withdrawal is to be in the context of a comprehensive peace, which Abbas refuses to negotiate. He admitted that is so. Then why accuse Israel?


Orthodox Soldiers (A.P. Ariel Schalit File)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 25, 2009.

A right of passage in Israel, when one turns 18, is being drafted into the military. Men serve three years and women normally serve half that long. Officers (men or women) are signed for an additional year, for the privilege of attending the Officers' Training School. Some (men and women) then remain in service as a vocation and are entitled to early retirement at the age of 40, at which time they typically embark on a second career.

This was the way the system used to work. After completing the matriculation exams, a young person, fresh out of high school, would undergo exams and screening, go through boot camp, and start the most influential period of one's life. These soldiers and their commanders are entrusted with the safety and security of the Jewish Homeland. They carry out the policies of the Israeli government. Whatever the composition of the ruling coalition, the military is there to execute its decisions, with the goal of defending the Jewish State.

Once, if a person did not serve as everyone else, he would be ostracized from society. The chances of getting a job dissipated, life was unbearable. The exceptions were the ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews who do not serve — men study at Yeshivot (religious seminaries) and women are to be married at a very early age and raise children. In the Jewish state, this exemption became an entitlement, causing a rift between the secular and religious sectors, the former enraged by the lack of equal burden under the law.

Over the past 20 years, things have changed. First, there was a massive immigration from the former Soviet Union, followed by immigration from Ethiopia. With an ever-increasing number of enlistees among the new immigrants, the military could afford to become more "selective." That proved to be a mistake. It happened at the same time that another worrying trend emerged: a new fashion not to serve. Various teen idols avoided service; a phenomenon that gained more and more acceptance, until matters reached a critical level that could no longer be ignored. Last year, the military began fighting this phenomenon and named it a top priority.

Second, a segment of the religious sector had the courage to stand against the tide and declare that serving in the Jewish army of the Jewish state is a privilege and a duty. First God, then Country: not mutually exclusive rather both a reflection of the same belief in the God of the Hebrews and His promise to His people. In the military, all meals are kosher, time is given for the daily prayers, the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays are all strictly observed and — most importantly — if not I for myself (and my countrymen), who is?

This segment of modern orthodoxy, usually described by the type of yarmulkas worn by the men ("Knitted Yarmulka"), has become dominant. A very high percentage (some say a majority) of all elite units comes from this segment of society. The "Knitted Yarmulkas" replaced the members of the Kibbutzim of yesteryears, becoming what Israelis call "the salt of the land," its essence, prime and best examples.

With the new generation of draftees this week, motivation to serve in the most elite combat units is at an all-time high. Many compete for every available spot. Morale is high. Just three years ago, the military failed in the Second War in Lebanon. The blow was so rough that to this very day, comparisons are being made to that bitter failure, to the mistakes and faults that led to Israel's loss of deterrence.

One of the lessons learned was soldiers should not be carrying cell phones. The cost in human life was grave and soldiers can, actually, be on the front line without reporting home every few minutes. Another lesson was officers at all levels should not be interviewing on local and international media — silence is immensely important. The Israel Defense Forces ("IDF") follow a clear hierarchy. There is one face and voice, although multiple languages may be used. Another "discovery" was that there must be a censor whose guidance and supervision lead to saving lives instead of disseminating classified information. Seemingly, "Military 101" had to be re-learned.

There were other problems: Logistics fell behind those forces at the very front, causing shortages previously unforeseen. Equipment taken out from warehouses was either not functioning properly or in less than desirable condition. Many reserve units did not train or were trained to fight a different scenario (urban vs. open warfare, for instance). Complaining aside, these were short-term obstacles that could be overcome. Israel is very good at improvising, and she learns and improves — especially when the toll is heavily felt.

Since the issues that surfaced three years ago were symptomatic of an inner, much deeper problem, we must tie them into the rampant avoidance of service and ask if the IDF has lost its lure? The answer, one finds, is that the IDF continues to offer the following unique propositions:

a) The IDF is a melting pot — it is an army of all the people, those from rich and poor homes, religious and secular backgrounds, different shades of skin color, smart and slow, disabled and healthy, courageous and hesitant. Service pushes all through a mixer, treating them equally, placing the same demands and entrusting the same great responsibilities regardless of creed, ethnicity, or other labels or affiliations;

b) The IDF is a singular pivotal point in a young person's life. Mandatory military service in the IDF creates a thinking, responsible citizen who has paid dues to society and is ready to assume a different role as an adult. In the United States, a youngster attends four years of college following high school graduation. Compare the person with a Bachelor's degree with the person who finished military service, and you will find the latter more reliable, more responsible, with more practical abilities to face life;

c) The IDF is an army of all of Israel. By necessity and design, it is ISRAEL. Each family of this tiny country surrounded by enemies has a son, a daughter, a father or grandfather, a brother or uncle, a niece or a granddaughter who serves, thus creating an extended network;

d) The IDF is an army that is responsible for every one of his members. People often wonder why did Israel release hundreds of terrorists to get back body parts of two soldiers (for which she went to the Second War in Lebanon), or why is she discussing the possible release of a thousand more terrorists for one twenty some year old Gilad Shalit held in captivity in Gaza. Shalit's captors have not allowed access to the International Red Cross even once for close to four years.

For Jewish people, saving the life of one amounts to saving the whole world. For an Israeli, there is an unspoken promise that every parent can sleep quietly knowing the son or daughter will always come back from the front, that Israel will ensure this happens. Indeed, every child in Israel knows the name of Gilad Shalit, the symbol of all that is wrong with Israel's enemies and the aspiration of Israel for peace, normalcy and sanity;

e) The IDF is the embodiment of Jewish thought and wisdom, of honor and sense of humanity. The cleanliness of virtue, the pristine innocence of deeds, the ability to tell your soldiers "follow me" and lead, the knowledge that no soldier is left behind at the battlefield and the code of honor which is part of the IDF's DNA are the founding blocks of the Israeli military.

The strength of these pillars is evident in the respect the IDF enjoys both by fellow professionals from around the world and from those who are at its mercy. They, more than anyone else, know that if the roles were reversed, murder for the pure enjoyment and exemplary effects (causing sheer fear and subjugation), killings without even a thought for human life, raping and maiming for the utter satisfaction and complete disrespect to other human beings would be rampant;

f) The IDF is Israel's future, for it enables Israel to focus on innovation and creativity, to flourish and thrive, to grow and succeed in the harshest of environments (climate, lack of resources, human enemies, etc.). By providing the deterrence and safety net, the IDF allows citizens not in active service to live their daily lives in the most unlikely and currently unfriendly of places — their eternal homeland. The IDF is the cement, the building blocks, the embodiment of past, present and future of Israel.

As President Obama continues his deliberations about the future of our young men and women in Afghanistan, I am reminded of the following observation: As long as the burden is not felt and shared by all Americans, as long as we neither understand nor appreciate the sacrifices of our young men and women, they should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Every fallen soldier, a precious life extinguished, is wasted if most Americans assign little if any price for the sacrifice made. Americans on the front lines overseas are willing to give their lives to uphold all that we take for granted so that others, their fellow Americans, can continue their daily lives. A day will come and by necessity we will return to these hostile far away lands, but then the burden will be shared more equally by all, not only by some.

Israeli society provides an inspiring example how to turn a terrible necessity — one of having to protect oneself for one's continued existence — into a benefit to the society at large, educating, preparing the individual for a meaningful life and letting one know that with rights come obligations.

May our young men and women come back home soon, may Israel continue to be strong, as it is the last fort standing and protecting the West. May there come a day that Micah's prophecy becomes reality: "and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (4:3)

In the series "Postcards from Israel," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel's on the ground, Zager's counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related — the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts — and so is this "point — counter-point" presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 25, 2009.

It's almost Thanksgiving in the US. I attended a shiur (a religious lesson) this morning, and a forum tonight, and I was going to pass on posting for a bit. (It's almost midnight as I write.) But I cannot. I must send out this message, with more to follow.

Prime Minister Netanyahu tonight formally announced what has been rumored: A 10-month freeze on building in the communities of Judea and Samaria. Those construction projects already in the works (some 3,000 units) will continue, and, at least in theory, construction for public buildings — schools, etc. — will be permitted even during the 10 months. Jerusalem is not included in the freeze. The Security Cabinet approved the move this afternoon.

Not good. In fact, very bad. A concession that weakens us and should not have been made. We have a right to be in Judea and Samaria. Period.


In announcing this, Netanyahu made a big deal about the fact that it will bring us closer to "peace" — that it is good for Israel and shows the world that we're sincere about "peace."


On Monday, incredibly, he made a statement saying that he believed he was "uniquely positioned" to bring the public to support an "historic agreement with the Palestinians." Does he have a messiah complex? To play the game astutely, to protect us from unnecessary international pressure and hostile actions is one thing. To imagine he can actually achieve a solid and meaningful "peace agreement" with the Palestinian Arabs is something else. (This is completely aside from whether he should attempt to do so, whether he can or not.)

Anyone who knows anything of substance about the current situation within the PA knows full well that they cannot sign off on a final agreement for a "two-state solution" because they don't have a state and are not in a position to produce a state. If we pull out of Judea and Samaria (G-d forbid!) Hamas will move in sooner or later, and there will be a host of other problems even before Hamas arrives. (I will be returning to the whole issue of why even attempting to negotiate for a state makes no sense.) It cannot be that Netanyahu doesn't know this. So what is he babbling about? Why is he promoting it with the public as something that is good for Israel? Weakening us cannot be good for us.


One news source indicated that Netanyahu agreed upon this in his recent — secret — meeting with Obama. Right after the meeting, Netanyahu had said that, in time, we'd see why it had to be a secret, and I've been wondering about that. But this is not the "why." There's more. There had to be. Is there something Obama held over his head? What?

This represents a double concession — to the Palestinian Arabs, and to the Obama government. I cited Barry Rubin the other day, who said we could learn from what has been going on that concessions aren't appreciated, they only bring a demand for more concessions. And here were are: US Envoy Mitchell, speaking in the US, said that, well, this Netanyahu commitment doesn't really conform with the administration's full position — which is that the settlements have to go — but it's a good step, more than any prime minister has done until now.

During the forum I attended tonight (which I will return to), Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, stated that the Obama administration never refers to Security Council resolution 242, which says we are not required to pull back to the Green Line. Obama simply talks about "the West Bank" as "Palestinian."

When you're dealing with people such as this — who want to deprive us fully of our rights — you don't give part way. This simply encourages them to demand the whole package. You stand strong and tell them, No way!

Is Netanyahu proud that he's done what no other prime minister has done?


Take a look at IMRA (http://imra.org). Director Aaron Lerner has posted a series of Archive pieces that trace the recent history of the issue of a settlement freeze. Note this please:

In April, when the Czech prime minister visited, Netanyahu told him he didn't want to be pressured: "I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing settlement], I don't think there's a problem." He said Judea and Samaria were "disputed" territory and their disposition would be decided by negotiations.

Slowly this position has eroded.


And let's look, just briefly, at the PA attitude.

Just yesterday, PA president Mahmoud Abbas said Obama has done nothing for peace. He was waiting for the American president to pressure Israel.

And — Heaven help us! — the day after Abbas said this, Netanyahu makes a large concession. Is this timing coincidence, or a sick joke? Or a really really miserable attempt to make Obama happy?

Interviewed by an Argentinean magazine, Abbas was asked what he would concede for peace. Abbas answered that his people has "already made concessions." Like what, for instance?

Said Abbas, the current Israeli gov't was not seeking peace. This too makes the timing of Netanyahu's announcement terrible. Like eager puppets, we have to show the PA how much we'll do and how sincere we are, right after they indicate they expect us to give but don't intend to concede anything themselves?? Oi, and oi.


Yesha (Yesha = Yehuda, Shomron, Gaza) Council chair Danny Dayan noted tonight that Netanyahu's big theme has always been "reciprocity." We don't give unilaterally, he has insisted. We must get in return. So now he has betrayed that principle.

With regard to this, even though a freeze still would not be acceptable, it would have been considerably more palatable or reasonable (or done with more national dignity) if Netanyahu has demanded a return action.

The whole point of this is to "encourage" the PA to come to the table. But they won't. They've already said so, because Jerusalem is not included in the freeze and their demands continue at a maximalist level. They don't want to negotiate, in any event. How would they even manage if they got that "state"?

What if Netanyahu had said, IF the PA will come to the table, then I'll do the freeze? That would have shown "flexibility" and "sincerity" on our part, but would have put the onus squarely where it belongs, and would have left us with no freeze once they refused to come to the table.

Now, it appears exceedingly likely that we'll remain frozen even if they don't come to the table. The big concern here is that it should not last for more than 10 months — that it should not establish a precedent that just goes on.

There are those who see this as a sure sign that it's meant by Netanyahu to be the beginning of the end, a signal that he will allow us to be pushed out of most or all of Judea and Samaria.


If there's any good news tonight it's that a lot of people on the right are enraged. I do think there's more sensitivity to the dangers of such a move than there was before the expulsion from Gaza. People have been burned, and the nation is wary.

Dayan of the Yesha Council also said this tonight:

"The Netanyahu government was elected based on its promise to promote settlement activity in the West Bank, but immediately after it was established this government began to constrain the settlement enterprise. The cabinet ministers are obligated to prevent this."

And there's a question here, as to whether, indeed, it will still be brought before the full Cabinet.

Likud MK Danny Danon made excellent points when he said:

"We were elected to bolster the settlement enterprise, not freeze construction. The freeze constitutes a statement that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, while up until this point Likud has backed the concept that the settlers guarantee Israel's security."

Continued Danon:

"We will demand that Netanyahu bring the issue to a Likud faction and Central Committee vote, to make certain that the Sharon trauma [Gaza withdrawal] does not repeat itself."

Information and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein (also Likud) said, "I will not lend my hand to this process that will ultimately endanger the security of Israel and won't bring us even a tiny bit closer to peace."

Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, straight-talking and tough, was none too pleased either.

So Netanyahu will find it tough going within his own party.

(I'm mindful of the fact that, within the inner circle, we have no word from and no indication of the positions of Moshe Ya'alon and Benny Begin. When the gov't was formed, their presence provided reassurance that Netanyahu would be kept straight. Do they know something we don't know? Are they screaming behind closed doors? Or are they holding on to the status quo?)


There are calls for Netanyahu to resign (fat chance), and those who would now attempt to bring the gov't down. My problem with bringing the gov't down is that the alternative — Livni and Kadima — would certainly be no better and might be worse. I don't see it as a viable solution.

What we must remember is that this is, broadly, a right-leaning coalition. Faction chair Zevulun Orlev of HaBayit Hayehudi — a member of the coalition — said his party would seek alternative political means of cracking the freeze. And he is calling on other parties in the coalition — Yisrael Beitenu and Shas — to unite to work against this.


My friends, when there was ambiguity and it wasn't clear what Netanyahu was up to, I said forthrightly that I wouldn't criticize and that I was not in a position to judge all of the parameters of an extraordinarily difficult situation. (Facing off against Obama IS extraordinarily difficult, and, with everything, I always keep Iran, and the need for US cooperation on this, in my mind.) I felt that he might be "playing the game," taking risks, but with reason, and astutely. I promised I'd scream if I saw reason to do so. Tonight I see reason.

Please, let Prime Minister Netanyahu know what YOU think of what he's just done:
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)


In the US: Happy Thanksgiving!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Devolin, November 25, 2009.

I've always regarded the academically projected idea of "Islamophobia" as being an infringement upon the democratic freedom to think and weigh evidence against the perceived threat of Islamic terrorism. If the presence of Muslims in my community makes me feel anxious, that is the fault of Islam and not the fault of my existence in a Western democracy like Canada.

In Canada it is still my freedom to feel anxious about certain religious, especially if such anxiety, in light of all I've read both in books and newspapers, warns against the violent manifestations of Islam as embodied in the persons of those whose lasts utterances before they murdered innocents helter skelter were addressed to the god known as Allah.

Being an expert on Islam is not yet a prerequisite to being a Canadian citizen; being dedicated to my country's security and the safety of my community is not yet a crime in this country. It is the fault of Islam and the Muslim "radical" that many Canadians like me (although they are fearful of saying so publicly) view all Muslims as being suspect.

In my view, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' description of the "radicalization process" is simply more of the same tedious apologia long ago worn out by others before him also in possession of laudable education but likewise without an intellect.

When a Jew chooses to become more observant, as did Rabbi Kahane (obm), he/she moves to Israel and eats Kosher; when a Christian decides to become more religious, he/she quits smoking or quits drinking or maybe attends Mass more often.

When a Muslim decides to become more religious, he/she decides to kill anyone whom for x amount of days, months, or years prior the tenets of his interpretation of the Koran defined as being "blasphemous" and an affront to the god and religion they now swear to serve resolutely, namely Allah and Islam.

The terms "adopting a legalistic interpretation," "manifesting a low tolerance for perceived theological deviance, and attempting to impose one's religious views on others" could be used to describe Billy Graham's life story. These terms are descriptive only, and weightless.

The religious adherence Mr. Gartenstein-Ross delineates also dictates, of necessity, the observance of the most moderate religious types, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim. What differentiates the "Islamist" (who, according to the Koran, is a "faithful" Muslim) is his/her angry hatred of all non-Muslims, but especially Western non-Muslims, and even more so all Jews.

What Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has failed to address (along with many others) is the frightening reality that even in the mind of the comfortably moderate and well educated Muslim, the tenets of Islam regarding his/her measure of adherence to the Koran can at any time preponderate beyond all Western-oriented judicious monitions against the "Islamist" concept of jihad. This same noesis inspired Major Nidal Hasan into a shooting spree in Ft. Hood in the same way it inspired the doctor in Aberdeen Scotland to drive his SUV into an airport lounge. Islam is the cause of terrorism. The radicalization process is merely the conduit through which the former "moderate Muslim" arrives at the Islamist level of Islam.

No matter the odious acts of terror Osama bin Laden has committed against the West, the West has yet to acknowledge that bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is the more accurate. Were all Muslims required to be "experts on Islam" in order to perceive the true meaning of the words of the Prophet Mohammed, then Islam is untrue to the Prophet's promise of perspicuity for the simple-minded. But if not, then Islam has certainly succeeded as a religion intrinsically, although not as a salubrious affect for those whose beliefs lay elsewhere.

Michael Devolin,
B'nai Elim Canada

Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 25, 2009.

This was written by Asaf Romirowsky, who is an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.


AFTER President Obama's June 4 Cairo speech on U.S.-Muslim concerns, including the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his own speech at Bar Ilan University stipulating that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

He said a "basic condition for the termination of the conflict is honest and public recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as the Jewish people's nation . . . we need the Palestinian leadership to get up and say, 'We've had enough of this conflict.' "

Netanyahu's statement helps explain why the most recent Obama-initiated peace process has seemed to go nowhere. It is notable for the fact that it forces Palestinians to take a good look in the mirror and decide how they'd like to proceed.

Historically, Palestinian society never saw Israel's existence as a "right." The only right in the Palestinian narrative is their own connection to the land, although they do see Israel as a temporary military fact. But there will come a day, the narrative goes, when they will be able to defeat the Israelis.

The notion of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state existing alongside Israel was never part of the Palestinian worldview, and they have also always rejected the notion of a single binational state.

If from the late '80s into the Oslo years it was politically correct to call for a two-state solution, two sides living side by side, many Palestinians now openly call for a one-state solution, a de facto final solution for the state of Israel.

Just look at what Rashid Khalidi, ex-PLO spokesman, now professor at Columbia, writes in his book "The Iron Cage": "among some observers . . . a realization has been growing for years that is increasingly unlikely. This realization has taken shape irrespective of the merits or demerits . . . of the two-state solution, in spite of the long-standing desire of majorities of Palestinians and Israelis for their own state, and notwithstanding the (often grudging and hedged) acceptance by each people of a state for the others."

In fact, on the Palestinian street, where things really count, the preference is for a one-state solution — Israel is nowhere to be found.

A closer look at the idea of the two-state model as proposed by Palestinian spokesmen reveals that it is actually a camouflage. It lets the Palestinians be perceived as compromising when, in reality, they don't have to. The pro-Palestinian faction loves to quote U.N. resolution 242. It's become the foundation for the land-for-peace formula drafted after the Six Day War, and a superficial reading seemingly places the Palestinian peace-brokers in a position of strength. If Israel valued peace, it would return land. If Arabs wanted land, they would give peace.

But there is dishonesty within 242: On one hand, it talks about the exchange of land for peace with Israel, meaning there's room to negotiate. But although we (naively) believe it also calls for recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, that is not the case. And paying lip service to the two-state idea in reality makes it easier to blame Israel and the U.S. for preventing the creation of a Palestinian state, all while putting off facing up to the responsibilities of governing a state and being accountable for your actions.

Washington, D.C., and Jerusalem should start looking at other options as the Obama administration tries to reignite "peace talks" that have no viable end result. The two-state solution in its current formula is actually just a placebo for those who'd like to believe that peace will come when there are two states living side by side. Absent real acceptance of Israel by the Arabs, this isn't likely to occur — and the probability of Hamas-run Gaza being included in any resolution is slim to none.

FOR PRAGMATIC reasons, Palestinians may not admit a return to the one-state policy, particularly since American aid and support flows from a peace process based on a two-state solution, but the signs are everywhere.

We need to face the fact that peace and security are not going come from the "two-state solution," and without understanding that, there can't be a real discussion of what peace and security in the region really looks like.

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 Steven Shamrak, November 25, 2009.

Arab Leopard Unable to Change his Spots.

Syrian president Bashar Assad like the leopard has not changed his spots. After Washington opened the door wide to reconciliation, lavishing goodwill gestures and a procession of emissaries over several months, Assad has abruptly slammed it shut. On Wednesday, Aug. 12, he announced he was off to Tehran next week to congratulate his good friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election as president and further cement their ties. He left behind him a trail of dashed hopes in Washington. (It seems that regardless of how rude and embarrassing any behaviour toward the US is, any slap in the face from a Muslim or Arab country is happily tolerated by the current administration and it is underplayed or even not reported at all by the international press!)

Cooperation of anti-Israel Coalition. The Lebanese Air Force will receive 10 U.S. made Puma helicopters, a gift from United Arab Emirates. In addition, Lebanon will receive 10 Russian-made MiG 29 planes.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Only after the Americans, including their president, end their politically correct or hypocritical blindness and stop saying: "I don't know why he did it" (re: Fort Hood rampage by major Nidal Malik Hasan) will they be able to face up to and win the war which is being waged by Islam against humanity!

Kadima — Always Advancing Backward. Kadima Knesset Member Meir Sheetrit, who was Interior Minister in the Olmert government, came out swinging against the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He argued that the new construction in Gilo will play into the hands of Hamas and boost popularity for the terrorist organization. (Enemies of Israel never been considerate toward Jews. Must Israel care for the opinions of our enemies?)

Arab Export to Israel. Israeli border police of the Galilee region have seized 15 kilograms/33 pounds of heroine smuggled into Israel by an Israeli-Arab from the village of Yarcha.

Injustice System Infested by Self-hating Left. The public-professional committee charged with presenting candidates for the next attorney general finished its work on Thursday evening and informed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Ya'akov Ne'eman that there is no clear candidate. (Well stuffed by Labor and Kadima's ideological supporters the committee is unable and unwilling to approve the Zionist-minded candidate!) The government has exposed its discrimination against Jewish patriots during the anti-expulsion protests five years ago by pardoning motorcyclists who clogged Tel Aviv and caused a mammoth rush-hour traffic jam in a demonstration against higher insurance rates last week.

Repugnant Traitors Sabotage Israel's Sovereignty. President Shimon Peres (former Labor leader) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak (current Labor leader) are formulating yet another peace plan. It begins with the formation of a demilitarized Palestinian Authority state in half of Judea and Samaria (Jewish land), and ends within two years with a PA state of double that size. (Voters of Israel must purge Israel's political system of these self-hating bastards.)

Quote of the Week: "The demand not to build in Gilo seems strange and even bizarre since it has been inhabited for 30 years... It's not east Jerusalem — Arabs have never lived in Gilo and its houses weren't built on private Arab land." — former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval — It is more than just strange. It is a symptomatic attack on Israel's s sovereign rights by the US and other international anti-Semitic bigots!

Jordanian King to US Jews: Support PA State. Jordan's King Abdullah II turned to Jewish leaders from the United States this week in hopes of convincing them to help pressure Israel to accept the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan. (I would like to see him and his lovely looking wife, Queen Rania, supporting and propagating among Arabs the Sinai Option: The only road to Permanent Peace!)

New Embassies Must be Opened in Jerusalem Only! Estonia is opening its embassy in Israel on Wednesday. Estonia has followed every other country in the world in declining to locate its embassy in Jerusalem. The international (hypocritical) community has refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all parts of the capital.

Where is the UN's Condemnation of this Over Reaction? A substantial Saudi armored infantry force and tank column crossed the border into Yemen, on Thursday Nov. 5, to do battle with Iran-backed Houthi rebels the day after they killed a Saudi border guard. Saudi air force F-15 and Tornado jets have been bombing Yemeni rebel positions near the border. (The killing of just one border guard provoked such over reaction. After Katyusha rocket attacks Israel had more reasons for attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza after 8 years of terror and over 12,000 rocket attacks. Have the United Nations General Assembly held an emergency meeting and condemned Saudi Arabia's aggression?)

Hypocricy of the Headlines.

Israel told to accept global consensus on establishing Palestinian state — Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdallah, Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs, Oman — Shouldn't the Muslim countries accept the global consensus on the end of international Islamic terror first?

Self-hating Bastards Must Pay. Police officer David Atiya has been ordered by the Jerusalem Magistrates Court to pay NIS 60,000 out of his own pocket for butting David Ladwin in the head with his helmet during demonstrations in February 2006 against the demolition of nine buildings in the Samarian Jewish community of Amona.

PA's Child Slavery which is not condemned by UN. According to a report published by the Palestinian Organization for Democracy and Law, hundreds of children are working 12 hours a day in the tunnels used for smuggling between Gaza and Egypt. Some are being given amphetamines to maintain the work rhythm. The report states that 117 Palestinians have been killed in the tunnels in the past two years, including 32 children working in the tunnels.

No Freedom of Speech for Jewish Patriots in Israel. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is alright for Israel Radio and the Second Authority for Television and Radio to reject ads that refer to the forced removal of Jews from their homes during the retreat from Gaza in 2005 as an expulsion. ( Some 8,500 Jews were forcibly expelled from their homes and over ten communities were destroyed during the 'disengagement' of 2005.)

The Middle East Matrix!
by Mark B. Kaplan

What if everything you think you know to be true is a lie, and everything you see is just an illusion? Sounds like a promo for The Matrix, but this is the reality of life in the Middle East. The rules that apply to other countries strangely change when applied to Israel. Israel becomes subject to "international law" based upon a legal foundation of facts that don't exist; Israel has leaders, but the leaders would rather suffer the existence of abusive friendships than fight back and protect their children.

The United States is leading the crusade against Israel. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are not only demanding Israel freeze all "settlement construction", including natural growth, but that Jewish rights be curbed in Jerusalem. Obama is also calling Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria an "occupation."

Yes, Israel does have rights under international law, and the Arab propaganda accusation of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine is another falsehood that needs to end. Israel's government has never stood up for Jewish land rights. Can it be that they don't even know what those rights are?

It's frustrating to see Israeli leaders refuse to challenge the false accusations. The fact is that international law does have a lot to say about Israel's rights in Judea, Samaria and beyond. Israel's leaders, President Obama, and the entire world body should look to international law before declaring that Israel should freeze construction, or even worse, surrender portions of the Jewish National Homeland.

...The Mandate for Palestine was for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish People. No other beneficiary is named in the Mandate. Non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were guaranteed the civil and religious rights due to any minority living in a democracy. These rights do not include the right to autonomy. If they did, then every religious group would have the right to an autonomous state. The British never intended on leaving Palestine for the Jews. Despite their obligations under the Mandate, British actions prevented Palestine from becoming Jewish.

...Bringing the Jewish People's rights before the legal system, where propaganda will lose to factual evidence, will end the illusion of illegal occupation and firmly establish the Jewish Nation's legal rights to all of Israel. Once the propaganda is proven to be a lie, then perhaps, just like in The Matrix, the Jewish People will also be able to stop the bullets of anti-Zionism in mid-air. (In order to end lies, You may start distributing this information now — The Mandate — Legalised Robbery!)

The Bottom Line: The Mandate for Palestine was for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish People. The Mandate (Article 5) stipulated that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." This means that under international law, no one can force the Jewish State to cede any land that is legally recognized as belonging to the Jewish homeland. This renders the 1947 UN Partition Plan an illegal resolution.

Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sacha Stawski, November 25, 2009.

This was written by Benjamin Weinthal, Jerusalem Post correspondent in Berlin, and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259010973274 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)..


The educational content of the Hamas children's Web site Al-Fateh (The Conqueror) is not a form of pedagogy, but an "indoctrination to suicide bombing," said David Oman, the director of communications for the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) on Tuesday at a press conference at the Regent Hotel.

Gert Weisskirchen, a former Social Democratic Party MP and chairman of the OSCE on combating anti-Semitism between 2004-2008, introduced the IMPACT-SE study, and said that "there is a chance to prevent the indoctrination of children and youngsters in Germany and all over Europe."

The study "Al-Fateh — The Hamas Web Magazine for Children: Indoctrination to Jihad, Annihilation and Self-Destruction" took place from September 2002 to April of this year.

Oman cited the "friends of Al-Fateh" entry of the young German-Palestinian child Muhammad Warad as growing evidence of the spread of radical, anti-Western Hamas ideology.

The Hamas Web site, according to the IMPACT-SE study, serves to demonize Israel through the use of anti-Semitic cartoons and tries to strip the country of its right to exist.

The promotion of violence is a standard theme of Al-Fateh. A telling example, said Oman, is the glorification of female suicide bomber Zeynab Abu Salam, who murdered two Jerusalem police officers in 2004.

Al-Fateh claims to receive millions of visitors, according to Oman. He said the Al-Fateh server, which has been tracked to Russia and Malaysia, frequently relocates its operation to prevent closure. The United Kingdom is listed as the site's current host.

The educational material on the site contravenes "all of the International Educational Standards based on UNESCO Resolutions," noted the study. Moreover, the authors of the study wrote that the site violates the International Convention on the Rights of the Child affirming that "every child has the inherent right to life," by inciting children to commit suicide bombings.

The pro-violence ideology of Hamas will have "implications for the West and Israel," said Oman.

"What will happen in 10 or 15 years from these children after their exposure to this type of hate?" asked Oman.

The Iranian-Hamas connection appears on Al-Fateh. The study highlighted the role of the founder of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, in stoking hatred against the West and Israel.

"The Web site often uses stories of shahids [martyrs] or their last wills and testaments to convey the message of violent jihad till victory or death — a message found in the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini," wrote the authors.

"Child abuse" was the term Oman invoked to describe the effect of Hamas's educational site on adolescents and children.

Sacha Stawski is with Honestly Concerned Organization.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 24, 2009.

There is a lesson for Israel to be learned in the movie: The Bridge on the River Kwai starring Alec Guinness. Remember how the top ranking British officer captured by the Japanese, along with British soldiers, helped engineer and build a bridge across the River Kwai enabling their Japanese captors to ship men and war materiel via train to advance their war machine. Out of ego and hubris the British officer used British engineering and the labor of his men to build that bridge. Although he was advised by junior officers that he was aiding the enemy, he continued on, so engrossed with the project that, only at the end when special forces were going to die blowing up his bridge did he realize what he had done.

We have watched in horror as various Israeli Prime Ministers became so consumed with appeasing the Americans, Europeans and various Arab and Muslim countries with a failed peace process, that they lost all sense of who the enemy was and that their goal was to destroy the nation of Israel.

Regrettably, the political leaders of Israel were similarly shallow thinkers, consumed with assisting the Muslim Arab Palestinians to take the Land from Jewish settlers, further enabling Terrorists to attack and kill Jewish citizens they swore to protect.

Unfortunately, either through hubris or stupidity, they could not understand the machinations of the larger countries serving their own national interests — such as America, France, England, Russia, China — the U.N. But, they are totally vacant about the safety or survival of Israel.

Nor could they grasp the unalterable depth of irreversible Islamic hatred for the Jewish people. Nor could they possibly understand the psychology of a primitive people who could never admit to themselves that they were stuck in a 7th to 12th Century time warp while their greedy, short-sighted Muslim Arab leaders kept themselves rich and their people impoverished.

The problem for Israel is that most of her elected leadership have acted like merely political hacks hungry for power and money. They had no vision and were not problem solvers. They didn't see that Israel has the inherent right to exist as a Jewish, sovereign state and that there should be no surrender of Land to sue for peace. Israel should only offer "Peace for Peace" — no more. That includes NOT unleashing thousands of captured, tried, convicted and jailed Terrorists who either wanted to kill Jews (or already had) so they could kill more Jews.

Granted, Israel is a minuscule nation, surrounded by large hostile Muslim and Arab nations, driven by pagan, religiously-inspired haters of all "infidels" (non-believers) but, with the good fortune to sit on oil — black gold.

Shimon Peres posed as an advanced thinker when, in fact, he was merely an unimaginative political hack who valued world opinion much higher then he should — and at great expense to Israel's security and sovereignty.

Yitzhak Rabin was always a hopeless case, coming out of a Communist household, run by his strong-willed mother who was dubbed Rosa, the Red. Rabin was addicted to cigarettes and alcohol.

Ehud Barak was 'assembled' bit-by-bit into fantasy figure as a 'thinker' by the Labor Left party. Regrettably, he rarely proved the public relations effort to make him seem like an intellectual — let alone a champion for all of Israel.

Ehud Olmert was a complete loss, except he was trained as a lawyer who used those skills to eventually make money out of illegal deals — according to the 5 or 6 indictments the authorities have against him — yet to be tried.

Our greatest disappointment was Arik Sharon, who was a real visionary and a fighter. His failures as a politician were staggering. He really knew the Arab/Muslim mind which made him a great general. As a politician he became no better than Rabin, Peres, Barak or Olmert by not recognizing that, regardless of agreements, the Muslim world would never give up trying to eliminate the Jewish State.

All of the above — like the British officer building the bridge for the Japanese — became consumed with their place in history and abandoned whatever good sense they may have had about the Muslim Arabs. Somehow, they ignored well-recorded history of the Muslims who were indoctrinated by their own Koran to be conquerors, living like parasites on their victims' loot. Israel's leaders thought, by sheer Jewish logic (more like Chelm), they could achieve peace through pacification, appeasement and agreements that the Arab Muslims signed in the sand never intending to keep — as taught by Mohammed in his Hadith. For this the Jews surrendered all that is precious to them in the Land of Israel.

Once esteemed Israeli leaders began the useless task of fashioning peace plans, all other knowledge and wisdom was pushed aside, particularly at the urging of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department and various U.S. Presidents deeply involved in the commerce of oil.

So, our erstwhile leaders became like the British officer assisting his Japanese captors to build a bridge which would eventually bring more Japanese troops to kill or capture more British soldiers. In this reality, today it is Netanyahu (at Obama's urging) who is building that "very narrow bridge" of another State of Palestine within Israel's ancestral homeland in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and all those parts (north, east and south) of Jerusalem that were occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. We will see hostile Muslim Arabs flowing across that "very narrow bridge" unless it is blown up as in the film.

A few Jewish leaders could not be so easily misled. David Ben Gurion had the vision but, he too became more interested in fighting religiously observant Jews than fighting the Muslim Arabs.

PM Menachem Begin was a courageous leader who believed in the destiny of a Jewish State but, sadly he was misled by an American President (Jimmy Carter) and by Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, the promises which Sadat never kept. Sadly, Begin was blinded to a reality he avoided seeing by his own desire for peace.

PM Yitzhak Shamir, did understand the Arab Muslims and their one track mind set to eliminate the Jewish State. He dug in his heels and refused to negotiate away Israel's Land.

Today we have PM Binyamin Netanyahu who is trying to ride several horses at the same time. Bibi wants to appease a one-term President, Barack Hussein Obama who, having been raised a Muslim, viscerally does not like the Jewish State and wishes to build another Terrorist Muslim Arab state in Judea and Samaria — connected to Gaza so their second State of Palestine can be "contiguous" with Jerusalem as their capital.

Obama has over and over proclaimed himself to be a Muslim — in words and deeds, denials notwithstanding. You can see him do it on
You-Tube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28 IF it hasn't been removed yet.

Bibi has a large ego and wishes to be recognized as the "Peace Maker" who should also receive a Nobel Peace Prize as did Peres, Arafat, Rabin and Obama. He walks a "narrow bridge" to keep Likud supporters of the Right sufficiently behind him so he will not again be voted out of office. The people do not trust him to not cut deals behind closed doors with the Americans and the Europeans. He will build 900 homes for Jews in Jerusalem — but, then he cut another deal to build 5,000 homes (in future planning) for the Arabs in Jerusalem — which expands an already hostile Fifth Column within Israel.

Bibi will say that Jerusalem is to remain united but, then he'll be pushed to negotiate borders and a place in or near Jerusalem as the designated capital of another State of Palestine.

Bibi will make promises to the settlers of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights but, he will think he is forced to cut separate deals with Obama to establish what will inevitably be another Terrorist Palestinian State in Judea/Samaria — linked to Gaza because Sharon, Olmert and Weisglass forced the evacuation of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from 21 communities in Gush Katif/Gaza and 4 communities in Northern Samaria, destroying their homes, farms, businesses, industries — even their cemeteries.

Netanyahu believes his behind can sit on several horses at the same time and, with clever speeches, can get away with it.

But, what country will have him after he builds his very "narrow bridge" for the enemies of Israel. Will he be able to walk the streets of Israel after he betrays the people and the nation. If he does this, missiles will rain down from the new "settlements" of Arab Muslim Terrorists in Judea and Samaria, decimating Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Prior Israeli leaders started this bridge to assist our enemies and PM Netanyahu may be trying his hand at completing the job — despite that he knows the Muslim Arabs will inevitably cross that "very narrow bridge" to try and destroy Israel, in keeping with the Muslim world's ultimate goal of creating a Global Caliphate under Sharia (strict) Muslim law. Perhaps Bibi and the Leftists can star in a new Jewish version of the Bridge on the River Kwai.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 24, 2009.

This was written by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, who holds a degree in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin, and rabbinic ordination from the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. He is the senior editor of Aish.com and the director of JewishPathways.com. He is also regarded as an expert on media bias relating to the Middle East conflict, and was the founding editor of HonestReporting.com. Rabbi Simmons lives with his wife and children in the Modi''in region of Israel. This article is archived at


History provides far too many examples of man's inhumanity to man: social injustice, religious oppression, cultural clashes, ideological wars, class hatred, and most every other form of racism and intolerance.

One particular form, however, stands out amongst all others: Anti-Semitism. Unique in its universality, intensity, longevity and irrationality, anti-Semitism is a historical phenomenon which falls outside of normal sociological bounds.

In 1987, President Chaim Herzog of Israel commissioned a colloquium on anti-Semitism. Professor Michael Curtis of Rutgers University spoke there about the irrationality of anti-Semitism:

"The uniqueness of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that no other people in the world has ever been charged simultaneously with alienation from society and with cosmopolitanism, with being capitalistic exploiters and also revolutionary communist advocators. The Jews were accused of having an imperious mentality, at the same time they're a people of the book. They're accused of being militant aggressors, at the same time as being cowardly pacifists. With being a chosen people, and also having an inferior human nature. With both arrogance and timidity. With both extreme individualism and community adherence. With being guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus and at the same time held to account for the invention of Christianity."

As historian Martin Gilbert observes in the Jewish History Atlas:

"As my research into Jewish history progressed, I was surprised, depressed, and to some extent overwhelmed by the perpetual and irrational violence which pursued the Jews in every country and to almost every corner of the globe. If, therefore, persecution, expulsion, torture, humiliation, and mass murder haunt these pages, it is because they also haunt the Jewish story."

Which leaves us with one question: What is the root of anti-Semitism?

"Jews Are Rich, Powerful and Control The World"

Many claim that anti-Semitism is a reaction to Jewish political and economic power. Consider the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book invented by the Russian secret police, purporting to be the discussions of Jewish elders plotting to take over the world. It was — next to the Bible — the best-selling book in the world during the 1920s. In the United States, Henry Ford sponsored its publication. It has since been printed in numerous languages internationally, and presently has widespread distribution in Japan.

But could Jewish wealth and power really be the cause of anti-Semitism? The Jews of Poland and Russia (17th-20th centuries) were poor and powerless. Yet they were still persecuted. Cossacks didn't check bank accounts before initiating pogroms. When the Nazis liquidated the Warsaw Ghetto, the Jews lived there under incredibly impoverished conditions. The reality is that poor Jews have been just as hated as rich Jews.

As Jews were being slaughtered en masse, the claim that Jews control governments becomes painfully absurd.

Furthermore, if it is true that Jews control the governments, then why didn't even one country accept Jewish refugees struggling to escape Europe during the Holocaust? Surely with all their wealth and political power, at least one government would have allowed the Jews in! When government after government buried its head in the sand as Jews were being slaughtered en masse, the claim that Jews control governments becomes painfully absurd.

Jewish "success" may make an anti-Semite gnash his teeth, but that's clearly not the root cause of anti-Semitism.

"Jews Claim to be the Chosen People"

The University of California at Berkeley conducted a survey, asking a group of non-Jewish Americans whether they believed a series of negative statements about Jews. By far the number one belief (held by 59%) was that Jews consider themselves as God's chosen people.

It is true that Jews have always claimed to be different. Throughout history, Jews have kept to themselves, didn't socialize with non-Jews, and had a completely different ethical, cultural and social system — including different dress, laws, and language. To top it all off, Jewish allegiance was never primarily to the countries in which they lived. The Jew always dreamt of going back to Zion. They were the ultimate outsiders.

If anti-Semites hate Jews because they claim to be chosen, then what happens when Jews dropped their claim of chosenness? When the Enlightenment came to Europe, many Jews said "Now's our chance!" They shed their foreign dress, shaved their beards, enrolled in universities — and intermarried. In Germany and Austria, Jews for the first time said: "We're no longer chosen. We're going to become like you. Our home is here. Berlin is our Jerusalem." After centuries of hatred, the Jews anticipated a warm welcome from their gentile neighbors.

Where do we see the most vicious outpouring of anti-Semitism? Precisely in Germany and Austria — at the time and place that Jews dropped the claim of chosenness!

If chosenness is, in fact, the real explanation for anti-Semitism, then many of peoples should be hated for similar claims of chosenness. Americans have the concept of Manifest Destiny — i.e. that it was the divine will of God to annex territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The name China means "center of the universe." The name Japan means "the sun only shines for them." But nobody hates them for this!

Other reasons have been suggested for anti-Semitism, but they also are lacking. Some say Jew-hatred stems from being different, or being outsiders, but as we have seen even when Jews been as German as the Germans, anti-Semitism has not lessened (usually the opposite). Others say Jews were a convenient scapegoat — but hatred must exist as a precondition to be chosen a scapegoat (i.e. no one ever chose midgets as the scapegoat for a country's problems).

Others suggest that anti-Semitism exists because of Deicide: Jews killed their God. But historians show that anti-Semitism existed much before Christianity, and has appeared in countless non-Christian countries.

We can see then that all the stated 'reasons' are not reasons at all, but rather are excuses for anti-Semitism. What is the real reason?

The Attempt to De-Judaize Anti-Semitism

In her diary, on April 11, 1944, Anne Frank wrote:

"Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now? It is God who has made us as we are, but it will be G-d, too, who will raise us up again. Who knows, it might even be our religion from which the world and all peoples learn good, and for that reason and that reason only do we now suffer. We can never become just Netherlanders, or just English or representatives of any country for that matter. We will always remain Jews."

Anne Frank said, in effect, that Jews have something special to contribute to the world — and because of that they have been persecuted.

But by and large, the world would rather de-Judaize anti-Semitism. When The Diary of Anne Frank was adapted into a Broadway play, we hear her explanation of anti-Semitism quite differently:

"Why are Jews hated?" she asks, "Well, one day it's one group, and the next day another..."

In other words, the reasons for anti-Semitism have absolutely nothing to do with being Jewish. The Jews went through a Holocaust, the most systematic attempt to murder a people in the history of all humanity — and it was not for Jewish reasons. Dumb luck. We were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hitler's Reason for Anti-Semitism

There was one individual, however, who stated clearly that hatred of Jews is because there's something unique about the Jews: Adolf Hitler.

His driving ambition was to turn the world away from monotheism and bring it back to paganism. He stood for the superiority of the Aryan race: "Might makes right... survival of the fittest... eliminate the infirmed and handicapped."

There was only one obstacle standing in Hitler's way: The Jews. Hitler knew it was the Jews who introduced the ideas of love your neighbor, helping the poor and the sick, and all men are created equal. Hitler hated the message of the Jews because it totally contradicted what he wanted the world to become.

As Hitler said:

"Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear."


"The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish like circumcision."

Hitler's anti-Semitism was not a means to an end. It was his goal. Long after the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 had effectively dismantled the Jewish community of Germany, Hitler was still not satisfied. In 1942, at the Wansee Conference, Hitler launched the "Final Solution" of genocide.

Hitler's anti-Semitism was not a means to an end. It was his goal.

Then, with the Nazi invasion of Hungary in 1944, top German military officers determined that railway lines must be prioritized to transport vital troops and equipment to the battlefront. The Wehrmacht urged Hitler to provide this infusion of desperately-needed supplies. Ignoring their warnings, Hitler instead gave orders to allocate the precious rail-lines to deport hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews en masse to the extermination camps. Historians acknowledge this decision as a key factor in further debilitating the German war effort. Hitler, it seems, regarded the killing of Jews even more important than winning World War Two.

He said:

"If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives, without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school; it's in his soul."

The Torah View of Anti-Semitism

The Torah itself teaches that anti-Semitism will exist and that Jews will be hated for precisely the reasons echoed in Hitler's words.

The Talmud (Shabbat 69) declares:

"Why was the Torah given on a mountain called Sinai? Because the great "sinah," the great hatred of the Jew, emanates from Sinai." (Sinah, the Hebrew word for hatred, is pronounced almost identically to Sinai.)

Before the Torah was given, people built their lives on a subjective concept of right and wrong. At Sinai the Jewish People were told that there is one God for all humanity who makes moral demands on human beings. You can't just live as you please; there is a higher authority you are accountable to.

That's why the Russians were threatened by a handful of Jews who wanted to study Hebrew.

The Jews were given the responsibility to represent that morality and be a light unto the nations. So, despite the fact that they were never more than a tiny fraction of the world's population, Jewish ideas became the basis for the civilized world. And with that, they became a lightening rod for those opposed to the moral message. That's why the Russians, although they were a huge superpower in the 1970s, were threatened by a handful of Jews who wanted to study Hebrew.

Why would people hate the Jewish message?

Consider the words of Aldous Huxley, in his book, Confessions of an Atheist:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

For the one who rejects morality and conscience, the only way to get of rid of the message... is to destroy the messenger.

Why Be Jewish?

The solution to anti-Semitism is the flip-side of the cause. Jewish values are the cause of anti-Semitism, and Jewish values are the solution. Only by studying Torah — and teaching it to others — can we ever hope to bring the world to a point where evil is eradicated.

When human beings embrace the moral doctrine that Judaism brought to the world from Sinai — that there is a God who demands ethical behavior from every human being — then there will be no holocausts.

And that is the exquisite irony of Jewish history.

The world cannot get the message unless the messengers learn it and teach it. The world desperately needs the Jewish message. Now go and study.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein and Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2009.

In his column of November 20, "Salam Fayyad builds Palestine,"
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258624595789&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz describes "two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel" — Senator Joe Lieberman, former vice presidential candidate, and Representative Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — "nodding their encouragement" at a recent Ramallah press conference, where Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. The piece goes on to outline a Palestinian state in formation, regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.

Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions.

Since these American elected officials let that opportunity pass, perhaps it was the journalistic responsibility of Mr. Horovitz to explore these matters, to offer a more balanced picture. Instead, he alluded to "staunch supporters of Israel nodding their agreement," conveying the notion that, except for some technical problems, all is well.

Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked would have included:

Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel.

The charter of Fatah — the predominant element in the PLO and the PA — to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term "Palestine" to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that "Liberating Palestine is a national obligation," and that "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method" for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace "armed resistance" to liberate Palestine.

Cessation of incitement via changes in PA-produced textbooks.

The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT http://www.impact-se.org ) has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts...

  • Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
  • Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
  • Demonize Jews and Israel.
  • Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
  • Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
  • It is disingenuous for Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?.

    Cessation of PA pursuit of Hamas as a coalition partner.

    The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an "elephant in the room" that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the US and the entire Quartet as a terrorist entity. Yet in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a "unity government" — negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord — that saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?.

    Renunciation of the "right of return."

    The "right of return," promoted for 60 years by UNRWA and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of perma­nent resettlement of the refugees? UNHCR, the UN High Commission for Refugees — which oversees all refugees except Palestinians — operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a (rage-inducing) state of limbo. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the "right of return." Isn't it time to ask Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?

    Lastly, Mr. Horovitz writes that "most of the international community completely supports [PA] demands for a 100% Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank," noting that "Netanyahu...is intent on driving a harder bargain." The reader is left with the impression that Netanyahu is obstinately resisting what the world expects. Left unsaid is that the Israeli electorate is most definitely not in favor of complete withdrawal, and that the prime minister simply reflects the will of the nation in this regard. What is more, Mr. Horovitz neglects to say that neither does international law support this: UN Security Resolution 242, which does not demand full Israeli withdrawal, acknowledges Israel's need for secure borders.

    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 Arlene Kushner is senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact her at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, November 24, 2009.

    The Iranian Government's instruments of financial leverage and soft power have taken a hit in the month of November.

    On November 4, analyst Avi Jorisch revealed in the Wall Street Journal that Iran appears to be using a United Nations office headquartered in Tehran to skirt U.S. sanctions. Jorisch writes that Iran appears to be using the Asian Clearing Union "to route over $13 billion overseas in 2008 and over $5.6 billion so far in 2009 to pay for many of its goods and services." Presumably, the White House, the U.S. Treasury, and international anti-money laundering agencies have since chased down this lead.

    A week later, on November 12, the federal government seized assets belonging to the Alavi Foundation and the Assa Corporation, including a Manhattan skyscraper and four mosques, citing alleged links to the Iranian government. An amended civil complaint alleges that the Alavi Foundation provided services to the Iranian government and transferred money to Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned financial entity.

    The next day, on November 13, 2009, Eli Lake of the Washington Times revealed that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) may be operating as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and lobbying disclosure laws.

    Now, the New York Post appears to have delivered another blow to the aforementioned Alavi Foundation. Apparently, it has gifted "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to the Middle Eastern and Persian studies programs at Columbia and Rutgers universities, in an attempt to influence their programs. For example, the Alavi Foundation reportedly donated $100,000 to Columbia after the university agreed to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007.

    Iran may have lost a few battles this month, but the mullahs are still winning the war. Tehran continues to march toward its goal of attaining a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the Iranians recently rejected a deal brokered by the United Nations whereby Tehran would have shipped about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to Russia and France to be processed for a research reactor. The deal might have delayed Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb by about a year.

    In the end, the recent blows to Iranian infrastructure in the United States are no substitute for imposing crippling sanctions, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Congress and some of America's allies are ready to impose these measures. The White House, however, continues to delay.

    Before joining the Jewish Policy Center, Jonathan Schanzer was a counterterrorism analyst for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He is the author of the new book Hamas vs Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave Macmillan). This appeared today in Frum Forum

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 24, 2009.


    New America Foundation's Robert Wright assesses the breaking point that propelled Major Hasan into the Ft. Hood massacre.

    Mr. Wright's thesis is not new, but he puts new arguments into it. He asserts that under modern conditions, our wars may be radicalizing Muslims into becoming terrorists, even in our own country. He questions whether terrorists need foreign countries, when they can use the Internet to radicalize our own Muslims. With Internet and its video, powerful emotional messages reach across the seas. The videos contain images of Americans killing videos. This strains less emotionally strong individual Muslims to their breaking point. Radical imams encourage such individuals to take action. Becoming the butt of suspicion at work, further alienates Muslims.

    The fact that very few U.S. Muslims have taken such action convinces Wright that Islam is not inherently a belligerent religion.

    Wright makes a distinction that conservatives just wanted to kill terrorists, whereas liberals wanted to kill terrorism. (NY Times, 11/22, Opinion).

    The assessment contains creative thinking, unfortunately rendered less plausible by Mr. Wright's succumbing to the temptation to rub his thesis into conservatives. One wonders whether his case on terrorism is driven by a desire to triumph over conservatives.

    It was President Bush who called ours a "war on terrorism." Few well-known people suggested that we devise a strategy against the ideology, although I recall some conservative commentators doing so. I think Wright's ideological partisanship is misguided, in what must be a unified and non-partisanship national effort to fashion a workable strategy.

    There have been American Muslim attempts at terrorism, but not many. Their limited number does not prove much about Islam. Muslim numbers here have not attained the critical mass that emboldens violent types. Suppose their numbers grew?

    The question Wright should ask is why does terrorism infect Muslims more than people of other faiths? Why are they liable to become radicalized? Why do they identify with radical Muslim organizations, rather than scorn their terrorism? Can something be done about radical abuse of Internet, as a criminal or war matter, without taking away our own freedom? A sound strategy requires asking and answering.

    How tempting Wright's thesis must be for those who would like a simple way to abandon wars against terrorists! It would be even more tempting if he advanced an alternative. Does our immigration policy protect or imperil us, in this regard?

    Wright declares that terrorists don't need bases in host or failed states, to harm us. It seems to me that the resources that such havens allow terrorist organizations to amass enable them to plan major operations like 9/11. Each country they take over not only fastens their type of dictatorship upon millions of people, but enables them to gather more national resources against the remaining countries. Wright does not seem to have asked, what if we don't stop state-by-state take-over.

    Whether the U.S. still has the resources to mount such wars is a question, too. We need a strategy that does not require the old style mass-invasion.

    Another question is why we have tolerated radical regimes, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which finance radical mosques and terrorist organizations. The mosques and madrassas that they subsidize graduate potential terrorists as fast as we kill them, and those states provide the necessary arms. Wright did not comment upon whether such mosques and madrassas are rising in the United States.


    David Beamer, father of a 9/11 victim, was invited to hear Attorney-General Holder's Senate testimony on why he decided to try the 9/11 terrorists in a New York civilian court.

    According to Mr. Beamer, the Senate Judiciary Committee comprised partisan-oriented Democrats and issue-oriented Republicans.

    Attorney-General Holder said he chose civilian trials in order to, as Beamer put it, "restore the integrity of our judicial system." Another of his reasons is that the number of civilian victims exceeded the number of military victims. [So?]

    Holder assured the Committee that the trials would be short. New Yorkers' safety would take priority. He has sufficient evidence so that no classified evidence would be revealed.

    Democrats on the Committee praised Holder and the prospect of open trials enhancing our reputation abroad, even though we would be enhancing defendants' rights beyond the requirements of war. Beamer didn't realize that our government's priority to please foreigners.

    Sen. Schumer (D., NY) asked the trials' cost. Civilian trials cost much more. The ones in question would cost an estimated $75 million. The Senator did not object. The Democrats mostly asked questions about other issues.

    GOP Committee members asked pertinent questions, such as how he could be so sure of conviction and of being able to withhold all classified information. How does he know what judges will rule? If terrorists captured abroad are to be tried in criminal courts, will they have to be read Miranda rights? Would that include the right to remain silent? Would they gain immigration rights and be able to plead for political asylum to stay here?

    Holder stammered that he didn't know. Why didn't he have answers? Does he know what he is doing? Why didn't he discuss with the President, as he admitted he did not, his critical decision affecting constitutional rights, battle procedure, and civilian security? (Wall St. J., 11/21, A15.)

    Why didn't the President discuss it with him?

    P.S.: The five 9/11 defendants "...will plead not guilty, so that they can air their criticism of U.S. foreign policy." They would not deny what they did, but would explain why they did it. Critics of the decision to try them before a civilian court had warned that they would try to turn the trial into one on U.S. policy. The government expects the judge to prevent that (Wall St. J., 11/23, A9).


    If Israeli PM Netanyahu releases 1,000 terrorists in exchange for one Israeli, parents of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism threaten to depose him.

    In this struggle, the personal interest of many bereaved parents, who evoke a national interest, are ranged against the parents of the one Israeli captive and the Prime Minister of a country that was unable to find other means to free him.

    In the bereaved parents' own words, "From the minute that the Bibi government abandons us and our children to the mercy of more than 1,000 murderers who will be set free; from the moment that the Bibi government betrays the memory of our murdered children; from the moment we see that all principles and all precedents have been shattered and that Bibi who vowed to fight terror betrays his principles and breaks his promises — we will work to topple the Bibi government." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/22).

    Aside from the injustice, which contravenes Jewish law, experience shows that the proposed exchange would lead to more Israeli victims than the release of one would spare. The exchange would give terrorism a triumph over Israeli security personnel who risked their lives to capture the 1,000, only to see the 1,000 freed.


    afghani troops rescue civilians (AP/Attaf Qadri)

    Taliban gunmen in Afghanistan coerced or cajoled [the source's headline differs from its text on this] a 13-year-old boy to plant a roadside bomb. It exploded when he moved it, killing him (www.imra.org.il, 11/22).

    Why use a boy and not plant the bomb themselves? He would seem less suspicious. They used him as a human shield.

    One hears little indignation against terrorists' barbarous intent, but much against the accidents of war by the U.S. or Israel, which try to minimize civilian casualties, while the terrorists try to maximize civilian casualties, including their own civilians. What conscience has "the international community?"

    UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONDEMNS IRANIAN REPRESSION The UN Human Rights Commission condemned Iran for "'serious, ongoing and recurring' human rights violations, including violence against protesters after the disputed June presidential election." The negative votes and abstentions combined, however, exceeded the positive votes (www.imra.org.il, 11/22).

    Iranian police attacking protestors (AP/People's Mujahadeen)


    An Iranian air force commander boasted that Iran can defend itself against a potential Israeli raid. He would shoot down most Israeli planes, and his ground-to-ground missiles would destroy the survivors' bases before they could land.

    Although Iran is complaining that Russia has failed to deliver a powerful anti-aircraft defense system as scheduled, Iran's Defense Minister said that Iran can manufacture its own (www.imra.org.il, 11/22).

    The U.S. and Israel waited for negotiation and sanctions to work. Now it may be too late for a military option. [Did our President plan that?" Considering Iran's military facilities, a simple raid would not do. I doubt Israel is up to making a somewhat sustained attack, first on Iranian offensive and defensive facilities. Therefore, the retaliation by Iran could be severe.

    Let's see a 5-page report on how Iran got so self-sufficient in arms manufacture.


    Hamas gunmen (AP/Nasser Ishtayeh)

    The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and Fatah deny being bound by the ceasefire Hamas announced (www.imra.org.il, 11/22).

    This is another example of the Arabs and Iranians announcing deals that the West likes, but factions, even the originator, reject the deal. One U.S. daily noted that the IDF made a retaliatory raid in Gaza despite the Hamas-declared ceasefire. The Arabs do some of the best fighting during their ceasefires.


    Every week, anarchists and Arabs riot against Israeli troops guarding the security fence. [And the IDF thinks the danger is just from the other side?] One of the rioters suffered an injured eye. He sued the IDF, claiming that he was struck by a rubber bullet, and that the IDF had intended to murder him. [In my U.S. Army training, I was taught that a blank cartridge, if fired point blank, can be fatal, otherwise not. I remember Pvt. Ackerman wearing a head bandage from a blank, fired from very close. Rubber bullets are worse, but very rarely deadly, as they are intended not to be.]

    Plaintiff's' credibility sank as the number of versions of his story rose. The court found that he was out of range of the rubber bullets. The IDF could not have struck him with one. But he had the eye injury. Turns out, he was struck by a rock thrown by one of the Arabs in his crowd [committing what that nice moderate, Abbas, calls "non-violent" protest, www.imra.org.il, 11/22).

    The judge fined him about $12,000 in court costs. The judge swam against the current of judicial favoritism for the Left.

    My source would like the judge to have ruled that even if the injury had been caused by a rubber bullet, the IDF would not be liable for damages inflicted in their duty and self-defense (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22).

    This case exemplifies the defamation of the IDF and of Israel in general. The defamers have the temerity to sue. No matter how often their tales are exposed as tissues of lies, anti-Zionists accept them. Some must accept them because their ideology predisposes them, they don't know how to check such things, and reason is not their forte. Others probably accept them as convenient ammunition, right or wrong in these individual cases.


    The IDF commander for Judea-Samaria ordered the criminal arrest of "settlers" who curse Israeli troops. Few do.

    [I do not approve of cursing the troops. The general attitude of Jews in the Territories is gratitude for any protection that the Army gives them, though the commanders begrudge it. Civilian hospitality is so prevalent and natural to people whose own children are in the Army, that commanders have ordered their troops not to fraternize with settlers, lest the troops refuse to carry out political orders against the residents. So blatantly unethical and illegal are these orders, that more and more troops refuse to obey.]

    Many Jewish anarchists, the pro-terrorism International Solidarity Movement, and their Arab followers [and the Israeli women's group that protests against checkpoints] do curse the troops. Worse, they vandalize the fence and attack the troops guarding it almost every week. The government rarely arrests them. Generally, Israel has one standard of justice for the Right, and another for the Left (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22).


    Someone once publicized the address of an Israeli Arab judge. Police interpreted that act as an invitation to murder the Arab judge. [Yes, the publicist was not suggesting that people bring the judge flowers.]

    Likewise, the University of Haifa sponsors an Internet group called "Alpha List," that promulgates antisemitism. The group disseminated a list of home addresses of Israeli Army officers. That is worse than cussing officers, it is even more clearly an exhortation to murder (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22).

    Apparently, police did nothing about it. The Left, and that obviously by now includes the Netanyahu regime, has a mental illness in condemning minor irritations against its troops by the Right, but allowing dangerous attacks against its troops by the Left, by pro-terrorist foreigners, and by an enemy population.

    The less the government defends against leftist, foreign, and Arab attacks, the more bold the attackers can be.

    The TV program, "Law and Order," explored the case of an American fascist group, that claimed to want liberty, disseminating addresses of police officers or undercover cops, who then were murdered. The group was found guilt of conspiracy to murder.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Paul Rotenberg, November 23, 2009.

    If you have been to Israel and visited farms like this one you will understand what an outrageous and pointless act the military did in Israel today. It IS about the farm, the family, the youth who go to work on the farm (often youth in trouble in the city, and the effect is incredible) and the rights of Israelis to live in Israel. It is about the fact that the military ignored the legal process, it is about some politicians enacting their own political agendas at the expense of specific (expendable) citizens and so many more issues. But this time it is about something else as well. Read this article, and don't miss what is being said: the military came to destroy and they invited the local Arabs to do the destruction. Can you imagine the army standing around preventing crying children and their shocked mother from protecting their home while the father is away serving in the reserves, and protecting who? Protecting Arabs who were invited to have a great time dismantling a Jewish home. Can you imagine the precedent this sets? This is so perverse it makes my head spin. Meanwhile the media in Israel is making a fuss about some soldiers, at their swearing in, who put it clearly on the table that they would not take part in this kind of action. This is so twisted it is becoming unrecognizable. There is no conclusion that I could draw that adequately describes the horrific nature of what went on today and the future ramifications of it.

    This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva.


    The Botzer family, whose farm was demolished Monday morning by the military, described for Arutz Sheva Radio the loss they have suffered, saying it is far more than financial.

    The Botzer farm, located adjacent to Mevo Dotan in the Shomron (Samaria) region, was destroyed Monday morning as part of the government crackdown on what have been defined as "unauthorized outposts" in lands liberated by Israel prior to the Six Day War. David and Shaina Botzer told Arutz Sheva that their farm is actually on state land within the municipal territory of Mevo Dotan, although west of the town's current residential area.

    "My husband is a Navy commando and while he was planning to go to do his reserve duty, they came and dismantled his life's work. This was an animal pen worth tens of thousands of shekels. There were 50 heads of sheep there as part of an educational agricultural project that involves the area youth," Shaina said. The animal pen itself was subject to a demolition order, she said, but the order was in appeal before the proper authorities. In addition to the animal pen, the security forces also destroyed a stable that was not subject to the existing demolition order, Botzer added.

    'Like a stab in the back'

    "The Navy commando unit is in my husband's blood," Shaina told Arutz Sheva. "The unit is part of him and now it is hard for him to go to reserve duty. He feels like he was stabbed in the back."

    Shaina was further surprised to see that the workers brought in to carry out the physical destruction of their property were Arabs from a neighboring village. "I am stunned. It is a total shock when Arabs come and dismantle a Jewish farm when so many of their homes in the village below [our farm] are illegal," she explained.

    When the workers were taking down the pen, they tried to chase away the sheep, but the animals tried with all their might to remain in the enclosure. "Even after the pen was dismantled [the sheep] ran back to the area where it had stood, but they came upon a pile of rubble," Shaina Botzer said. "It is so symbolic that they tried to return home."

    The Shomron Liaison Office informed Israel National News on Monday that the Botzer ranch is "an educational farm which is located in a very difficult and strategic area and is an inspiration to the region's development."

    "We will continue and support the efforts of the Botzer family and those who help them secure a Jewish presence in the Northern Shomron," the Liaison Office said. "We are now launching an emergency campaign to raise funds to rebuild the building that was destroyed."

    "We are essentially protecting state land here," Shaina Botzer said, "and they took everything of ours apart. With G-d's help, we will start over again."

    Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Chuck Brooks, November 23, 2009.

    This is a news item that appeared in Geostrategy


    WASHINGTON — A senior senator said the Defense Department has contracted for Israeli technology that was protecting U.S. ground units in campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The senator said the Israeli technology was more effective than anything else deployed by the U.S. military.

    "If you look at some of the things that we have, they have been credited with saving more lives from RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] in Iraq than anything else," Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, said. "This is Israeli technology that you are sharing with us."

    In an address to the Jerusalem Conference on Nov. 3, Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cited the Litening air pod, Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle and armored tiles for U.S. combat vehicles. He said the tiles, developed by Israel's state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, were saving the lives of American troops.

    Rafael also produces Litening, a combat navigation air pod that has been installed on virtually every U.S. fighter-aircraft. Northrop Grumman has been the prime contractor of the Litening program in the United States.

    The Hunter was produced by the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries. Northrop has also been working with the U.S. Army in developing and maintaining the Hunter.

    Inhofe's identification of Litening and Hunter as Israeli systems contrasted with that of Northrop and the U.S. military. The two platforms have not been publicly linked to Israeli companies.

    Rafael has been supplying armored tiles for the U.S.-origin Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The project has been led by General Dynamics for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Another major Israeli project was the armoring of the M-ATV combat vehicle for the U.S. Army. Israel's Plasan Sasa has been the prime subcontractor in a multi-billion-dollar deal to armor more than 5,000 M-ATVs for the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

    Inhofe told the conference that many Americans were under the misconception that the Israeli-U.S. defense relationship was based on American arms sales. He said the relationship was mutual, and that U.S. arms sales to Israel were in Washington's interests.

    "When we send C-130s and Apaches to Israel, we are not doing it for Israel, we are doing it for us," Inhofe said.

    Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2009.


    European sports officials have been rude to Israel's champion fencing team.

    The custom at sports events is to play the winners' national anthems when awarding them medals. First in Sweden and then in Austria, when the Israeli winners already were on the platform, the sports officials told them they had no recording of the Israeli national anthem. At first the Austrians claimed they had the old Israeli national anthem. When the Israelis explained that Israel has the same anthem as from the outset, the Austrians admitted not having it.

    Both times, the athletes sang the anthem, themselves. Now they carry its recording, to avoid that problem (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/20).

    Europeans may disapprove of Israeli military conduct. It is inexcusable rudeness, to take out their disapproval on Israeli athletes.


    President Obama visited China on a diplomatic mission. The government there kept Obama mostly out of the public view, and dissidents locked up out of Obama's view. It ignored Obama's pleas on human rights. It made clear that it is powerful enough to pick its own path. Obama's message was hobbled by his domestic problems. [For every public-spirited reform, some interest group is opposed.]

    Obama demanded that China not keep its currency artificially low, too low for the U.S. to export much to China. Chinese officials countered with a demand that the U.S. not keep its currency artificially low and falling in value, thereby depreciating China's huge holdings in dollar-denominated Treasury issues and encouraging excessive borrowing likely to produce another bubble-and-burst (Jonathan Weisman, Andrew Browne, Jason Dean, Wall St. J., 11/19,A10).

    Obama's campaign suggested that he would reconcile with other countries, because he would offer friendship and is charismatic. As I predicted, his charisma would be veiled and his friendship would founder on ideological and economic differences. And so it has.

    Obama often has sided with, or not sided against, dictators or would-be dictators. In this regard, he goes further than did his predecessor.


    Israel has barred certain Israeli and Palestinian Arabs from leaving the country, including on pilgrimage to Mecca, lest they forge links with Iran.

    One such Israeli Arab was a former mayor of Umm-el-Fahm, sentenced to jail for transferring funds to Hamas charity fronts, and who belongs of the Islamic Movement that works to bring down Israel.

    For similar reasons, Israel would not include certain convicted terrorists in a prisoner exchange (
    (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/20).


    The Waad charity from Gaza is headed by Hamas' Interior Minister. Waad offers $1.4 million to any Arab citizen of Israel who kidnaps an Israeli soldier. This is the first time that money was offered for that (Wall St. J., 11/19, A16).

    The constant Radical Muslim abuse of charities for warfare and criminality is just one of several underhanded ways of Radical Muslims. The world's media and the Left has not caught on to that. It still makes Israel and the U.S. scapegoats for false allegations by Radical Muslims.


    Outside the mosque at 96th St. and Lexington Ave. in Manhattan, one can hear support for violence against the U.S.. [Not when I walked past.] That is legally protected speech — no clear and present danger of violence.

    That legal concept may not be appropriate for Radical Islam. Ordinary Muslims latch on to radical Muslim web sites, which radicalize them. Some American-born Muslims then travel abroad for training in terrorism. Some of Somali extraction joined Somali terrorists. Major Hassan committed Islamist terrorism at Ft. Hood. Perhaps our judiciary should consider a different legal concept for an ideology that readily tempts U.S. Muslims to violence. The Radical Muslims are at war with us (Daniel Henninger, Wall St. J., 11/19, Op.-Ed.)


    "Sen. Joe Lieberman (I.Conn.) chairman of the Senate homeland security panel ...wants to find out why a joint FBI and Pentagon program to locate domestic terrorists in the military focused only on what supremacists or other right-wing extremists, rather than..." broadening their range of vision (Yochi J. Dreazen, Cam Simpson, Wall St. J., 11/20, A4). Politically correct? Old-fashioned?


    Hizbullah has issued a new manifesto. The new document proposes to establish an Islamic regime and punish the Christian Phalangists (www.imra.org.il, 11/19).


    Israel is urged by erstwhile friends to cede territory, to avoid being overwhelmed demographically. The demographic situation, however, has reversed itself. Much of the alarm occurred over Palestinian Authority (P.A.) population statistics that turned out to be erroneous. The P.A. claimed 2.5 million residents, but has only1.55 million. Emigration helped reduce its population.

    The percentage of Jewish births in Israel has increased from 69% in 1995 to 75%. One of the reasons is that Russian immigrants and "yuppies" switched to typical Israeli rates.

    The Arab birth rate in Israel and Judea-Samaria has plummeted. "The significant decline in Arab fertility rate reflects a significantly improved standard of living, resulting from successful integration into Israel's infrastructures of health, education, employment, commerce, politics, media, sports, culture and the arts. The Arab-Jewish fertility gap was reduced from six births per woman in 1969 to 0.7 in 2008." Initially, Israeli medical care reduced the Arab death rate but not the birth rate. That is typical at the start of modernization.

    Birth rates have fallen in all Muslim countries except Yemen and Afghanistan. They are urbanizing, an important factor (www.imra.org.il, 11/20).

    Secular Jewish rates had been so low, that the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox were expected to replace that portion of Jewry.


    The CIA has produced a soft sell TV commercial emphasizing that American Arabs may retain their culture and also perform a duty for their new country here by joining the CIA. Initial responses from the target audience were positive (www.imra.org.il, 11/20).

    When Israelis fluent in Arabic offered to help translate boxes of captured Arabic documents, the CIA rejected the offer. It was suspicious of Israelis.


    Abbas' troops in Hebron (A.P. photo/Nasser Shiyoukhi)

    Fatah's stated intent to implement its Conference's decision to launch a third Intifada against Israelis. It claims to be doing this because there are no negotiations.

    The uprising is to be patterned after the demonstrations at the security barrier, but to spread to Jewish communities. Fatah claims those demonstrations are non-violent. Actually, they involve throwing stones and soldiers and even fire-bombs, injuring some people. That is an odd form of non-violence! (www.imra.org.il, 11/20).

    They call the security barrier an apartheid wall, though it is neither all a wall nor apartheid. It is like many other walls, to keep out barbarians. China had one, the Romans had one in Britain, Saudi Arabia is building one, and so on.

    While planning this illegal war, Fatah also protests against Israel on spurious claims of violation of the very international law that the war shows Fatah does not believe in.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Cpocerl, November 23, 2009.

    Little Israel is the top patent producer, as reported in Ynet
    (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3807725,00.html). See below.

    Israel's economic miracle contrasts sharply with the miserable performance of the "Muslim world," which America's first Muslim-born President (according to Islamic law) has sought to elevate to the level of a transnational superpower through his odious outreach and appeasement policies. Except for Arab and Iranian oil, Muslim countries produce nothing of value to modern civilization.


    Taub Center for Social Policy Studies presents study which suggests number of patents approved to Israeli inventors by US Patent Office in 2003 higher than by any other G-7 nation. Manufacturing productivity, however, rapidly plummeting

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has approved more patents to Israeli inventors than to any other nation of the G-7 countries — the seven largest and most influential economies in the Western world, according to a study conducted by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies.

    According to the study, in 1990 the US has approved 6% less patents to Israeli inventors than to the average number of inventors in the G-7 countries (subject to country size). In 2003, however the number of Israeli patents approved was 69% higher than that of inventors in the G-7 countries.

    The study stated that 20 out of 200 world countries have had one of their scientists win a Nobel Prize over the last decade — whereas in Israel five scientists have won the prestigious award over the same time period. It appears there are only four other countries that have noted a higher number of Nobel Prize laureates than Israel.

    The study further suggested that Israeli economists are ranked first in the world, subject to country size, in the number of quotes published by leading financial magazines between 1970 and 2000. The number of quotes by Israeli economists is seven times higher than that of British economists.

    Manufacturing productivity drops

    The study also examined the level of manufacturing productivity. Alas, while Israel has managed to increase its creation productivity, prolificacy in manufacture has plummeted. Whereas in 1990, Israel's manufacturing productivity stood at 7% below the average in G-7 nations, by 2003 it dropped to 69% below the average.

    "Instead of closing the gap with leading Western nations, as Israel has done until the mid 1970's, the State is increasingly withdrawing over the last three decades," Taub Center manager Prof. Dan Ben David said. "In 1973 the standard of living in the US was 39% higher than that of Israel's. Today the American standard of living is already 61% higher."

    Ben David noted that something has happened to Israel along the way. "While parts of the Israeli population ascended to the top of human knowledge, others have been neglected and left behind."

    Ben David also stated that in the past the State's human and physical resources were at the top of national priority, a reality that has changed in recent decades.

    The professor further noted that despite the fact that universities are still considered the State's crown jewels, while Israel's population doubled sine 1973, the Israel Institute of Technology added only one more vacancy for senior staff.

    "Israeli academia's two flag ships, the Hebrew and Tel Aviv Universities, have lost 14% and 21% respectively, of senior staff vacancies since 1973."

    Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 23, 2009.

    The reader comments to my posting yesterday were intense. And in more than one instance I was asked why I don't tell it like it is regarding Obama's orientation and motivation, when it's all so clear. I am not seeking to cover for him in any regard. But I choose not to attribute motivations in instances in which I cannot document them and cannot be certain: Does he act this way because he's a Muslim, because he is an ideological socialist, because he's been bought by certain interests, etc. etc. A strong case can be made for some of these positions, but what concerns me is the effect of his policy and actions — and, as I see it, he's bringing America down.

    This said, however, there is one distinction that certainly merits contemplation. Is he messing up with regard to genuine American interests because of naiveté, inexperience, bad advice, etc.? Or, as many of my readers suggest, does he know precisely what he's doing? Is it deliberate?


    I'm not going to return to Obama's interaction with Iran here, in order to consider this premise. But I do want to consider it in a different context: The "peace process." And for this I turn to Barry Rubin's latest column, which is called "Lessons not learned."

    Rubin traces the recent history of the settlement issue, with which you will be familiar if you've been reading my material:

    When Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, it was made clear by the Israeli gov't that it considered construction in existing settlements to be consonant with the agreement; the Arabs didn't object and the US had little to say on the subject.

    That is, until Obama came into office and, as Rubin says, "made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy: sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy..."

    But this approach turned out to be an abysmal failure. First he tried to strong-arm Israel, and when Israel balked, he attempted, without success, to secure some concessions from the Arab world in exchange — wrongly assuming, says Rubin, that they are desperate for a peace agreement.


    What happened next is that the PA picked up on Obama's demands and said they wouldn't come to the table unless we froze everything. The US then actually secured a large concession from Netanyahu: We would stop building in Judea and Samaria — but not in Jerusalem — after we completed current building.

    Hillary Clinton enthusiastically praised this gesture, which infuriated the Palestinian Arabs, who then "threw a temper tantrum," and followed with all sorts of threats. This, says Rubin, is their core strategy: "Why make compromise peace with Israel when you can just claim everything you want, ensuring the door is kept open for a future struggle to wipe Israel off the map entirely?"

    So, what did the Obama administration do? Back down on everything except the PA plans for unilateral independence. "Having made a deal with Israel, having gotten Netanyahu to take an enormous risk, it then pulled the rug out from under him."

    Observes Rubin: "Those who always advocate Israeli concessions as the solution should take note. Once again, we've seen that a concession doesn't lead to a concession by the other side nor does it lead to progress. It just produces a demand for more concessions without any real credit for the last one."


    And, as we all know, the next Obama demand was to cease building in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem. Quite a big deal was made of it. (Obama said it "embittered" the Palestinian Arabs.) This in spite of the fact that the construction fell within the understanding that had been reached with Netanyahu and praised by Hillary. "...the administration...[showed] not only that it wouldn't respect agreements... made [by Israel] with predecessors, but it wouldn't even respect the agreements it made itself."

    "Obama complained that the Gilo construction...makes it harder to achieve peace...

    "Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions; genocidal goals; anti-Semitic views..."

    "Moreover, having sabotaged negotiations by highlighting the construction-on-settlements issue, the administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand.

    "Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless this happens. And since Israel will not stop building in Jerusalem...Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire term in office. In fact, he's probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place." (emphasis added)

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705164232& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


    OK. Let's look at this for a minute. The steps taken by Obama have been colossally stupid. Or so we might say, if his goal — as he's been insisting — really is a negotiated peace between Israel and the PA. He saw that his demand for a settlement freeze created a hardening, an increased intransigence, on the PA side. And then what did he do? He made another demand of Israel, one he KNEW Israel would never accede to. Obama is a political animal: he understood that even if Netanyahu wanted to stop building in Jerusalem (I don't happen to believe he does), he could not without risking the breakdown of his coalition. And, at the same time, Obama knew, from immediate past experience, that the PA was exceedingly likely to pick up on this and become even more intransigent, in echo of his demand.

    And so we must ask: Is he simply very foolish, very innocent and almost totally devoid of diplomatic skills? Is he simply so arrogant that he assumes he can condescend to Israel and make demands of us, at the same time that he stretches himself to show the Muslim/Arab world how sensitive he is to Palestinian Arab feelings? And has he thus inadvertently — and very obtusely — gotten himself into a bind?

    Or, does he have ulterior motives, and has he consciously sabotaged what he claims to be seeking? Quite a statement that Rubin made: "Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire term in office."


    One of the things that gives pause is the fact that Obama focused on Gilo. I asked, many here asked, why Gilo? Gilo? People were aghast at his approach. Indeed it seemed that his demand was very maximalist. He didn't pick on demolition of illegal Arab housing or purchase of housing by Jews in Arab neighborhoods (all of which is legit but controversial). He picked on a solid and well-established neighborhood that is totally and thoroughly integrated into the Jerusalem municipality, one built on Jewishly-owned land without even a hint of it being on Arab land, one that is not even to the east of the city, as, say, Har Homa is.

    Maybe he's really so foolish (which is worrisome in itself) that he isn't aware of all this, and just randomly picked a neighborhood that was doing some building to make a fuss over. But there is sufficient bewilderment over what he did to make one wonder.


    I would like to thank those readers who shared with me information on Muslims of dubious or clearly inappropriate background who have been given positions in Homeland Security in the US. There are two of particular note:

    Arif Alikhan was appointed by Obama several months ago to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Responsible for developing policy to secure the nation against terrorism, he killed an LA Police project for monitoring terrorist activities in local radical mosques. He has also referred to Hezbollah as a "liberation movement."

    Kareem Shora was appointed by Obama to Homeland Security's advisory council, which directly provides advice and recommendations to the Homeland Security Secretary. He was formerly executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which refers to jihadists as "heroes."

    This is from http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/nov/ devout-muslims-key-homeland-sec-posts and checked out.

    A similar item sent to me with regard to Fort Hood terrorist Hasan turned out to not be quite accurate: According to Snopes, he attended one or more meetings organized by George Washington University's Homeland Security policy institute, but was never actually an advisor to Obama's Homeland Security Team.


    You might also want to see Charles Krauthammer's piece, "Travesty in New York," about the Obama government's plans to grant Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who plotted 9/11, a civil rather than a military trial. One more reason to worry about America.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705163996& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


    The rumors are flying fast. I'm always reluctant to spend much time focusing on such rumors, which often turn out to be unfounded. But it's time to at least mention them here: It is being said that a deal to secure the release of Gilad Shalit is almost completed.

    Reportedly, the Hamas demand for 1,000 prisoners — including some who perpetrated major attacks — has not changed, but there are conflicting reports as to whom the Netanyahu government might be willing to release, and where (that is, they might not be permitted to return to Gaza or Judea and Samaria).

    It chills the heart, and enrages, to imagine that terrorists responsible for the deaths of many innocent Jews might be released. Not to speak of the fact that it puts us all at increased risk and encourages more kidnappings. (I understand that Hamas is offering a considerable amount of money to any Israeli Arab who captures a soldier.)

    Netanyahu, referring to the release of these terrorists as a "serious dilemma," told the Likud faction today that a deal is not close. When the time comes, he said, there will be a debate in the Knesset and a vote in the Cabinet.

    Aside from reports from Arab sources, the rumors have been fueled by a trip by President Shimon Peres to Egypt, at the same time that some Hamas officials were known to enter Egypt, and a visit here by German officials (Germany being involved along with Egypt on negotiations.)


    Speaking of terrorists in our prisons, there is news about Marwan Barghouti. Serving five life sentences for his involvement in terror attacks, he is frequently touted as a potential savior, who — if he is released from prison — can unite the Palestinian Arabs and bring a peace deal. Well, you can scratch that.

    Barghouti has been quoted in Al Hayat Al Jadida newspaper, via a message carried by his lawyer, as saying that Palestinian factions should lead "popular resistance" (violence) to combat building in settlements and the Judaizing of Jerusalem.

    "I have always called for creatively combining negotiations with resistance and political, diplomatic and popular activism," he was quoted as having said. "I warned against relying exclusively on negotiations, but some were late to discover this."

    "Creatively combining negotiations with resistance..." (aka, if you don't give me what I demand at the table, I'll come after you and you'll be sorry). This is pretty much the Palestinian Arab credo and does NOT lead to peace.

    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 23, 2009.

    Part 1: Framing the issues

    Map of Mandated Palestine, excluding (trans)Jordan

    A full theater mostly of emotive fellow Jews was welded to the seats as Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz debated Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, on Sunday, November 21, at the 92nd St. YMHA in Manhattan. Moderator was resigned Governor Elliot Spitzer, whose family donated money to the Y. [My comments are in ellipses such as these.]

    In the course of discussion, Dershowitz mentioned meeting on these issues with PM Netanyahu, AIPAC, and others.

    Both debaters set the framework of the debate by declaring that Israel's only interest in the Territories was security. [That is an anti-Zionist and anti-Judaism stance. Zionism claims the land of Israel, and especially the Territories, where Jewish civilization emerged. Security is secondary, necessary to protect the land and people. The participants evinced no understanding that, in any case, the Territories are vital to Israeli security, by providing secure borders and strategic depth against invasion and bombing.]

    Likewise, both believe in a 2-state resolution, which neither justified as a viable solution [or why there would be two states, considering there already are two states in Palestine, one being Jordan].

    The moderator interrupted lively discussion too often, to ask his own questions. He did keep them on topic. He tried to elicit where they agreed and disagreed.

    Part 2: J Street reviewed

    [One might have expected Dershowitz to make a devastating denunciation of J Street for being a pro-Muslim organization, but he was in an accommodating mood.] Dershowitz belatedly and tepidly raised two issues about J Street's bona fides. One was that it couldn't call itself pro-Israel after having removed "pro-Israel" from its students' affiliates' logo or banners, because it embarrasses them.

    Ben-Ami, as was typical of his performance, first tried to deny having done so, then tried to excuse it as the only way to get young people in to "engage them." But he did not explain how and whether he actually "engages" them, and how he is going to turn his campus membership, apparently hostile to Zionism, pro-Israel. Dershowitz ran rings around Ben-Ami's rationalizations, framing it as a matter of false labeling.

    The other issue was the leadership of J Street. Dershowitz barely mentioned the Arab and Iranian financing of J Street. He did cite anti-Zionist Muslim J Street board member(s). Ben-Ami claimed that the Muslim is pro-Israel. Dershowitz retorted that J Street's Muslim adviser showed his true colors by blaming the U.S. and Israel for the Palestinian Arab refusal to negotiate. [That is the Muslim Arab way of jihad, blame others for one's own deficiencies.]

    Dershowitz accused J Street of having too many hard Left associates. He attempted to balance that by claiming that AIPAC has too many hard Right associates. [AIPAC is a lobby for the government of Israel, not for Zionism and not for American Jewry. When the government changes, so does AIPAC's line. However, AIPAC also tries to stay in the good graces of the U.S. Administration. It does not have a coherent ideology.]

    When Ben-Ami more or less complained that one cannot criticize policies of Israel without being called anti-Israel or even antisemitic, Dershowitz disproved that by using himself as an example. Dershowitz constantly criticizes Israeli policies on the Arabs. Nobody calls him anti-Israel. And he didn't call Ben-Ami one. But remember, he defends Israel's right to exist and to defend that existence. That is the difference.

    Part 3: Cause of the conflict

    Ben-Ami more or less stated the usual anti-Zionist claim that the "occupation" caused the conflict. Dershowitz denied it. The conflict preceded Israeli acquisition of the Territories. When Israel removed both civilians and military from Gaza, the conflict from Gaza got worse. [I deny that it was occupation.]

    To that and at other times, Ben-Ami, who claimed a bit hysterically at one point that Dershowitz disrespected him, denigrated Dershowitz as living in the past, and praised himself as looking to the future. Dershowitz retained his equanimity and explained that what happened in recent years helps us understand what is likely to happen again.

    Neither stated the motivating factor of the conflict they think they can resolve. [That factor is Islamic doctrine.]

    Part 4: Propriety of friends criticizing Israel

    Obama and the Saudi king (Photo: AP/Ron Edward)

    Dershowitz declared it Israel's right, for being on the front lines, to decide when and how to defend itself. Therefore, American Jews may debate other Israeli policies, but not its defense policy.

    In this regard, Dershowitz had praise for Pres. Obama. He finds the President distinguishing between Israel's right to defend itself, to which he does not object, and Israel's other policies toward the Arabs, to which he does object. [But Obama's policies would deprive Israel of secure borders and become hardly able to defend itself.]

    Dershowitz indicated favor for severing the Golan from Israel, for [alleged] peace agreement. Inconsistently, he would be willing for Israel to give up that annexed area but not the annexed part of Jerusalem. Also inconsistent is his citing polls showing Israelis favoring negotiations, but not polls showing they insist on retaining the Golan.

    The question of the evening and J Street's theme was who should speak for Israel and for U.S. Jewry. Ben-Ami contends that AIPAC stands for the status quo, which does not solve anything. He said that the Jewish community should allow questions. [J Street doesn't just ask questions, it is an advocacy group.]

    Ben-Ami contends that the status quo is untenable. [Poor arrangements agreed to by Israel have led to war. The status quo would have been preferable. But I can see that keeping the status quo until Islam reforms and ends jihad would take generations. I prefer a Zionist solution, whereby Israel would reclaim the Territories and the Arabs would leave Israel and the Territories. I discuss that in earlier articles.]

    Dershowitz said that American Jewry does not need another organization that simply divides Jewish opinion [and lets it be conquered]. Whereas J. Street wants to oppose AIPAC and the established voices, Dershowitz proposed agreeing on 80% of the issues and speaking as one voice on them. He would invite J Street into AIPAC and suggested that J Street invite Dershowitz to speak at its next convention.

    To bring in J Street, AIPAC would expel from its councils the Christian "right wing" [Evangelists], and expel from its membership Jewish "extremists" who want to retain the Territories. J Street should reciprocate by expelling its own extremists. The result would be an effective united front.

    [I dispute Dershowitz' notion of extremists. The Arabs have 79% of the original Palestine Mandate, in Jordan. Israel has 17%. The Territories comprise the remaining 4%. It would not be extremist for Israel to end up with 21% and secure borders. It is extremist for Israel to be whittled down to 17% and insecure borders. Dershowitz is extremist.]

    Part 5: Peace enablers and disablers

    What would make peace, and what blocks it? Dershowitz pointed out that Arab slander blocks peace. The Abbas and Hamas regimes alike are raising generations on hatred and war lust. As for the Arabs' current views, remember that most voted for Hamas. Implication: peace is becoming impossible.

    Jewish housing does not block peace. Arabs may not like it, but their protesting against i it is an excuse for their refusal to negotiate.

    Citing Israeli "polls" in support of his own view, Dershowitz said that Israelis favor negotiation. They would be willing to give up most of the Territories for a genuine peace. This contradicts Dershowitz' point that Palestinian Arab education is indoctrination for holy war [which ceding the Territories would facilitate].

    [Any Arab leader who proposed a genuine peace would be deemed a traitor by those whom he had indoctrinated in a fanatical drive for conquest. You know what Arabs do to "traitors!" A poll does not make for wise policy, if even honest. It reflects popular misconceptions at the time. It also is used to create misconception. Dershowitz' misconception is to emphasize the willingness to cede, but Israelis emphasize their doubt about Arab genuineness for peace. They can be generous about a gift they do not expect to make.]

    Dershowitz thinks foreign troops a necessary buffer between the two sides after a peace agreement. When Mr. Ben-Ami recommended that the Quartet help make the agreement and furnish the troops, Dershowitz objected to the presence of UN troops. The UN is anti-Israel. [What does Dershowitz think the rest of the Quartet is — Russia, EU, and State Dept. — fair?]

    What did the debaters think of PM Netanyahu's policy of building up Judea-Samaria, which has begun to thrive? Ben-Ami thought it good for the Arabs but inadequate to resolve the conflict, which is not based on standard of living. Dershowitz thought it brilliant, because it showcases what cooperation with Israel can bring, contrasted with the more oppressive reign in Gaza.

    [Prosperity might help Fatah defeat Hamas. So what! Fatah is jihadist, too. Although Ben-Ami realizes that the conflict is not based on economics, he mistakenly attributes it to territory. It is based on the Muslim imperative to dominate.]

    Part 6,7: Land for peace and settlements

    Family in Adam, a Jewish town in Judea-Samaria (Photo: AP/Tara Todras-Whitehill)

    Ben-Ami alleged that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state unless it divests itself of the Territories. He did not explain clearly. He mentioned it couldn't keep its democracy [which I think more a formality than a reality there] and also keep the territories. [Usually, the Left cites a demographic argument, long since disproved. I agree with the U.S. Chiefs of Staff study that found that Israel could not survive unless it retains most of the Territories. Neither would it sufficiently fulfill its Zionist purpose of statehood, if it gave up its holiest cities, the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as Schechem. Ben-Ami's argument purports to care about Israel, but advocates policies that would get Israel conquered.]

    Dershowitz immediately showed where he stands, by declaring his early and continuing opposition to Jewish "settlements." [He did not explain why Israel should not expand into that part of the Land of Israel, still largely vacant. I would have preferred an orderly expansion, being contiguous and accompanied by annexations.]

    Dershowitz believes that Israel should annex the nearer ones and does not consider housing in Jerusalem "settlements." Every country has the right to designate its own capital within its country, including Israel [for which the U.S. makes a negative exception].

    Part 8, 9: Unilateral action and recognizing

    Ben-Ami said that Jewish house-building in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem is a unilateral act that impeded peace-making. As usual, he did not explain his assertion, as if it were axiomatic. Dershowitz replied that it does not mean the Arabs could not negotiate.

    Spitzer got Ben-Ami to admit that the Arabs take unilateral action, too. [However, none of them mentioned the extensive Arab construction. Why the double standard? Why emphasize and legitimize the sudden Arab demand for a Jewish freeze and only a Jewish freeze? That demand subordinates Jewish claims to Arab claims.]

    Ben-Ami claimed that the Saudi Initiative would recognize Israel. [That, too, is pro-Arab propaganda. The Initiative does not promise it. It merely hints at it. It does not mention recognizing a Jewish state. Therefore, they still could war on the Jewish state. Under the Initiative, Israel first would make concessions that would enable the Arabs to overthrow it. Then, say the Saudis, they would consider recognition. Too late! That is the real Saudi plan.]

    Abbas wants peace; he already recognizes Israel's right to exist, said Ben-Ami. [That assertion echoes pro-Arab State Dept. sophistry. Abbas threatens war if he doesn't get everything he wants from negotiation. He is preparing people and army for war.] Dershowitz pointed out that Abbas does not recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. [Significance: since he does not acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty, he would make war on it to change it to another state.]

    Nevertheless, Dershowitz thinks Abbas not too bad. [It would be wiser to see that Ababs, seeking gains both diplomatically and militarily, is more dangerous than the one-track Hamas.]

    Part 10: Negotiation

    Israel did not miss opportunities to negotiate, said Dershowitz. He supposes that it is engaging even now in back channel discussions.

    Dershowitz, by nature a negotiator, is willing to negotiate with anyone, including Hamas. [He did not acknowledge that such negotiations are likely to fail. That makes his point pointless, a diversion from reality.]

    Ben-Ami wants U.S. "engagement." [But the State Dept. is anti-Zionist, and is not an honest broker. So far, its so-called "engagement" does not work.]

    What went wrong in the Gaza withdrawal, Ben-Ami thinks, is Israel's failure to negotiate it. [How unfair, since the P.A. refused to negotiate!]

    Dershowitz replied that, inasmuch as Hamas took over Gaza, the unilateral nature of Israel's move-out did not matter. He said that Israeli withdrawal did not mean that the Arabs had to demolish [or pilfer] the hothouse industry that Israel left behind, ready to utilize. Would Ben-Ami want Israelis still to be there?

    Dershowitz thought that the Israeli civilians should have left — he did not explain why — but that the Army should have stayed and prevented the extensive terrorism from there.

    Moderator Spitzer said that nobody expected rocket attacks from Gaza. [Not true. That is, Jewish nationalists, whose views were not expressed in the debate and who were written off by the two appeasement-minded debaters as "extremist," warned that terrorism would follow withdrawal. They had warned about dire consequences of other appeasement. Their warnings were borne out. But they are called extremists rather than the reckless folks who insist on pursuing policy gambles with security that they were given reasonable warning against making.]

    Part 11: Gaza

    Ben-Ami referred to Israel's partial blockade of Gaza as if it were an occupation. Dershowitz, the lawyer, explained to him that a blockade is not an occupation.

    Ben-Ami asserted that the blockade of Gaza is onerous to the point of starvation [ignoring that Hamas made a military blockade necessary to save Israeli lives, and forgetting to mention that the tunnels also bring in goods]. Denying that food is barred, Dershowitz denied any starvation.

    [Ben-Ami was asserting the standard, anti-Israel propaganda defamation about the blockade. So much for his being pro-Israel!]

    Part 12: Iran

    Stressing U.S. security throughout, though usually not showing why, Ben-Ami treats Iran as an issue of U.S. security. In this instance, he did explain. He said that U.S. regional forces would be imperiled by an Iranian retaliation against any U.S. or Israeli raid.

    [True, but if Iran got nuclear weapons, it could strike U.S. forces in Europe and, with further development of its rockets, the U.S. homeland. That is a greater risk to U.S. security.]

    Ben-Ami said he is against Iran getting nuclear weapons, but would wait for sanctions. Contradicting himself, he also admitted that sanctions usually do not work. [He did not explain how he could be against Iran but be financed significantly by pro-Iranian sources. He has no solution that would stop Iran, ruling out as he does a military option and after Iran has been perverting negotiations and deceiving the world about its nuclear program.]

    Again following the State Dept. line, Ben-Ami tried to link the issue of Iran with the Muslim-Israel conflict. He showed no link, merely asserting that it would be easier to fight Iran if that other issue were out of the way. Dershowitz said that regardless of the Muslim-Israel conflict, the Arabs have an overriding interest in neutralizing any Iranian nuclear threat. [I think that Obama gave Iran more time to complete its nuclear program, by diverting his attention to the conflict with Israel.]

    Ben-Ami thinks that a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict could peel Syria from its alliance with Iran. He did not explain how, nor how that would affect Iran's nuclear weapons program.

    Dershowitz thinks that since sanctions against Iran developing nuclear weapons probably are a futile exercise, neither the U.S. nor Israel should take military action "off the table." He expects Iran to build nuclear weapons within 2-3 years, short of the last screws, so they can claim they don't have them. But they could complete the nearly finished weapons in 2 months.

    Ben-Ami disputed the estimated time Iran needs, without making his own estimate. He argued that estimates have been too short. Dershowitz pointed out that the U.S. estimate was too long. He said it is safer to bank on short ones.

    Part 13: Refugees

    School built by U.S. funds for refugee descendants (Photo: A.P./Nader Daoud)

    As for bringing Arabs into Israel, Dershowitz stated in an ambiguous manner, odd for such an articulate and mentally agile lawyer, no objection to millions of Arabs entering Israel. [No one who really cares about Israel would fail to object to that obvious ploy to destroy Israel, that ploy being one of the chief components of the Saudi Initiative that Ben-Ami commends. Ben-Ami and the Saudis, those other "friends" of Israel.]

    Ben-Ami pleaded that we should acknowledge that a wrong was done to the Arab refugees. [if so, it was done by themselves and especially by their leaders.]

    In reply, Dershowitz explained that very few of the Arabs were forced out of Israel, and only after they had participated in a genocidal attempt against the Jews. Let us recognize, he said, that there was a population exchange, there being more and wealthier Jews who were expelled [but first robbed] from Arab states. Therefore, Israel owes Palestinian Arabs nothing. He would not object to a symbolic compensation. But, if Israel compensates them, then the Arab states should compensate their Jewish refugees. [Israel should make no symbolic gestures. Once it does, it admits responsibility. Then that becomes a point for further demands and for negotiation. Good will to the wrong people at the wrong time is counter-productive.]

    Although Ben-Ami derided Dershowitz for having an over-simplified view on refugees, he did not have the complex view of it that Dershowitz does. [It came out as another nasty crack by Ben-Ami. Ben-Ami's posture is that he is pro-Israel but Israel is guilty of everything and the Arabs are guilty of very little.]

    Part 14: Goldstone

    Ben-Ami pressed for approval of the Goldstein UN report. Dershowitz distinguished between the report's recommendations, for which the UN commission had no expertise to make, and which Goldstein admitted was based on judicially inadmissible evidence, and the testimony, itself. Dershowitz thought that the testimony should be investigated. Ben-Ami settled for that. They want an independent investigation. Whom would Dershowitz recommend? He named Amos Oz and leftist government officials, who are not objective, and Israeli judges, such as Shamgar and Barak, who ruled out good evidence in favor of biased evidence.

    [Dershowitz failed to recognize the high standards of the investigations Israel has been conducting, and the low standards by which Goldstein accepted biased hearsay. Trouble is, people have learned to be suspicious of potentially self-serving investigations, and don't know who is fair and who is biased.]

    The Goldstein mission had four members. One, a Muslim, said it would be cruel to disbelieve Hamas testimony! Another, an officer, didn't believe that Hamas would put weapons into mosques, which of course it did [and for which Israel had ample evidence]. A third member obviously had made her mind up in advance. So had the UN, which set up the mission to get evidence against Israel. Ben-Ami defended Goldstein by calling him a Zionist. [Goldstone was embarrassed into resigning from Human Rights Watch, which specializes in abusing Israel and having to retract accusations.] Ben-Ami likewise defended his own character by references to where he had lived — in Israel. [That is no criterion. Citing military service or Zionist parents wouldn't prove anything about an individual has become radicalized. Viz Rahm Emanuel.]

    Ben-Ami tried to exonerate the UN and Goldstein by asserting that before setting out, Goldstein got a UN official to change the mission. Dershowitz, always on top of the facts that Ben-Ami was spinning, explained that it was an informal move that did not change the mission or the report, but served as a face-saving excuse for those who want to be deceived. [I had reported the details.]

    Ben-Ami accused Dershowitz of making cheap shots to impress the audience, by trashing Goldstein. Dershowitz explained that after Ben-Ami cited Goldstein as a reliable source, it was a duty to explain that he is not reliable. [Indeed, the Goldstein mission obviously was trash. Dozens of other major, reasonable criticisms of it were made. It simply was pro-Arab propaganda, which the UN has made into one of its main purposes. Why would anyone honest and pro-Israel put any credence into it?]

    Nevertheless, Ben-Ami had to agree that the UN is biased. [This contradicts his earlier suggestion that the Quartet, of which the UN is part, mediate and provide a peacekeeping buffer between Israel and a new Arab state.]

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, November 23, 2009.

    This was written by Arnold Ahlert.


    One of the main points being made by conservatives regarding a civilian trial for the 9/11 terrorists is that it will provide Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company a worldwide platform for denigrating America as part of their defense strategy.

    A hot flash for my fellow conservatives: having America internationally debased may be precisely what our president and his like-minded followers want.

    Many times I have made the point that there are two types of Americans: in one group are those who add up all the plusses and minuses of our country's history and conclude that we are the greatest nation on earth, warts and all. In the other, those who believe the same calculations reveal a nation which is fundamentally flawed, and in need of a massive re-ordering which only they can provide.The second group also believes we owe the entire world an apology for our historically wayward behavior.

    For a very long time, the second group, aka American left, has been infatuated with the idea of Americans getting their comeuppance for having the gall to believe our culture, traditions and customs have made us the best nation on earth. The essence of their argument is simple: because we are not perfect, we have no business being proud of being good, nor any reason whatsoever to conclude that our ways are superior to those of any other nation or culture. For them, Ronald Reagan's characterization of America as a "shining city on a hill" is nothing more than collective braggadocio.

    Such a clear cut assessment of America also rankles leftists because they are heavily invested in the idea that all things are relative, which is why our president, when asked if he believed in American exceptionalism said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Perhaps it never occurred to the president that if everyone is exceptional, then no one is.

    Or perhaps it did.

    The American left has long yearned to see the Founding Fathers — and their overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian approach to governance — thoroughly discredited. Part of it stems from their decades-long infatuation with secularism, as epitomized by candidate-Obama's San Francisco characterization of disgruntled Americans "clinging" to guns and religion, a statement which reveals one of the prevailing characteristics of leftist elitism: religion per se is anti-intellectual. This attitude dovetails nicely with their general contempt for the intelligence of average Americans, who they believe must be taken care of by their betters.

    Another part of it stems from a similar infatuation with diversity: many leftists can't stand the idea that the wisdom of a largely homogenous group of people — "dead, slave-owning, white, European males" is responsible for one of the finest series of governmental philosophies ever devised.

    Thus, everything leftist Democrats in Congress and this administration are attempting to foist on the American people — Constitutional rights for stateless, non-uniformed terrorists, government-run healthcare, cap-and-trade, nationalizing banks, regulating salaries, etc. etc. — is the rejection of a status quo they consider too white, too religious, too capitalistic, too self-reliant, too free, and too...American.

    These are the same people who believe the disastrous historical track record of both socialism and communism is attributable solely to the fact that the "wrong people were in charge." And until America "comes to its senses" and adopts that which is a demonstrable failure only because of incompetent leadership, we must be pilloried for our "irredeemable"embrace of freedom and capitalism. And who would make a perfect pitchman for delivering that message to the entire world?

    Enter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    Attorney General Eric Holder has promised us the prosecution of the alleged 9/11 mastermind will be the "trial of the century." No doubt. For those who can't — or won't — recognize the extermination of 3000 Americans on 9/11 as an act of war, or that Islamic jihadism is inherently evil and inferior to our way of life, this spectacle will be a global celebration of rabid, anti Americanism — one that will delight jihadists and "chickens coming home to roost" leftists in equal measure.

    Some conservatives are "consoling" themselves with the idea that the real motive here is putting the former administration, most specifically George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, on trial. That is naive. America itself is in the cross hairs here: the religious right, flyover country, the military, the CIA, capitalism and every other institution and concept leftists hold in contempt.

    New York City once again a bulls-eye? There's an old saying, "bad things come in threes." The bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 — and the subsequent civilian trials — was number one. 9/11 was number two.

    Number three? Let's hope old sayings aren't invariably accurate.

    Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 22, 2009.

    I began writing this post, earlier today, by talking about imponderables, and then focusing on Obama policy with regard to Iran — which policy leaves many of us confused, frustrated, and angry. Following through, I posed a series of questions, all exceedingly valid:

    Did he ever REALLY believe that Iran would be receptive to dialogue and compromise?

    Has he been blinded to ominous Iranian realities because he is so solidly wedded to a philosophy that demands resolution of all conflicts via dialogue? Or because he is so intent on courting the Muslim world? Or because he rejects long-standing notions of America as moral cop and pretends to ignore what he doesn't wish to deal with? Or because he wants to keep Russia — which is not predisposed to sanctions — happy? Or for some other as yet unspecified reason?

    How does he justify the virtual slap in the face he delivered to the rebels in the streets of Iran, who pleaded for American support, after the election? (These dissidents, it should be noted, have just renewed their call for assistance from the US: Mohsen Makhmalbaf, spokesman for a key Iranian opposition movement has asked Obama to publicly demonstrate support for Iranian democrats and intensify financial pressure on the Revolutionary Guard.)


    Acknowledging that I have no satisfactory answers, I moved beyond these questions to the present: We've passed the time limit Obama had originally set for Iran to accept a proposal — as imperfect and dubious as it was — for shifting the situation and thereby reducing the threat of Iranian development of nuclear weapons. What is more, the West is now in possession of additional evidence regarding Iranian duplicity and hidden nuclear facilities. (Additional evidence, as if we didn't already know it, that you cannot trust these guys.)

    In the face of this, it has been generally acknowledged that it's time to get tough with Iran.

    And so last Thursday Obama issued a statement in this regard:

    "Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal...and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences."

    What? "As a consequence we have begun discussing...the importance of having consequences"? How tepid and wishy-washy (and convoluted) could he get? Sort of like a mother, saying to her misbehaving child, "I'm going to discuss this with your father, and then you'll see, you may be in big trouble."

    Obama's explanation was distressing: "Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran," he said. Potential steps? Nothing definitive there.

    But some weeks ago Israel had urged the US to have sanction plans in place, so that once it was clear that Iran was not cooperating, they could be immediately activated. But Obama — Oi! — had not wanted to do this because it would send a negative message to the Iranians when he was reaching out a hand to them. He didn't like a carrot and stick policy: he wanted to be all carrot. So now Iran has more time, while sanctions are "discussed."

    Obama's position is that Iran's intransigency will increase the willingness of the international community to resort to punitive measures.

    Israel is urging that sanctions be applied that would deny Iran any nuclear fuel capabilities. And Israel is further urging that if the international community won't get serious the US should act alone.


    But here's the kicker, which has just come to my attention:

    In 1983, 241 US Marines were killed in the bombing of a barracks in Lebanon. It has taken many years to track, and to bring through the courts, but in 2007 a US federal judge ruled that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages in the bombing, to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution. Lawyers for the families have been working to seize Iranian assets so that payments could be made.

    However, the Obama government is going to court to try to block this, because (are you ready?) it would "jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent." (emphasis added)
    www.boston.com:80/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/ 11/14/beirut_attack_victims_families_face_new_hurdle/

    Here's a chance to zap it to Iran, big time, and Obama would rather not do it.

    I confess, professional cool went out the window with this and I couldn't draw a breath.

    And so, now that I'm breathing again, I must ask my final set of questions:

    Is the president of the US daft? And, if not, precisely what is he about?

    Lastly, where is America, that all this could be happening?


    Let me add information shared by Barry Rubin in his most recent posting:

    A correspondent in Iraq has interviewed the commander of US troops there, and sent the dispatch via Reuters. Said this commander, al-Qaeda, which is fighting in Iraq, has joined forces with previous supporters of Saddam Hussein (former Ba'athists, who made off with considerable funds from Iraq). And the site of rendezvous is Syria.

    According to US General Ray Odierno, "Investigations into massive suicide bombings in Baghdad on Oct. 25, in which more than 150 people died, indicated that explosives or fighters were coming across from Syria."

    Explains Rubin: "Syria is letting al-Qaeda and Saddamist terrorists come in, get armed and trained, cross the border [to] Iraq, and run back for safe haven."

    Taking it one step further, Rubin observed: "As U.S. forces withdraw someone is trying to wreck the situation there so that the US departure looks like defeat."

    The general confirms this: "We believe that there will be attempts to conduct more attacks between now and the elections because they want to destabilize those."


    Just as I've asked questions, Rubin also does:

    "So, the Obama Administration's military commander says Syria is behind massive attacks and working closely with Osama bin Laden's guys.

    "Has the president of the United States said anything about this? Has he made any criticism of Syria? Is he ready to break off engagement efforts with the dictatorship? Has he [responded to] Iraqi government requests for backing in demanding Syria stop facilitating such attacks and turn over those Iraqis responsible?

    "No, no, no, and again no.

    "If the Obama Administration is fighting a war against al-Qaeda why is Syria, today that group's main organizational and military base in the Middle East, getting away with allying to the people who murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11?

    "If the Obama Administration is fighting a war in Iraq why is it doing nothing about the main ally of the insurgents killing American soldiers and so many Iraqi civilians...?

    "...There is an old expression about fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The Obama Administration is waging a foreign policy with both hands tied behind its back, plugs in its ears, and a gag over its mouth." (emphasis added)
    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/11/ obamas-general-says-syria-allied-with.html? utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ Rubinreports+%28RubinReports%29


    My friends, get this information to your Senators and Congresspersons without delay.

    For your Congresspersons:
    http://www.house.gov/house/ MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

    For your Senators:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

    Keep the explanations short, and provide URLs. Act to redeem this situation before it is too late.


    "The Good News Corner"

    A sophisticated research ship has been launched in Eilat, at the Institute for Marine Sciences. Hebrew University, Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, and a number of other agencies and private donors have cooperatively made this possible. Profession Aaron Kaplan, who heads the Institute explains, that this will greatly advance Israeli marine research — especially with regard to unique organisms found in the Gulf of Eilat. Such research has increased value in recent years as marine biological models are used for medical research.


    Professor Meir Liebergall, chairman of the orthopedics department of Hadassah Medical Center, Ein Kerem campus,and Professor Eithan Galum, have announced a new technique that involves a "breakthrough in concept and overcomes major scientific and logistical problems."

    For the very first time ever, platelets and adult stem cells from the blood and bone marrow of patients with fractures have been separated and then injected into the patients, causing bones to heal in a quarter to a third of the time it usually takes, and permitting healing to occur that in some instances wouldn't have otherwise been possible at all.

    The technique has been developed over the course of years.


    Eye from Zion is an Israeli non-profit that sends volunteers into developing nations to do cataract surgery and restore people's sight. All money donated to the organization is used to cover expenses; none of the dozens of volunteers surgeons involved takes payment. The group brings its own equipment, sets up a clinic, and starts operating. Many hundreds of operations have been done in such places as Vietnam, China and Azerbaijan.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Lyn Julius, November 22, 2009.

    Living side by side is not enough: Israelis and Arabs must meet, talk and learn from each other


    At the National Theatre in London, Our Class is telling the story of the 1941 massacre of the Jews of the Polish village Jedwabne — all the more painful for being true. What makes the play so hard to watch is that the murderers and victims knew each other. Catholics and Jews sat in class together, flirted, shared dreams and aspirations. Eventually, though, deep-seated antisemitism and prejudice caused one half of the class to turn on the other.

    The idea that familiarity leads to mutual respect underpins the work of some 30 Arab-Jewish coexistence projects in Israel alone. If Jews and Arabs talk to each other, live together, play music together — so the thinking goes — there could be peace.

    Coexistence is not new to the Middle East. Jews and Muslims lived cheek-by-jowl for 14 centuries. Arab mythology holds that the Golden Age in Muslim Spain was a model for peaceful coexistence. But the relationship was not equal. Jews were subjugated, self-abasing dhimmis, exploited for their talents. They had to buy their physical security from the ruler of the day. Maimonides fled from fanatical Muslims, not Christians.

    In modern times, Jewish-Arab coexistence broke down completely. Roughly half the Jewish population came to Israel not as refugees from the Holocaust, but fleeing Arab and Muslim antisemitism. A million Jews once lived in Arab lands. Today, their communities, predating Islam by 1,000 years, are almost extinct.

    The periodic violence that has erupted in the Middle East has tested interpersonal relations to the hilt. Just as Righteous Gentiles saved Jews from the Nazis, some Arabs saved Jews: 300 Jews sheltered in 28 Arab homes during the Hebron massacre of 1929. Honourable Muslims rescued Jews from rioting mobs in Arab countries. While the authorities failed to intervene to protect Jews — or even incited the rioting — the friendly neighbour stood as the last line of defence.

    But familiarity also breeds contempt, resentment and greed. Among stories of neighbourly betrayal in Hebron was the Jewish doctor murdered by his own patients. The Makleff family near Jerusalem was slaughtered by the Arabs they worked with. Jews terrorised by the 1941 Farhoud in Iraq (179 Jews dead) and the Libyan pogrom in 1945 (130 Jews dead ) recognised, among their assailants, the local policeman, butcher and milkman.

    Yet there must be a place for coexistence initiatives. Projects such as Daniel Barenboim's East-West Divan Orchestra play a role in humanising Arabs to Israelis, and Israelis to Arabs — whose countries habitually demonise them. The cooperative village of Neve Shalom introduces Arabs and Jews to each other's cultures.

    Unless the dialogue is balanced, however, coexistence can become an exercise in Jewish self-abasement. It can lead to Jews suppressing their rights, identity and suffering while empowering Arab grievances. Jews may feel the pain of a Palestinian refugee and even "understand" terrorism, while there is no corresponding shift on the Arab side — because Jewish rights, suffering and the pain of expulsion of Jews by Arabs, may be ignored.

    The prejudice at the root of rejectionism and terrorism can turn a neighbour into a monster. Only if we confront this unpalatable truth can people live as equals in true peace and mutual respect. Lyn Julius co-founded Harif, an association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa

    This article appeared October 29, 2009 in The Jewish Community Online
    www.thejc.com/comment/comment/21393/ neighbours-building-blocks-peace-or-war

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Mark Silverberg, November 22, 2009.

    The assumption that the Obama administration's diplomatic initiative to our enemies will enhance America's image in the world and increase our security is becoming more questionable with each passing day. What we have learned is that dialogue and accommodation with messianic, apocalyptic Islamic regimes like Iran are not only pointless, but threaten the stability of the international order.

    In January, President Obama addressed the Iranian mullahs in terms suggesting a possible reconciliation between the two countries if the Iranians would "unclench their fist." The speech was met with chants of "Death to America" and derision by the Iranian mullahs who demanded an apology for decades of past injustices allegedly committed by the US against the Iranian people, and ridiculed Obama's slogan of "change" as a retreat forced upon America by Iran's Islamic revolution. Later, Obama released a video offering Iran congratulations on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year. This initiative was also received coldly in Tehran.

    Over the past several months, the President of the United States .... has shown obeisance to a Wahhabi despot in a bowing gesture seen widely in the Arab world as a sign of submission;

    shook the hand of a Venezuelan dictator who not only referred to him as an "ignoramus" less than a month earlier, but is co-architect of the Russian-Iranian campaign to displace American influence in the southern hemisphere;

    made serial apologies like "Bush did it", "reset button" and "I was only (you fill in the blanks) when that happened" ad nauseum;

    toyed with the idea of participating in the anti-Semitic Durban II Conference in Geneva in the naive belief that he could change the conclusions it would reach;

    remained silent in the face of Iran's fraudulent presidential election and the crushing of its opposition movement;

    cut funding to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in New Haven that documented human rights violations in Iran;

    snubbed the Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of Tibet, in mid-October so as not to offend China;

    allowed "strict deadlines" on the international inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities to come and go without consequence;

    allowed the State Department to cut funding for Freedom House, the bipartisan organization that reports on freedom and human rights throughout the world, because it publishes material critical of Iran;

    failed to instruct the VOA's Farsi Service to report more aggressively on Iranian actions;

    failed to assist the independent Iranian-American and European radio and TV stations to overcome the Iranian regime's jamming of their broadcasts;

    failed to support the development of new software to evade Iranian "filtering" of the Internet and cellular phone calls;

    surrendered our national pride by insulting the sacrifice made by Americans who died in World War II liberating Europe by referring to past American "arrogance";

    joined the UN Human Rights Council that would later endorse the infamous Goldstone Report albeit over American objections;

    appointed individuals with strong anti-Israel biases to significant foreign policy posts;

    made serial apologies for America's responsibility for the current economic crisis, its failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, dictating solutions to other nations (except Israel), the "legacies of slavery and segregation, past treatment of native Americans," Guantanamo, Hiroshima, unilateralism, insufficient respect for the Muslim world, and the mistakes of the CIA (including the possible prosecution of former CIA interrogators);

    pressured the Israelis to stop construction to accommodate the natural growth of their population in the major cities of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (demands seen by 96% of Israelis as patently unjust);

    praised the history and culture of the Islamic world, and enhanced the historical record to magnify its achievements;

    equated (in his June 4th Cairo speech) Palestinian suffering to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, and the Palestinian situation with U.S. blacks in America before the civil rights movement (implying that Jews are oppressors);

    gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to two virulently anti-Israel people — Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tutu of South Africa;

    condemned the Israeli occupation of the West Bank resulting from the Six-Day War in 1967 without mentioning the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian aggression that started that war and the numerous occasions before and since where the Palestinians have rejected Israel's right to exist;

    paid a visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan's Islamization of Turkish foreign policy resulting in Turkey canceling Israeli participation in "Anatolian Eagle", its annual multiple air maneuver with NATO in favor developing closer military ties with Iran and Syria;

    virtually froze our defense budget in time of war (1);

    has been unable to decide whether to seek victory, admit defeat or to keep the status quo in Afghanistan;

    accepted the Nobel Peace Prize without having shown any real accomplisments;

    unilaterally abrogated our missile-defense arrangements with our allies Poland and the Czech Republic to curry favor with the Russians (which has not worked); and

    backed off any suggestion of future American unilateralism by changing the name "Global War on Terror" to the less politically-charged "man-caused disasters" (as stated by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in March), thereby intentionally avoiding the "T"-word.

    These actions form part of Obama's "strategy" — the idea being that if the US becomes less arrogant, less unilateral, more internationalist, and changes the tone of its entire foreign policy, its enemies would become more accommodating. His problem, however, is that unilateral concessions and offers of unconditional engagement with our enemies do not represent a strategy; they are merely tactics .... and they aren't working. For the Iranians, American apologies, concessions and contrition denote American weakness and the decline of American global power and influence. What's worse is that these actions have bought Iran valuable time to build an atomic bomb and expand its Islamic revolution throughout the region. The result has been an upsurge of bombings in Iraq, and explains why the Taliban feel no need to surrender anything in Afghanistan.

    The Obama administration fails to understand that jihadism did not evolve from the Reformation, the Enlightenment, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, but from jihadi Salafists like Ibn Tamiya in the 15th century, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (Wahhabism) in the 18th century, Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Sayyid Qutb whose revolutionary Islamic followers seek to restore their ancient Caliphate and return the world to the Dark Ages.

    These jihadists do not share our Western visions of democratization, globalization, religious tolerance and freedom. They do, however, have their own vision which is to humiliate us, drive us from the Middle East, expunge all Western influence and the forces of modernization from the region, and replace American influence with their own — and they have proven to be far more effective at "exporting" their vision over the past three decades in North Africa, Western Europe, Somalia, and other parts of the Horn of Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Gaza, than we have been at "exporting" ours. In 2008, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards told his fellow officers: "Our revolution has not ended .... Our Imam did not limit the movement of the Islamic Revolution to this country, but drew greater horizons", and al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri warned Obama: "It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim world and its history....You are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world.....This is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see" which explains why Iran is estimated to have 40,000 well-trained, undercover Shi'ite operatives in the Arab Gulf states — 3,000 in Kuwait alone.

    Not exactly the "unclenched fist" Obama seeks.

    Then there's the Iranian nuclear issue. As David Ignatius writes in The Washington Post: "The central question about Iran, as Henry Kissinger has observed, is whether it wants to be a nation or a cause. In the case of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's clearly a revolutionary cause." Ahmedinejad is not a deal maker. Yet, even as the UN's nuclear watchdog agency and Israeli intelligence have acknowledged that the Iranian mullahs are on the nuclear threshold and have perfected long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, the Obama administration is convinced that it can talk or threaten the Iranians out of it or, in a worst case scenario, impose "crippling sanctions" that the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Malaysians and Venezuelans are already undermining in furtherance of their own economic and political self-interests.

    As a result, Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating over 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago. In short, the Iranians have no intention whatsoever of abandoning their nuclear weapons program (2) and are playing for time. As Charles Krauthammer writes: "They are seeking the bomb for reasons of power, prestige, intimidation, blackmail, and regime preservation", and given US and European dithering, Ahmedinejad sees challenging Obama as low risk and high reward. He has concluded that the West has no stomach for a fight.

    Obama has another problem. His outreach to Iran is being interpreted by Sunni Arab leaders, especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as an American betrayal. Based on their growing defense relationship with Israel (3), they have concluded (rightly or wrongly) that America has removed the military option from the table. As Barry Rubin of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Israel wrote recently: "In the Middle East, it is not so useful to think yourself popular and show yourself to be friendly. You have to inspire fear in your enemies and confidence in your friends. And if you don't inspire fear in your enemies — if you're too nice to them — then you will indeed foment fear among your friends." As a result, these Arab nations either are developing or certainly will develop their own nuclear weapons programs as it appears to them that the US is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, abandon its military option against Iran's nuclear installations, end all efforts at regime change, and curtail international sanctions. The reassurance the Sunni Arab world and the Israelis are looking for is an American commitment to end the Iranian nuclear threat and destroy Iran's ability to develop the bomb, not a post-nuclear-Iran "defense umbrella" as Obama is offering. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent threat to "obliterate" Iran if it launched a nuclear attack against Israel only reinforced Israeli fears that the U.S. would prefer to contain a nuclear Iran rather than pre-empt it militarily.

    In Syria, the U.S. administration is already preparing to suspend the enforcement of U.S. sanctions, has facilitated a $7B trade deal between the EU and Syria, the effect of which will be to revitalize the country's stagnant economy (all in return for nothing), is preparing to send a procession of emissaries, return the U.S. ambassador to Damascus, and lavish numerous goodwill gestures on a regime that considers Ahmedinejad a close ally and personal friend. Even the Golan Heights may be thrown into the bargain if enough pressure can be brought to bear on Israel. Obama obviously believes that returning the Golan Heights to Syria is the panacea for a Syrian-Israeli "peace deal" that would assist the U.S. effort in Iraq by forcing Syria to stop the swelling influx of Sunni terrorists, arms and explosives into that country, meet its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (which ended the 2006 Lebanon War) by sealing its border to the smuggling of arms to the Lebanese Hezballah, and accept responsibility for halting arms smuggling to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

    But he's wrong. Syria's Bashar Assad couldn't sign a peace treaty with Israel even if he wanted to — and he doesn't. "Emergency rule" has been in effect since 1963 and the never-ending war with Israel has justified it. The regime could not exist without repression. War also costs it nothing as Hezbollah and Hamas can fight Syria's war by proxy. There is no better way for the hated Alawites to ingratiate themselves with the Arab world as a whole than by adopting the anti-Zionist cause as their own. In 1999, Syrian foreign minister Farouq al-Shara delivered a speech to the Arab Writers Union in which he explained that Syria's interest in a negotiated settlement with Israel had nothing to do with actually coming to terms with Israel's right to exist, but rather that the recovery of the Golan Heights was merely a stage on the road to the destruction of Israel.

    The Syrian regime seeks a peace "process" to gain international respectability, but has no desire to end its conflict with Israel. It has too much to gain by keeping the pot boiling and keeping its relationship with Iran strong. The March 29, 2009 issue of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) encapsulated Syrian media reaction to Obama's overtures in these words: "The US has capitulated to Iran and Syria", and an editorial in the al-Watan newspaper summarized Syria's position in terms vastly different from those expressed by Obama — "The Syrians are looking forward to a change in American policy, not to a change in Syrian policy (italics added)."

    In Gaza, Obama is pushing hard to provide $900 million in reconstruction aid to rebuild the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip — an enormous sum of money much of which will be siphoned off by Hamas through international relief organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that subverts American laws, aids violent Islamist extremists, propagandizes against Israel while favoring Hamas, and works with banks targeted by the United States for money laundering and terrorist financing. American financing will allow Hamas to restore its missile capabilities and terrorist infrastructures, assume control of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of those Palestinians who seek a stable relationship with Israel, enhance Iranian power in the region, and allow Hamas to claim credit for improvements in Gaza. By funding UNRWA, the Obama administration will not only perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem, but will add power and legitimacy to a terrorist regime and its Iranian state sponsor, both of whom are committed to the annihilation of America's staunchest Middle East ally.

    So Mr. President, here's some advice for whatever it may be worth. Contrary to what you have told the world, we are defined by our differences from the despots, tyrants and Islamic lunatics who attach electric prods to the genitals of their prisoners, give them acid baths, drill holes in their ankles and skulls, leave them naked in refrigerators for days, cut out their tongues, cut off their ears, force them to watch gang rapes of their wives and sisters, throw acid in the faces of girls simply because they are going to school, chop the fingers off people simply for daring to vote in their country's election, glorify and rejoice in shedding the blood of innocents, treat women like chattels, stone homosexuals to death, mark religions other than Islam for oppression if not extinction, bludgeon women who wear lipstick and videotape beheadings.

    Perhaps it's time to learn to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends. After all, we live in dangerous times given the existence of numerous rogue regimes that are developing nuclear weapons capability and have a global terrorist network dedicated to the destruction of the United States and its allies. World leadership requires more than apologies, empty threats, unenforceable sanctions, and "regaining the moral high-ground." It requires making tough decisions and adopting tough positions that will inevitably be met with hostility throughout the globe. Sometimes, it behooves us to use maximum power against our enemies to protect our homeland and the Free World, even if that means incurring the wrath of other countries that lack the courage and conviction to do what is both right and necessary. Unless American diplomacy is backed by "hard power", "soft power" will carry little weight with the more realpolitik-oriented Middle Eastern elites.

    During the past century, we have moved from one war to another, one ideological conflict to another, seldom really learning important lessons. History tells us that fanatical regimes have a field day with naive adversaries, but we continue to learn nothing from the experience. David Stokes said it best at Townhall.com: "Can anyone imagine any leader in, say, late 2001 or early 2002 talking about rapprochement with the radical Muslim world with political impunity?...We are moving on (after 9/11), we are reaching out, we are charting a new course, and we are making the age-old mistake of willfully forgetting the past." Smiles, handshakes, apologies and contrition may move people, but they do not move nations, and appeasement and accommodation have always failed with such enemies. How can we weaken Hamas or Hezbollah when improving relations with the movements' main regional sponsors — Iran and Syria — remains a centerpiece of American efforts?

    Moreover, you are dealing with a messianic, apocalyptic, revolutionary Islamic regime in Tehran whose sole mission is to humiliate the US wherever and whenever possible, expel it from the Middle East, and establish Iranian hegemony over the entire region, so as you begin pressuring Israel to cede its security by relinquishing the West Bank to Iranian-backed terrorists, continue to give the Palestinians a pass when they fail to honor any of their commitments, allow Iran to develop inter-continental ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads, turn Lebanon over to Hezbollah and the Syrians in return for nothing, allow Iraq to become an Iranian protectorate, force major strategic concessions from the Israelis in return for more empty promises from the Palestinians, diminish our presence in the Persian Gulf, and begin turning away from our allies in furtherance of some deal you think you can negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, remember this ... Your approach will cost us our allies, our credibility, our global influence, and eventually our security.

    Polls currently indicate that more than 61% of the U.S. public favors military action against Iran. From a political perspective, that means it is now easier to take action than not to do so. But time is no longer on our side. Allowing a theocratic regime intent on fomenting a religious war to obtain nuclear weapons represents an intolerable threat to humanity. For some reason, you believe that our self-abasement will allow us to "re-take" the moral high-ground in world affairs, and draw the world to the morality of our causes. But by abdicating our responsibilities as a superpower, apologizing endlessly for our past, withdrawing support from our allies, and ceding American power to others, most notably the UN, we will not only hasten the decline of America as a superpower, but assure the ascendancy of revolutionary Islamic Iran.

    In his memoirs, Churchill wrote that, in 1938, Hitler could still have been stopped at a relatively low price and many millions of lives could have been saved if England and France had not deceived themselves about the realities of their situation. He also noted that America will always do the right thing, but only after it has exhausted every other alternative. Unfortunately, by that time, it will be too late, and Iran will have the bomb. If that is to be the case, the consequences for Western civilization will be catastrophic. Last November, we voted for change, not surrender. It's time we got our priorities straight.


    (1) As Steven Price writes in Commentary in "Why Obama is Wrong on Missile Defense": "The 2010 budget underfunds, delays, or outright kills core programs designed to protect our homeland......At a time of growing threats from unstable regimes that are testing long-range missiles and at or near nuclear status, (why) would we spend less money on missile defense? .....There is good reason to believe America is actually more at risk today than at any time during the Cold War. In 1972 only nine countries possessed ballistic missiles; today that number is more than two dozen. New nuclear actors, such as North Korea and possibly Iran and Syria, may not be deterrable in the classic sense. Mutually assured destruction is useless against an enemy that does not value life."

    (2) See Michael Rubin, "What Iran Really Thinks About Talks", netwmd.com, April 13, 2009.

    (3) In June, according to Debka intelligence sources, the Egyptian government, for the first time and as a warning to the Iranians, allowed an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine equipped with cruise missiles and carrying nuclear warheads to pass through the Egyptian Suez Canal rather than require the Israelis to circumnavigate the far greater distance to the Persian Gulf that would have taken them around Cape of Good Hope. The Daily Express (UK) also reported that Saudi Arabia is ready to permit Israeli planes to transit Saudi airspace to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters and the New Media Journal and a member of Hadassah's National Academic Advisory Board. His book "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad" and his articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Truth Provider, November 22, 2009.

    Dear friends,

    As you have been reading here for a long time, it is ALL a fraud and a cabal. However, real scientific findings and the growing exposure of fraudulent pupetrators, such as Al, may finally bring about some refreshing cooling.

    Your Truth Provider,

    This below was written by Marc Sheppard and it appeared yesterday in American Thinker entitled "The Evidence of Climate Fraud." It is archived at
    www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html


    A folder containing documents, data and, e-mails purportedly "hacked" from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking-gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world's leading climate alarmists — the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based.

    In a Friday interview with Investigative Magazine's TGIF Edition, CRU director Phillip Jones confirmed [PDF][1] that the incriminating documents, which have been widely disseminated online, are in fact genuine. Accordingly, whether indeed the labor of hackers, or instead that of a CRU whistleblower, the contents of the FOI2009 folder are now public record — and that's nothing short of dynamite.

    After all, the names of the email exchangers represent a who's-who of the world's leading climate alarmism scientists, including Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt, and James Hansen. And the e-mails themselves seemingly betray an organized apparatus of deception.

    In one particularly odious e-mail dated November 1999, Jones writes to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:

    I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

    Now, these are the same Mann, Bradley, and Hughes whose MBH98 reconstruction (aka the "Hockey Stick" graph) — which deceitfully depicts last millennium's global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century — remains the poster-child of global warming hysteria despite being thoroughly debunked. And here we find Jones writing the three the following year admitting to using Mann's "trick" to "hide" a temperature decline.

    Not surprisingly, the Keith mentioned is none other than CRU's own Keith Briffa, another Hockey-Team leader, whose temperature graphs, derived from tree ring data from Yamal, Russia, were cited by the IPCC as supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th-century warming. But as we reported at the time,[2] that buttress crumbled last month when Briffa's results were proven to stand no more reliably than Mann's.

    Ultimately, neither reconstruction attained its alarmist imperative goal of proving today's global temperatures unprecedented. Despite repeated fraudulent efforts to demonstrate otherwise, 20th-century highs remain documented as several degrees cooler than those of the Medieval Warming Period of 900-1300 AD. Bad news for the mankind-stinks crowd in general; worse news for those actually involved in this devious deception.

    Both Mann and Briffa had been challenged for years to produce their data, methods, and source code by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre. Both ignored the tenets of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) McIntyre cited and fought every effort to induce their coming clean. And actually not without good reason — last month, CRU was effectively forced to release the Yamal information, whereupon an analysis by McIntyre proved[3] that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position.

    And we now know that on the very day our exposé of the Briffa scandal, UN Climate Reports: They Lie,[4] appeared here at AT, Jones forwarded this email response from Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to Briffa: [my emphasis]

    It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is not used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it is irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?

    Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.

    And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but many good scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.[Emphasis added]

    I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.

    Beyond his sophomoric cheap shot at this fine publication's highly regarded name, Wigley admitted that McIntyre's comparison of "Yamal-12 with Yamal-all" implied a "selection" of data on the part of Briffa. Yet his concern was not one of scientific integrity, but instead that Briffa may not be up to the task of properly "explaining" the cherry-picking as he is "too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of[f]." And while offering his assistance in the cover-up, imploring caution because "in some eyes" it might appear they're hiding "bogus science," Wigley actually defended the practice of withholding data.

    Perchance the hitherto-sequestered April 2007 document entitled jones-foiathoughts.doc, concerning reactions to FOIA inquiries, might lend some insight into CRU's atrocious reporting policies. Within, Jones lists three options to such requests. As an alternative to the first of actual compliance, he suggests he and his co-conspirators might "send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries" and "remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s." Or perhaps "send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN" (Global Historical Climatology Network), adding that "this would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."

    Amazing. Yet this is but the tip of the seasonally advancing iceberg. Communiqués suborning subterfuge abound here, including one from May of 2008 in which Jones actually exhorts Mann to "delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4" and to entreat others to perform likewise. Was this in fact a fourth (and likely illegal) Jones option for dealing with McIntyre's FOIA requests?

    There appear to be thousands of emails, documents, reports, and data files to review here. So I'm sure this fledgling story will continue to evolve as greater minds than mine analyze them throughout the weekend. For those sporting taste buds leaning toward the technical, rest assured that both Climate Audit[5] and Watts Up With That[6] will certainly sate those appetites. Needless to say, look no further than American Thinker for continuing political analysis. And for those of you wishing to join in this criminal investigation, the FOI2009 folder is available for download here.[7]

    Criminal? Oh yes, indeed. As this mock-science serves as justification for trillions of dollars in imposed and proposed new taxes, liens, fees, and rate hikes — not to mention the absurd wealth-redistribution premise of international climate debt "reparations" — such manipulation of evidence should be treated as exactly what it is: larceny on the grandest scale in history.

    Sorry, Al — the science hasn't been settled. It's merely been meddled.


    [1] http://www.investigatemagazine.com/ australia/latestissue.pdf

    [2] http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

    [3] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

    [4] http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

    [5] http://www.climateaudit.org/

    [6] http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    [7] http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

    To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barry Rubin, November 22, 2009.

    It isn't hard to conclude that Iran having nuclear weapons is a direct threat to Arab states, except Syria — Tehran's ally — which would benefit. Why, then, don't Arab states and intellectuals public express more concern?

    Western observers were shaken up when at a debate in Qatar, the relatively moderate Arab audience split almost down the middle between those cheering and those jeering the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons.

    One member of the audience said: "Why in the first place should Iran seek the trust of anyone? Iran is an independent, sovereign country, and it has every single right to defend itself. If it wants a bomb, definitely it should have one."

    The audience cheered.

    Another man said: "There is something called balance of power. As long as there is Israel, we need a nuclear bomb."

    A serious analysis would have to include three main points in explaining this seeming suicidal desire of many Arabs that the real worst enemy of the current Arab order become really, really powerful:

    First, fear. Iran is strong, aggressive, close, and represents an ideology that appeals to some of their people. To stand up to Iran's growing strength could incur costly hostility, pressure and subversion now. And once Tehran gets nuclear weapons, it will remember and take revenge on those who have tried to thwart it.

    Second, there is the Middle Eastern version of Political Correctness which, unlike its Western version, has very sharp teeth. All good Muslims are supposed to love each other, hate Israel, and hate America. Much the same can be said of all good Arabs, though Iran of course does not benefit directly from that paradigm.

    Consequently, if Iran can become a nuclear-armed Muslim state which views America, the West, and Israel as its enemies, then that must be good for Muslims and even Arabs too, right? How proud they all can be that one of them has made good! That will sure show the West that Muslims can have the ultimate weapon. Certainly, many of their people will be enthusiastic and so the rulers — even in dictatorships — rush to get to the head of the crowd lest it turn on them.

    Third, their behavior is based on hopeful thinking, a sort of more likely version of wishful thinking. Surely, they wish, the United States or Israel will solve the problem without their having to do anything. Incidentally, this is similar to their position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    And, of course, this is a test of U.S. power and will power. After all, if America can't deal with Iran for them that proves the United States cannot protect them against Tehran. So they are better off keeping their mouths shut now and the option open of appeasing Iran.

    In general, Arab states are content to wait it out. Some movements — Hizballah, Hamas, Iraqi clients of Tehran — and Syria are already on the Iranian team. Qatar and non-Arab Turkey are moving in that direction. Lebanon has been Finlandized, that is, forced into a posture of not doing anything Tehran doesn't like because of the power of Hizballah and other Iranian clients inside the country.

    But for most — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the remaining small Gulf states — the risk is too great of changing sides. After all, they genuinely don't trust Iran and really don't want it to change the strategic balance in its favor.

    Yet on the other hand, their fear that Iran might become a hegemonic power in the Middle East and subvert these states a factor that should make them vigorously oppose Tehran getting nuclear weapons. The same goes for their hatred of Iran as radical Islamist and Shia Muslim and (largely) ethnic Persian.

    The first set of motives, however, outweighs the second. And so they remain silent.

    Here's an obscure story that indicates the shape of things to come. A group of Iran-backed Shia rebels, called the Houthi, in Yemen are waging a guerrilla war to try to take over the country. The Saudis, who view themselves as the guardians of Yemen and don't want another pro-Tehran state on their border, have been bombing them.

    Two top-ranking Iranians have denounced the Saudi action as "Wahhabi terrorism" and openly threatened Saudi Arabia. The language they used indicated the ideological nature of the war, since the Saudis' Wahhabi version of Islam is very anti-Shia. The Iranians said the war is a U.S.-backed effort to divide Arabs.

    And for those who think that Iran's current internal conflicts will take care of its external aggression, the identity of these two Iranians is significant. One of them is Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, introducing a military threat. But the other is Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, a leading "moderate" member of the radical ruling group who opposes President Ahmadinejad. In other words, Tehran's ambitions have a wide base of support across faction.

    Now, the way things are supposed to work, the United States should support the Saudis, signaling Riyadh that America is a reliable ally (so don't be afraid of Iran having nuclear weapons) and Tehran that Washington won't tolerate Iranian aggression (so be afraid and slow down or abandon nuclear weapon development).

    Of course, the Obama Administration won't say a word. Why? Specifically:

    --It views normal power politics as neo-imperialistic.

    --It fears that Iran will present the Yemen issue as one showing American intervention. Guess what? The Iranians already are doing so.

    --It worries that such action will endanger U.S. engagement with Iran over nuclear weapons. Guess what? That's already dead any way. And showing you are weak doesn't give you leverage in negotiations. But this is the pattern, isn't it?

    --The Obama Administration has not backed Iraq's denunciations of Syria's involvement in cross-border terrorism. (To be fair, U.S. envoys have asked Syria to stop but there aren't any teeth behind this request.)

    --The Administration isn't giving strong backing to Israel. Indeed, after Israel agreed to a U.S. request for a freeze on construction inside settlements with the exception of Jerusalem, the Arabs complained and the Administration backed down on its own deal.

    --Despite some verbal support the Administration hasn't taken a tough position backing Lebanese moderates (March 14 coalition) against pressure from Iran- and Syria-backed Hizballah to give the radicals a bigger share of government. Indeed, the U.S. effort was so feeble that the Saudis gave up their own efforts to pressure Syria to ease off on the Lebanese.

    --The U.S. government barely gave a squeak in support of the Iranian economic opposition.

    --In Afghanistan the government is hanging around waiting for the United States to make up its mind whether to defend or virtually abandon the country. The indecision is not such as to promote confidence in Kabul or trembling among the Taliban.

    So here's the question of the era. You are an Arab or a non-Arab Muslim (or an Israeli). You don't want your country to be taken over by Islamists who are likely to shoot you, seize your property, and force you to change your lifestyle to that of Taliban Afghanistan.

    You don't ask yourself: Is President Barack Obama nice to Muslims, sympathetic, and apologizes for America being tough in the past.

    Rather, you ask yourself: Can I depend on America under the Obama Administration to protect me now and in the future? Would the United States attack Iran if necessary to deter Tehran? Would it even threaten the use of nuclear weapons to shield me against any Iranian attack? Would it send troops if I decided I wanted them?

    Ok, what's your answer? And if it is "no" then what alternative to appeasement is possible?

    At the debate in Qatar, an Iraqi woman in the audience tried to have it both ways, pointing out that even from a perspective that thinks Israel makes the devil look like a nice guy there are good reasons to oppose Iran having nukes. Note that she didn't mention the United States at all as the solution:

    "We're going to [be] between two powerful countries, Iran and Israel, with nuclear weapons. Where will this region be?"

    Answer: Up the Gulf without a paddle.

    By the way, if you want to get an idea of what Middle East politics is really like, watch this 32-second film about a day in the life of a railroad track inspector. And remember you can't always expect to get this lucky. *

    Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

    This article is archived at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Plaut, November 21, 2009.

    1. Haaretz reports gleefully that the Israeli military command in the West Bank issued an order that any settlers who cuss at soldiers at checkpoints should be arrested.

    Now, let's put aside the constitutional question of whether cussing at and insulting soldiers should be protected speech. I can live with a system that penalizes hooligans of any sort who cuss Israeli soldiers. But the real problem here is that, like so much else in Israel, the new order is being implemented in a discriminatory manner that coddles the Left and panders to the anti-Semitic "anarchists." While some guttersnipes from the Right do in fact cuss soldiers, vulgar and violent attacks on Israeli soldiers and police by the Left take place every single week in the West Bank. The Israeli leftists, with their Palestinian terrorist friends, joined by the "internationals" and "anarchists" from the International Solidarity Movement (or ISM, which really stands for I Support Murder), attack Israeli soldiers guarding the construction of Israel's security fence all the time. The army is under orders to coddle them and not arrest them.

    And since the army is now going to arrest settlers who behave in an uncivilized way, when will the police and the University of Haifa shut down the "ALEF List." The "ALEF" list is a chat list of anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis that operates under the auspices of the University of Haifa. See this: http://isracampus.org.il/ALEF%20Watch.htm

    A few months ago it circulated materials with the photos and addresses of Israeli army officers and with the caption "War Criminals." When someone circulated the photo of an Arab judge in Tel Aviv with his address, the police interpreted that as attempted murder. The ALEF list's distribution of the photos of army officers was even more clearly a call for murdering them. For details on this story, go here:
    http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Alef%20watch%20-%20Dorothy%20Naor%20-%20 incitement%20to%20murder.htm

    If cussing soldiers is criminal behavior, what is this?

    2. Now as reluctant as I am to concede that the dual Israeli court system has done something proper and correct, I have to concede that it has done so this past week.

    It seems that one Matan Cohen, a young "anarchist" from the above-mentioned hooligan gangs that attack Israeli police, suffered a serious injury to one of his eyes. Cohen sued Israel in Israeli court for millions of shekels, claiming that his eye was damaged as a result of rubber bullets being fired at the rampaging rioters in whose midst he was jihading. Cohen and his buddies went on a media campaign, appearing on Channel 10, and accused the soldiers of trying to murder him.

    Just one itsy-bitsy problem. The judge, Dalia Ganot in Tel Aviv District Court, investigated and found out that young Cohen's eye was the victim of a rock being thrown by his jihad friends at the police and soldiers, a rock his trajectory his the wrong Jew (or — if you prefer — the right Jew) by mistake. Cohen was standing out of range of the rubber bullets and video film of the events showed that no soldiers were shooting anything at all when he was injured. The judge added diplomatically that Cohen is a person for whom the facts and the truth are never in danger of being found in his possession. She noted that Cohen had kept changing his version of his story.

    And best of all, Judge Ganot hit Cohen with court costs in the amount of 50,000 shekels.

    I would have preferred of course that the Judge had ruled that even if Cohen HAD been shot by a rubber bullet while assaulting the cops and the soldiers, he would STILL be un-entitled to any compensation. In fact, he should have been charged the cost of the bullet.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Moshe Dann 212009.

    IDF not an auxiliary police force to be used at whim of defense minister

    Condemning IDF soldiers who refuse to expel Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria as "contravening the values of the IDF" begs the question; what are the values and what is the role of the IDF?

    That soldiers should refuse such orders because it is "against Halacha," is arguable. Refusing an order that has nothing to do with military or strategic concerns, however, is not a question of Halacha!

    Ordering the IDF to evacuate Jewish communities and destroy homes and property directly violates the IDF's own Code of Ethics. "The goal of the IDF is to protect the existence of the State of Israel and her independence, and to thwart all enemy efforts to disrupt the normal way of life in Israel."

    The IDF is not an auxiliary police force, to be used at the whim of the defense minister. Orders which are politically motivated may be technically "legal," but they undermine the IDF's morale and raison d'etre.

    Refuse orders? Not when the objective is related to security or military, not when you are ordered to defend and protect Israel. Destroying Jewish homes, however, evicting Jews and beating up children is not the job of the IDF. We need to understand this distinction.

    The IDF's purpose is to protect its citizens against our enemies. Who is "the enemy" in Jewish communities and how are they a threat to our well-being and security?

    This is especially important since the decision to evict Jews is not sanctioned by the government, cabinet or Knesset. Although the military governor and defense minister have this power under "Emergency Regulations" handed down from the British Mandate, it was intended to be used in extreme cases to stop terrorism — not against innocent civilians who have committed no crime.

    Using the IDF to carry out a highly controversial government policy, like evacuating Jews from their homes, has no military purpose. The misuse of IDF soldiers in such actions, therefore, is a direct blow to Israeli democracy, the IDF itself and our soldiers. The "our" is critical.

    They are us

    As a citizen army, IDF soldiers are conscripted; they serve with pride and without question. The IDF's strength and character are rooted in their mission to protect us. Its morale depends on the fact that we are proud of their sacrifices and support them wholeheartedly. Their battlers are ours — and so are their losses.

    We pray for and celebrate them because they are us. That is why we encourage them to act on their conscience. Refusing to serve immoral, non-military and non-strategic orders takes courage; it's an honor.

    At other times in history soldiers have pleaded, "But we were just following orders." That is no excuse for committing atrocities and immoral acts — no matter what the "law" says.

    Soldiers who protest the politicization of the IDF have raised an important question, one that is at the core of every democratic society: how should one protest what they believe is an abuse of "the law" and a violation of the role and values of the army?

    The danger to the integrity of the IDF is not from those who question and protest what they believe to be unjust, but from those who are insensitive to the reasons for that protest.

    "Following orders" is not an excuse, or substitute for acting as a human being and as a Jew. Not following orders in the service of reason and conscience can be the highest form of moral action.

    Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Truth Provider, November 21, 2009.

    Dear friends,

    My friend Tom sent me from England this fabulous piece.


    Your Truth provider,


    This simple science class for Saturday mornings should be useful and instructive and inspire you to eschew politics and politicians in favour of viticulture, gastronomy, and other worthwhile pursuits while there's anything left to enjoy at all

    New Element Discovered — Soon To Be Included On The Periodic Table:

    Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

    The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

    Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 — 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each re-organization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.

    This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

    When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

    To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Rabbi Dov Stein, November 21, 2009.

    Sanhedrin — Great Court of 71
    Independent Subcourt for Matters of Nation and State

    3 Kislev, 5770



    Tzvia Sariel, a symbol of faith and faithfulness to Torah and the Land, is again imprisoned.

    Tzvia Sariel was arrested a few times during her struggle for the settlement of the Land of Israel and prevention of its destruction. She persists in this. Tzvia does not recognize the authority of a court that ignores the laws of Torah. In particular, after she experienced that the judicial system in Israel represents an agenda designed to remove Israel from its land, and that the courts do not protect from this agenda.

    Three weeks ago, Tzvia Sariel was arrested as she protected a 17 year old girl, resident of Ramat Migron, from the barbarous acts of the police and other security forces which evacuated the community.

    Tzvia Sariel and her friends were arrested due to false claims, for example that they refused to be identified, and were forced to get undressed by female police officers, under the claim that they might be carrying drugs or weapons, and therefore needed to undergo an embarrassing full body search, whose only reason is to abuse the detainees.

    A year ago, after an extended unwarranted detention which lasted three and a half months, Tzvia Sariel was released after it was revealed in court the blood libel cooked up against her by the authorities, by enlisting Arabs in order to incriminate her. The Torah Court for Matters of Nation and State, headed by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, on the 7th of Adar Bet 5768 (14th of March, 2008) ordered the prison authorities to bring the young woman before the Court. The jailers indeed followed the court order and brought the young woman, under heavy guard, to the Court.

    The Court ordered her immediate release after it was proven, not just of her complete innocence, but her righteousness, purity of heart, and integrity.

    Usually, it is very difficult to prove the libels of the authorities, however in this case, after two days, in the court of Judge Nava Bechor, it was proven, against their will, of her complete innocence. The young woman was released.

    Judge Bechor noted in her decision that the Mukhtar of the neighboring village of Alon Moreh admitted that he was urged by threats by Major Iyad Amar to enter Alon Moreh and to orchestrate an olive harvest when it wasn't time. The 80-year old Mukhtar was loaded in to a vehicle of the Civil Administration together with other elderly individuals, and they were instructed to harass young girls inside Alon Moreh with a harvest display. Tzvia Sariel and her friends forcefully informed the guests that they are not wanted, and then the people from the Civil Administration jumped upon them and arrested them.

    The officer has still not been put on trial, which shows that the man knew that his lies would gain backing of his superiors and the entire system.

    Unlike Judge Bechor, Judge Miriam Lifschitz, in front of whom Tzvia Sariel was brought for an extension of detention, ordered the continued detention of Sariel, and it is likely that she knew that the claims in the charges were lies. The judge indeed allowed her to go free if Tzvia would give fingerprints, but before this, she also accepted the claims of a policeman that Tzvia's identity was not known. Tzvia Sariel announced that she would not cooperate in the Judicial System's display of crimes and lies.

    To our dismay, this is indeed spoiled fruit of cooperation between the police and the Judicial System. The police called Tzvia Sariel's mother on the day of her arrest and informed her of her daughter's incarceration, and thus the police admitted that they knew the young woman's identity.

    Tzvia Sariel's fingerprints were taken by force a long time ago, and the combination of these claims is only meant to degrade, humiliate and break the young woman's spirit.

    It pains us that Judge Miriam Lifschitz places herself and the honor of her position, retroactively, in the service of the police. It will not thus be done in Israel, for one to abuse another, to embarrass a daughter of Israel, wherein all the honor of a daughter of the king is inside, to abandon her to the fist of wickedness. Just like the brothers of Matityahu's daughter, her Jewish brothers are commanded to save her from distress and incarceration.

    Judge Lifschitz, who is a religious woman, profanes the name of Heaven, as she turns herself to a governmental arm acting purposefully against Jews due to their remaining faithful to the redemption of the nation and land.

    Therefore, Tzvia Sariel's stance, that she does not recognize the system for practical and Torah reasons together, is correct. We see in Tzvia Sariel's behavior a good example for the masses.

    The Jewish Public is called to unite around Torah courts in every place in order to fulfill the basic command:

    Deuteronomy 17:18 — Judges and officers you shall place for yourselves in all of your gates that Hashem your G-d gives you.

    Deuteronomy 17:20 — Justice justice you shall pursue, so that you might live and inherit the land that Hashem your G-d gives you.

    As long as there is not proper justice in the Land, we will not be able to inherit it. As it says:

    Isaiah 1:27 — Zion will be redeemed with justice, and its returnees in righteousness.

    Rabbi Yisrael Ariel — Head of the Court
    Rabbi Dov Stein
    Rabbi Hillel Weiss

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Plaut, November 21, 2009.

    Dear Mister President:

    In recent days you have called for a freeze on all construction activities in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. It has been your opinion that this is "occupied territory," because it lies outside the 1949 ceasefire lines that separated Israel from the Kingdom of Jordan while the latter illegally held East Jerusalem until 1967. Gilo of course has also been the target of numerous terrorist attacks from the very same savages that your State Department would like to see seize control of Gilo and of Jerusalem's Holy sites in the Old City.

    Well, Mister President, I have taken your words under careful consideration. I have reached the conclusion that you are correct. It is indeed time to put a stop to construction in the capital city in the area of disputed ownership beyond the Green Line. The disputed area must remain as it is, with no new building at all, until a new state is erected that can take it over and perhaps even establish its national capital there.

    I am of course referring to Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria, and all the Virginia territories seized by the United States using force of arms that lie across the Potomac, are outside the legitimate boundaries of Washington, DC. They lie across the Green Line, by which I mean the Potomac River, which turns green in the summer. Obviously Alexandria is part of the sovereign state of Virginia.

    Now it is true that no Confederacy exists today, just like no Palestinian state exists. But who is to say that none will ever arise within the framework of diplomatic free exchange? And if the Confederacy does achieve statehood and independence, its leaders will naturally wish its capital to be in Alexandria. Richmond is a little too far away.

    Since the ultimate status of Alexandria is a subject of contention, the only fair thing to do is to halt all American construction activity there at once. Ditto for Arlington. To continue to build there is a provocation and an obstacle to peace. And we really do think the time has come to remove that military outpost and illegal settlement out of Arlington that you people maintain in the Pentagon.

    I realize that some people reject the idea of an independent Confederacy as inherently racist, and that various anti-democratic pro-violence extremist groups are leading the campaign for such an independent state. But those groups are light years more progressive, peaceful and tolerant of ethnic differences than are the Islamofascists to whom you are trying to grant statehood in the Palestinian-occupied Jewish homelands.

    Respectfully yours,
    Benjamin Netanyahu
    Prime Minister, Jerusalem — Capital of Israel

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Scott Robinson, November 21, 2009.

    I just got this from a friend in Georgia and it is very interesting, please read.


    Wonder why Obama didn't want congress to start an investigation into the killings at Fort Hood. This president is a lying, two-faced scumbag. The Muslim scumbag that killed 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood was on Obama's transition team.


    Almost too difficult to believe, but his name is right there in the document!

    Nidal Hasan, was Homeland Security advisor on Obama transition team

    (He was a participant and is listed on Page 29)

    Now we have a little insight into why Obama said to not jump to conclusions about Nidal Hasan.

    This man who killed and wounded the people at Fort Hood, Texas was an advisor to Obama's Homeland Security team.

    Look on page 29 of the Homeland Security Institute link
    http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/ PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.PDF

    Contact Scott Robertson by email at usacan1@msn.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Ted Belman, November 21, 2009.
    Far more newsworthy than Caroline Glick's criticism of Netanyahu was her public rebuke of Obama this week for his attempt to strong-arm Israel into barring Jewish construction in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood. Her article appeared November 19, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post.

    During a recent speaking tour in Canada, MK Nahman Shai (Kadima) shocked some of his hosts when he said that his primary goal in politics today is to bring down the Netanyahu government. Although indelicate, Shai's comment was not surprising. Kadima is in the opposition. And like all opposition parties in all parliamentary democracies, the primary goal of its members is to bring down the government so that they can take power.

    Given that this is the case, it is unsurprising that until this week, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni tried to blame Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for US President Barack Obama's hostility towards Israel. Far more newsworthy than her criticism of Netanyahu was her public rebuke of Obama this week for his attempt to strong-arm Israel into barring Jewish construction in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood. On Wednesday Livni said, "Gilo is part of the Israeli consensus... and it is important to understand this for all discussions of borders in any future agreement."

    Indeed. There is an Israeli consensus. The Israeli consensus regarding Jerusalem is based among other things on the understanding that no nation can give up its capital city and survive.

    Livni wants to be prime minister one day. For that to happen, Israel must survive until she wins an election. And Israel will not long survive if it surrenders its right to its capital.

    One might have thought that American Jews could be counted on to stand by Israel on this issue. But then, one would be wrong.

    FOR THE past six years, Republican Senator Sam Brownback has repeatedly submitted a bill to the US Senate that, if passed into law, would revoke the presidential waiver that has allowed successive presidents to refuse to implement the 1995 law requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. This year Brownback co-sponsored his bill with Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman. As luck would have it, the Brownback-Lieberman bill was submitted two weeks before Obama launched his latest campaign against Jewish building in Jerusalem.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, American Jews lobbied hard to get the embassy moved to Jerusalem. But now some American Jewish leaders recoil at the very notion. In response to the Brownback-Lieberman Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 2009, the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle published an editorial last Friday titled, "Bad move, Senator Brownback."

    The newspaper's editors condemned their retiring senator and called his bill, "a cheap, grandstanding move by a conservative Republican on his way out the door, playing to Jews and Christian Zionists while trying to throw a monkey wrench into President Obama's diplomatic spokes."

    According to Sen. Brownback's office, the paper never had any criticism of the same bill when he submitted it during president George W. Bush's tenure in office. But now, as Israel's government and opposition stand shoulder to shoulder protecting Israeli control over Jerusalem from assaults by Obama, Kansas City's Jewish newspaper's editorial board willingly bucked what it acknowledged are the wishes of "Jews and Christian Zionists," in order to stand by their man in the Oval Office.

    Some of Israel's most high-profile supporters in the US are conservative talk radio and television hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. But rather than thank them for their support, the Anti-Defamation League, which is supposed to be dedicated first and foremost to defending Jews from anti-Semitism, published a special report this week where it insinuated that they cultivate a climate of hatred and paranoia which could endanger Jews among others.

    The ADL report, "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," dubbed Beck the "fearmonger-in-chief," for his opposition to Obama's domestic and foreign policies. It similarly castigated the so-called "tea party" movement which has attracted millions of Americans opposed to high taxes, and the townhall meetings this past summer where millions of Americans peacefully argued against Obama's healthcare policies.

    The ADL's decision to issue a special report attacking Obama's political opponents and insinuating that Americans who oppose him cultivate an environment in which paranoid and dangerous fringe groups feel comfortable operating is strange given that the ADL never put out a similar report against parallel anti-Bush movements. As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted this week, the ADL was more likely to see overt and vicious anti-Semitic statements and placards being waved around at anti-Iraq war rallies than at anti-Obama healthcare and tax policy demonstrations.

    Ironically, the ADL has a specific institutional interest in combating leftist paranoia. A recent movie attacking the ADL called Defamation, by leftist, anti-Israel Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir, is currently hitting the film festival circuit in the US and Europe. A major hit among anti-Israel activists and regular anti-Semites on the Left and Right, Defamation accuses the ADL of exaggerating the Holocaust and anti-Semitism to justify what Shamir views as its nefarious aims. Apparently, tribal loyalty to the Left trumps the institutional interests of the ADL.

    It certainly trumps the interests of New York University's Hillel director Rabbi Yehuda Sarna. As James Taranto reported on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, this week Sarna called for NYU's Jewish community to join NYU Muslims at a rally that both commemorated the massacre at Ft. Hood and denounced NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan for writing a column in Forbes magazine. In his article, Varadarajan committed the crime of stating the obvious fact that Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by his Islamic beliefs when he shouted Allahu Akbar and shot some 40 people, killing 13.

    Given that people and groups like al-Qaida and Hamas that share Hasan's views assert that all Jews should be killed, it would seem that the good rabbi would not feel the need to attack professors who point out that Hasan's views are dangerous. But then, it is no longer strange to see Hillels on American university campuses behaving in a manner that is not in line with what might be considered the interests of either the American Jewish community or the Jewish people as a whole.

    Take UC Berkeley's Hillel center, for example. Since Ken Kramarz, Hillel's regional director for Northern California, started his job in June 2007, Berkeley's Hillel has adopted a hostile view towards Judaism and Israel. As pro-Israel community activist Natan Nestel notes, in the past year alone, Hillel held a dance party on Yom Hashoah, and it held a Cinco de Mayo barbecue on Remembrance Day for Fallen IDF Soldiers. It has also failed to hold community Seders for the past two years. Instead, last year, its members hung signs in the Hillel building declaring, "Matza sucks."

    Beyond its derogatory treatment of Jewish and Israeli holidays, Berkeley's Hillel has allowed an extremist group called Students for Justice for Palestine to participate in its organizational meetings.

    SJP calls for Israel's destruction through unlimited Arab immigration. It also advocates for UC Berkeley to divest from Israel. Edgar Bronfman, Hillel's International Chairman, has characterized SJP umbrella organization as "anti-Israel... anti-Semitic alarming..."

    No doubt owing in part to Berkeley Hillel's decision to permit SJP members to spread their propaganda at its organizational meetings, Hillel's student leaders and members participated in SJP's Israel Apartheid Week this past March.

    The student meeting that SJP participated in at Berkeley's Hillel was sponsored by a group called "Kesher Enoshi."

    This group describes itself as "a progressive Jewish community that engages directly with Israeli civil society. We do this by educating ourselves and others about the day-to-day struggles of people in Israel by making direct connections with human rights/social change organizations in Israel, linking their struggles with those on campus and in the wider community, and building a community of active participants in social change in Israel."

    This mission statement, which says nothing about Zionism, sounds an awful lot like the goal of the New Israel Fund. This month, three Arab "civil society" groups supported to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the NIF published a poster depicting an IDF soldier touching the breast of an Arab woman with the caption, "Her husband needs a permit to touch her, the occupation penetrates her life every day."

    The poster was issued to publicize a conference in Haifa called "My Land, Space, Body and Sexuality: Palestinians in the Shadow of the Wall," whose purpose was to demonize Israel using post-modern jargon.

    Unlike Hillel, NIF is widely recognized as a far-left fringe group. But as Arab Israeli NGOs use the dollars of American Jewish NIF donors to advance their "civil society" programs aimed at delegitimizing Israel's right to exist, the Reform Movement — which is not a fringe group — decided unanimously two weeks ago to criticize and pressure Israel for what its leadership views as Israel's unfair treatment of its Arab citizens.

    As this column goes to press, if its board members don't cancel their meeting, the San Francisco Jewish Federation will be grudgingly voting on a resolution that would prohibit it from sponsoring events that denigrate or demonize Israel or supporting organizations that partner with organizations that call for divestment, sanctions or boycotts against Israel.

    The resolution follows the Jewish Federation of San Francisco's decision to co-sponsor the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival last summer. That festival featured Shamir's Defamation, and the egregiously anti-Israel film Rachel, about the late pro-terror activist Rachel Corrie. The film festival was also sponsored by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace group, the American Friends Service Committee, which hosted a dinner for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York last year, the Rachel Corrie Foundation and other radical anti-Israel groups.

    If the vote takes place, it will be a great victory for a small group of local Jewish activists. These individual Jews have banded together because they are deeply disturbed by the federation's willingness to use community funds to advance events whose basic message is that Israel should be destroyed.

    KADIMA'S INTERESTS as a political party place it at loggerheads with the government on almost every issue. But its leaders this week were rational enough to recognize that they must support Israel's sovereign rights in Jerusalem despite the fact that doing so placed it on the government's side. Their display of sanity is a clear indication that Israeli society today is healthy and capable of meeting the challenges it faces.

    It is clear that most American Jews believe that it is in their interests to support the Democratic Party and the Left. But like the anti-establishment Jewish activists in San Francisco, American Jews ought to realize that on issues like Israel's survival and their own survival as Jews they ought to stand by their interests even when they seem to clash with their leftist and Democratic loyalties. And they ought to stand by their friends on these issues, even when their friends are conservative Republicans.

    It can only be hoped that the San Francisco pro-Israel upstarts' campaign against the federation was successful yesterday. Then, too, if the American Jewish community is to long survive, these San Francisco Jewish activists' demand that their community support Israel's right to exist must be joined by their fellow American Jews throughout the country.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Ted Belman, November 21, 2009.

    Liberals like to say that the path to peace and freedom is to be more tolerant of other cultures — including those that seek to overturn our own way of life. If we only took the time to understand them and have them understand us we could achieve a united prosperity based on the our shared common interests.

    Nice ideal...but in reality all we are doing are enabling the enemies of freedom and democracy to spread their message, attract new recruits and strengthen themselves by using our own goodwill against us.

    It's time we woke up to the fact that by tolerating evil we are in effect accepting its existence. By reacting to their malevolence with indifference we are by default sanctioning it. And by allowing movements whose goal is to destroy us to operate on our soil we are hastening our own demise.

    Please read:
    http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/11/ tolerance-breeds-intolerance.html

    Contact Liran Kapoano at lkapoano@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 20, 2009.

    Before I look at that angle (of necessity, briefly, before Shabbat), I want to add one other news item about Jerusalem housing that I inadvertently left out yesterday. This did not make mainstream news (thanks to Tamar A for calling my attention to it), but I located it in a couple of different sources. News is always selective.

    Rabbi Yitzhak Hershkowit who for many years has owned property in Beit Tzafafa, a Jerusalem suburb, has never been able to use that property because of Arab squatters. He fought this in the courts for over thirteen years, and has proven that the land is legally. The court agreed that the squatters should be removed, but the police have never executed the court order.


    As to the "angle": There are some analysts who see effecting an over-turn of SC Resolution 242 at the heart of what's going on with the PA right now.

    Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the US, in a column yesterday, made this point. Shoval describes current PA efforts to establish a state as "a wheelless cart before a lame horse," which is great. But he suspects ulterior motives.

    A Jerusalem Post editorial expresses the same suspicions.


    I've been doing some checking with regard to the Palestinians taking their theoretical state-in-the-making to the UN. It is a complicated business, and the complications are compounded by the fact that within the international arena theoretical rules are one thing, while in reality states often act as they damn please, in accordance not with law but political whim — as we well know.

    What is basic fact is that the Security Council does not "endorse" states, or — whatever the term — bring them into being by virtue of a resolution: there is no mechanism for this within international law via any agency. The PA would have to declare a state first. (And if this declaration is unilateral it would render Oslo null and void.)

    According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933, there is a basic "definition" of a state, which has been adopted by the international community. In order to qualify as a state, an entity must:

    [] have a permanent population
    [] have a defined territory
    [] be under the control of its own government
    [] have the capacity to enter into relations with other states

    Does the PA qualify? No way. Consider, just for one example, that the PA seems bent on declaring a state that includes Gaza, where its government would have no control. Would it (wink wink) be considered to have met the required criteria in the course of its declaration, or be laughed out of the international arena?

    As to whether to recognize this new state once it is declared, each nation would make its own decision. Recognition of a nascent state by other nations does seem to be an important part of creating the legal reality.


    This new state would then apply to the Security Council for UN membership. This membership does not create the state, but simply accords the state, which already exists, the rights and protections conferred upon member states.

    What's important here, is this, from the International Judicial Monitor (as of this summer):

    "...the Security Council must decide to submit a state's application for admission to the General Assembly for a two-thirds majority vote. The two-thirds requirement means that a state may not be granted admission to the UN if it is not recognized by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. This is the case for Kosovo which will likely not be able to join the UN in the near future because it is only recognized by sixty-two UN members."

    And so this new Palestinian state, were it to be declared, might be stopped right there. Which would render moot the entire discussion about Resolution 242.


    This is not what analysts are looking at, however. For them the real sticking point has to do with borders, which the PA quite obviously intends to set as the Green Line (everything that was not under Israeli control before the Six Day War of 1967).

    If the SC were to accept "Palestine" as a member state, does this mean it would be sanctioning or endorsing those borders as unilaterally claimed?

    If the answer is yes, this would mean setting up a conflict with SC Resolution 242, which, basically, says that Israel does not have to withdraw from all territories acquired in 1967, and is entitled to safe and recognized borders that are arrived at via negotiations. And Israel does not have to pull out of any territory until this negotiation occurs. The Green Line is not considered a safe border — strategic depth is required. (This sets foolish Obama's statement about settlements not bringing security into conflict with this resolution as well.)

    The concern is that the PA is seeking to overturn or override this resolution.

    The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs held a conference on 242 a couple of years ago (I was in attendance and learned a great deal). For detailed information from that conference see:
    http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID= 1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=452&PID=3111


    There'll be time for more after Shabbat.

    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 20, 2009.


    Construction in Jerusalem [A.P. photo/ Dan Balilty]

    Jerusalem plans to build 5,000 housing units for Arabs in the eastern part of Jerusalem (www.imra.org.il, 8/11).

    Will the Palestinian Authority complain that Israel has no right to do so?


    Where tunnel was struck [A.P. photo/Eyad Baba]

    "Overnight, Israeli aircraft successfully targeted a weapons-manufacturing facility in the southern Gaza Strip and two smuggling tunnels in the Rafah border area. The attacks were in response to the recent firing of rockets into Israeli territory," stated the IDF.

    Dr. Aaron Lerner equates that to mean, "...if the Gazans don't shoot, Israel will do nothing against the dangerously growing weapons manufacturing industry in Gaza." (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). Hamas admitted the accuracy of the attack (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19).

    Would you say that any workers in the arms smuggling tunnels, who were killed in the raid, are civilians? I'd say they are part of the war effort; smugglers work at their own risk.

    There may be civilians in the same, bombed building that makes weapons. Israel didn't target them, but Hamas placed the factory at the risk of their lives, and exploits any publicity their deaths reap. It is a grim reaping, but suffices to get anti-Zionists indignant against Israel for defending itself, and not against Hamas for both war crimes: (1) Firing at Israeli civilian cities; and (2) Placing its own military facilities in civilian areas, so that any warfare there is likely to injure civilians. Misdirected as that indignation be, it is take up by the UN. So much for the UN and its commissions!

    By blaming the Jewish state for a normal reaction, belated as it usually is, the UN and its supporters encourage Hamas war crimes and Arab civilian casualties. That demonstrates a lack of concern for the Arab civilians and unconcern about real war crimes. Their motive is to accuse Israel of non-existent war crimes.

    (Thus Hamas is back to its war crimes, without protest from the world. But its greater crime may be its abuse of its own children.


    King Abdullah of Jordan asked visiting members of the American Jewish Congress to support a peace that guarantees the rights of Palestinian Arabs and a state, which also would guarantee Israel's security under the Arab Peace Initiative behind the 1967 armistice line (www.imra.org.il, 11/19).

    That Initiative would have Israel cede not only the Territories, but part of Israel's capital, including Judaism's holiest site, and flood Israel with about 5 millions Arabs (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19).

    The King's state is an Arab Palestinian state. Why set up another?

    The Arabs talk about rights and international law, but deprive citizens of rights and some of them flout international law (see prior piece).

    Arab guarantees? They break their agreements with Israel, one of their principles being Islamic deception. The 1967 armistice line would not provide secure borders for Israel, as the U.S. Chiefs of Staff report explained. That is why the Arab initiative is not one for peace. The 1967 lines are more severe for Israel than UN Security Council Resolution 242, which would have Israel retain what parts of the Territories it needs for secure borders, if there were genuine peace. There would not be genuine peace, because for religious reasons that a peace agreement does not cover, the Arabs in general and Abbas' Arabs in particular claim all of Israel. Getting a state would put Abbas in a much stronger position to pursue the Muslim Arab claim against Israel.

    The Initiative does not include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. If adopted, the Initiative would end Jewish statehood. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs means an Arab take-over of Israel, as if King Abdullah does not know that. One wonders whether the American Jewish Congress pointed that out to him.

    Therefore, although an agreement would be said to bring peace, it would bring war and probably genocide by those nice Arabs who talk about rights, law, and security, but who have attempted genocide against Israel (and Sudan and Iraq).


    Saudi border patrol [A.P. photo]

    The Saudi-Yemen rebel war is expanding. S. Arabia has evacuated 400 villages from its border areas. It is trying to keep the surviving rebel troops from spreading out and forcing S. Arabia to spread out its own forces.

    Earlier news mentioned a Saudi blockade of northern Yemen and its capture of arms ships for rebels (www.imra.org.il, 11/19).

    I omitted reports that reporters said could not be independently confirmed. The rebels claim that Saudis attacked them when they were just in Yemen, so they entered S. Arabia to retaliate.

    Yemen has its architectural beauty but miserable circumstances. What do some of its people produce now? More misery, most recently displacing tens of thousands of Saudi civilians.


    "The municipality noted that it is also destroying illegal structures in the Arab sector. Three buildings were demolished Wednesday: a structure, 90 square meters in size, that was built on public land in Isawiya; a structure in Wadi Hilwah, also built on public land, sized 32 square meters; and three temporary structures in Silwan that served as pens for sheep and horses. All of the structures were razed after courts ordered them to be torn down." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19).

    This is normal law enforcement, not political. Opposition to it is politically inspired, and by opposing normal enforcement, it supports anarchy.

    Anarchy in a big city means hindered service, fewer amenities, theft of public property, etc.. That is not in the interest of residents.



    Bedouin in southern Israel have increasingly conducted an Intifada against the personnel of the Nevatim Air Force Base in the Negev, in southern Israel. It is Israel largest base. When personnel drive around at night, their cars are stoned. A washing machine was placed in the middle of the road, to cause an accident. Some Bedouin youth pulled an Israeli pilot from his car and beat him up.

    The base commander ordered servicemen to use an alternate highway at night and he increased perimeter security (www.imra.org.il, 11/19).

    This is Arab disloyalty and war, and has not excuse. I wonder whether anti-Zionists will hear about it, and if they do, will complain about it?


    Defense Minister Barak in middle. [A.P. photo/Ariel Hermony]

    Israel's President Peres and Defense Min. Barak proposed a new plan that they say would bring peace. The plan would give the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) sovereignty over half of Judea-Samaria for two years, most of the rest of the area. If Israel keeps the nearby settlement blocs, it would cede parts of Israel.

    Israel would guarantee completing negotiations in 18-24 months. Israel would get a P.A. letter recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, presumably ending Arab demands to flood Israel with descendants of alleged refugees, and promising to be demilitarized. The Cabinet is evenly divided on the plan (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/19).

    Dr. Aaron Lerner notes that Barak did not suggest when or how the P.A. would be de-militarized and the terrorist infrastructure dismantled. He did suggest that a foreign expedition assist the P.A.. [From what?] The foreign troops likely would act as human shields against Israeli self-defense from the continuing terrorist infrastructure. Starting with sovereignty is reckless.

    As the plan puts it, "If these [AL: international involvement and regional Arab guarantees] don't help to bring regional stability, we will have to act by ourselves against the threats on the basis of our right to self defense." Dr. Lerner responds sarcastically, "That's nice to know."

    Apparently, the plan calls for binding arbitration, if negotiations do not conclude on time. Israel is not likely to fare well under outside arbitration, given the bigoted current political climate. [Imagine placing national security under binding arbitration by hostile outsiders! Imprudent, if even sincere.] This a risky plan without an exit strategy.

    Dr. Lerner suggests that those who proposed the plan first think it through.

    (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). One doubts they can. Starry-eyed appeasers of the Arabs rarely have.

    This is an anti-Zionist plan. Therefore, this is a largely left-wing Cabinet and government. All those labels and aspersions of it being such a right-wing government, what sense did they make?

    Neither does the plan make sense. It does not resolve what to do about Jerusalem, a major point of disagreement, but gives the P.A. sovereignty of much of the area, making it equal in status to Israel and reducing Israeli bargaining power.

    How can Israel promise to conclude negotiations within a limited time, when the Arabs have obstructed negotiations before? How can Israel count on a P.A. promise to demilitarize, when it is militarizing now in violation of its agreements, and once sovereign, it is not bound by a pre-statehood promise, not that sovereign Arab states keep their treaties (vis. Egypt's and Jordan's non-normalization, contrary to their treaties).

    The notion of Israel having to make up to the P.A. for any land it keeps in Judea-Samaria is without foundation. The armistice lines of 1967 have no legal effect on who is entitled to what land. The land on the other side never belonged to the PLO and Israel has the better claim to it.

    Letting P.A. forces come nearer to Israeli cities means more terrorism, including rocket attacks.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Michael Freund, November 20, 2009.

    More than 9 years have passed since Israel abandoned Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) in the wake of an armed Palestinian assault against the holy site.

    That withdrawal set a dangerous example for the Palestinians that resorting to carnage and terror does pay, which only continues to inspire them to dream of ejecting us from the region through violence and mayhem.

    And that is precisely why I suggest in the column below from the NY Jewish Press that it is so crucial that Israel reassert control over Joseph's Tomb. We cannot and must not allow this affront to Jewish history to stand, especially now when so much pressure is being brought to bear on Israel to make still more concessions to the Palestinians.

    It is time to take back Joseph's Tomb, and with it, our self-respect as well.

    Comments and feedback may be sent to me directly.
    thanks, and Shabbat Shalom,
    Michael Freund


    It was supposed to be temporary.

    Nine years ago last month, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered the Israeli army to withdraw from Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) in one of the most humiliating retreats in the nation's modern history.

    The move came after Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists had launched a coordinated assault on the Israeli soldiers who were bravely guarding the sacred burial ground of our biblical forebear.

    Displaying their customary respect for Jewish holy sites, the Palestinian attackers had surrounded the compound, strafed it with automatic-weapons fire and attempted to seize it by force.

    Rather than standing firm in the face of the Palestinian onslaught, Barak chose instead to make history of the most dubious sort. He issued an unprecedented order for the IDF to pull out under fire and surrender territory to the Palestinians as a direct result of violence.

    The abandonment of Joseph's Tomb, we were assured at the time, was not permanent, but rather a tactical move dictated by the situation on the ground. Back on October 7, 2000, just hours after the last IDF soldiers had evacuated from the area, the website of Yediot Aharonot reported in a banner headline, "Israel pulls out of Joseph's Tomb — 'Temporarily.' "

    But here we are, nearly a decade later, and the Tomb still remains "temporarily" abandoned by the Jewish state, in what has become a mark of shame for our people and our country.

    Indeed, who can forget the painful scenes that followed the withdrawal, when a frenzied mob of Palestinians armed with sledgehammers hacked and smashed the tomb to pieces?

    And what about the prayer books and other Jewish religious objects that were set alight, as the throng celebrated the destruction they had wrought?

    Coming just a week after the start of what came to be known as the Second Intifada, the pullout from Joseph's Tomb fanned the flames of Palestinian rejectionism, which continue to smolder to the present day.

    The withdrawal set a dangerous example for the Palestinians that resorting to carnage and terror does pay, which only continues to inspire them to dream of ejecting us from the region through violence and mayhem.

    And that is precisely why it is so crucial that Israel reassert control over Joseph's Tomb. We cannot and must not allow this affront to Jewish history to stand, especially now when so much pressure is being brought to bear on Israel to make still more concessions to the Palestinians.

    It is therefore time to turn back the clock and reclaim this part of our ancestral patrimony.

    Don't believe those in the media and on the Left who cast doubt on the authenticity of the tomb, mockingly suggesting that it belongs to an unknown Arab sheikh. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    For example, the late Dr. Zvi Ilan, one of Israel's foremost archeologists, described Joseph's Tomb as "one of the tombs whose location is known with the utmost degree of certainty and is based on continuous documentation since Biblical times" (Tombs of the Righteous in the Land of Israel, p. 365).

    The Book of Joshua (24:32) states explicitly, "The bones of Joseph which the Children of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried in Shechem in the portion of the field that had been purchased by Jacob."

    Ancient rabbinic texts such as the Midrash mention the site, as did the early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who visited it nearly 1,700 years ago. Arab geographers, medieval Jewish pilgrims, Samaritan historians and even 19th-century British cartographers all concur regarding the site and its location.

    Prior to the Palestinian takeover in October 2000, the tomb's compound was host to a yeshiva, and it was visited by thousands of Jewish worshipers annually.

    So there is no doubt that Joseph's Tomb really is the tomb of Joseph, son of the biblical patriarch Jacob. And we owe it to him — and to ourselves — to take it back and raise the Israeli flag once again over the compound.

    Twice in Jewish history, Joseph was forsaken by his brothers and handed over to foreign control. The first time was in the biblical story, when he was tossed into a pit and sold to traveling merchants. The second time was in October 2000, when his tomb was surrendered to Palestinian rioters.

    It is not too late to right this historical wrong. Doing so will send a message to our enemies that we shall never again retreat under fire, and that we will defend our right to live and worship in this land as we see fit.

    So let's at last do what should have been done long ago — take back Joseph's Tomb, and with it, our self-respect as well.

    Michael Freund served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office under Benjamin Netanyahu from 1996 to 1999. He is founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which reaches out and assists "lost Jews" seeking to return to the Jewish people.

    This appeared today in the Jewish Press

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Rami Dishy, November 19, 2009.

    Antisemitism on the Right exist, but is dormant. It's not "in" to be a Nazi or a Fascist.

    But what is flourishing and spreading, even getting legitimacy is the Left alliance with Islamist that swiping Europe and unfortunately our own tribe.

    This anomaly, the marriage of two opposite belief, the Left which strive to equality between the sexes, accept gay life stile, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, separation of Church and State, align itself and find common ground with the most autocrats, ruthless and backward ideology, still living and getting it's inspiration from it's dark age ideology, and oppose every noble and sacred doctrine that the Left see as holly.

    What is behind that pathology? Is the self hate of the Left, still locked in it's Marxist Ideology of "destroy the existing world order, and then built the Utopia". The experience of the Soviet Union and Stalin it's god, not enough a lesson to awake the dreamers and it's intellectuals? Can anyone visit and compare Communist Cuba with it's poverty, with that of thriving Israel, despite its constant wars imposed on it by it's enemies, accepting millions of refuges, despite the economic boycott and isolation.

    What makes some people to loose it's identity and pride to the extent that they commit moral suicide?

    The Left is blind to reality, still living in the old dogma, blaming Israel and connecting every evil to it.

    George Orwell would be amused but not surprise seeing that reality.

    Ramy Dishy lives in Ontario, Canada. Contact him by email at clement32@rogers.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, November 19, 2009.

    This was written by Julia Gorin.


    In a monumental cover-up that only begins to approximate the colossal, decentralized conspiracy that brought you an Islamic Bosnia and a KKKLA Kosovo and revived Hitler's Independent State of Croatia, our "security" and "intelligence" agencies, along with all of Congress, have been keeping from you the obvious fact that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was an al-Qaeda plot involving several Iraqis. It was because of the Clinton-directed coverup of Oklahoma City that the Bush administration couldn't tell you the real Iraq-9/11 connection, and why during the pre-Iraq hearings all that Dick Cheney could manage was: "There's a connection. There's a connection."

    Oklahoma-based investigative reporter Jayna Davis was all over national media in 2002 about this, but then disappeared from the airwaves when no one was interested in pursuing her story to its logical conclusion: that our law enforcement agencies are just as capable of doing the opposite of protecting us.

    The night before the start of Tim McVeigh's trial in 1997, she tendered her resignation at her ABC-affiliate station KFOR-TV that had recently been bought by the NY Times, which had no intention of publicizing a Middle East connection to the bombing. Only Bill Clinton's Rush Limbaugh connection.

    Not only were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols front men for an extensive Middle Eastern operation that included mostly Iraqis but also Palestinians and others, but on pages 270-71 of her 2004 book The Third Terrorist, Davis reports what American troops found when they arrived in Afghanistan in October 2001:

    Validation arrived in October 2001 when President Bush deployed U.S. troops to eradicate the fanatical ruling Talibain in Afghanistan. Strewn across the basement floor of a Kabul mansion which once housed a hideout and makeshift headquarters for bin Laden loyalists was a do-it-yourself guidebook to construct an "Oklahoma-style" bomb. A Bosnian soldier in the Al-Qaeda army of terrorists had penned the step-by-step instructions and components needed to replicate the Murrah Building explosive device.

    What a shocking discovery that Timothy McVeigh's legendary bomb-making skills were referenced halfway around the world, being emulated as an effective technique in the terrorists' toolbox! Imagine the incredulity on the faces of bin Laden's devotees upon hearing they would implement a bomb formula which McVeigh perfected through exhaustive research from a book checked out at a Kingman, Arizona, public library. In the sage words of Stephen Jones that McVeigh "couldn't blow up a rock," the Afghanistan find transformed the Justice Department's "lone bomber" theory into a work of science fiction.

    On June 11, 2001 — the two-year anniversary of the official "end" of our latest war against Serbs as we fortified "their" enemies — Timothy McVeigh was executed. That night, America closed its eyes and soundly went to sleep. We woke up exactly three months later.

    The unanimous glee over McVeigh's execution had to do not only with the "whiteness" of the terrorist, but also with the fact that he would take his secrets with him — and even the mainstream news accounts at the time revealed that there was much he wasn't revealing. The public and our law enforcement were happy to not look any deeper, affording ourselves some denial and the illusion of safety. But the attack to take place three months later would lead investigators right back to Bosnia, where five of the 9/11 hijackers trained, fought, or had citizenship — and to Albania and Kosovo.

    Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. The cartoon is by Dry Bones, and is not part of the original article.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Roberta Dzubow, November 19, 2009.

    This was posted by Confidential Reporter in China Confidential http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2009/11/ israelis-baffled-by-news-of-defenseless.html


    Off duty IDF soldiers

    Many Israelis want to know: why didn't the soldiers attacked by a U.S. Army major-turned-terrorist return fire?

    When a Muslim goes, well, Muslim in Israel he is typically shot to death by someone — say, a reserve soldier — within seconds of screaming "Allah Akbar."

    In contrast with the Israeli experience, it took 10 minutes before a civilian police officer at Fort Hood was able to shoot and stop Muslim fanatic Nidal Malik Hasan.

    How could that happen? How could so many people trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare be so defenseless?

    The answer — and this may astonish many Americans — is that the victims were unarmed. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to carry guns for personal protection, even on a 340-acre base quartering more than 50,000 troops.

    So it goes in brain-dead, liberal America.

    Fort Hood is a "gun free" zone, thanks to regulations adopted in one of the very first acts signed into law by anti-gun President Bill Clinton in March, 1993. Go to
    http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf for the file.

    She is HOT!

    Female soldier off duty

    POSTSCRIPT: Israeli teachers, from kindergarten on up, are also armed; so, a Virginia Tech-type slaughter is highly unlikely at an Israeli university.

    Israelis, who have had to combat terrorism all their lives, are not afraid of guns. They are an armed people, ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their country.

    Unlike indoctrinated Americans, paralyzed by fear and political correctness, Israelis understand that people, not guns, kill people.

    American Jews, for the most part, are nothing like their Israeli co-religionists. American Jews — as this American Jewish journalist well knows — are disproportionately liberal and anti-gun. This is especially true of elitist, intellectual/professional Jews in Manhattan and the New York suburbs. They pride themselves in their masochistic, near-suicidal "tolerance" of Jew-haters and violent criminals.

    The lessons of the Holocaust are lost on these Jews. They relish victimhood...Proud, tough Jews and proud, patriotic Americans make liberal Jews — and liberals in general — nervous.

    Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 19, 2009.

    As those of you who read my postings regularly are probably aware, Anne Bayefsky, director of Eye on the UN, is a diligent and responsible critic of the UN, and a reliable source of information on its activities. I am in communication with her from time to time, and rely on her information. She is passionate, and dedicated.

    Bayefsky — who holds credentials as a UN observer by virtue of her position as director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at New York's Touro College (an NGO) — was present in the UN in New York on November 5, when the General Assembly voted to endorse the Goldstone Report.

    Outside the General Assembly chamber a microphone is set up for delegates to speak. After the Goldstone vote, the delegate from Libya and the Palestinian observer both utilized this mike in order to speak in support of the Report. Bayefsky then approached the empty podium where the mike stood. She did not anticipate problems, she said, as representatives of NGOs have used this mike in the past without incident.


    Bayefsky spoke for about five minutes, impromptu. She called the U.N. a "laughingstock" for focusing on Israel and ignoring Hamas human rights violations; she said the lack of balance in the report made it a travesty of justice.

    As she finished speaking, she was surrounded by UN guards, who brought her to their office, confiscated her credentials, and escorted her out of the building. Bayefsky reported to Fox news that, as she was brought out of the building, a security officer told her, "the Palestinian ambassador [Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Riyad Mansour] is very upset at the statement you made." According to Inner City Press, when Mansour, who had walked away, was told that a representative of a pro-Israel NGO had spoken, he asked, "Did we capture them?"

    Bayefsky currently awaits either the return of her credentials or a hearing in January or February before the Committee on NGOs. If she must go before the Committee — which is chaired by Sudan — she figures her chances are nil. Right now she is being prevented from attending significant meetings. "The frenzy of anti-Israel activity is going on right now," she said. "There's a reason they're keeping me away — this is no accident."

    The UN is presenting a very different story, it should be noted. There were claims that her pass had not been revoked, and that there was action against her because she approached the mike without permission and this cannot be permitted.


    This happened on November 5. I cannot explain why Eye on the UN, where I secured the bulk of this information, only released it today. (Perhaps there had been hope of securing a quiet resolution to the matter.)

    I also garnered information at
    (put out today) and
    www.innercitypress.com:80/unga3goldstone110509.html (released on Nov. 5).


    Sometimes matters are not as they seem, and sometimes they surprise us.

    Today, for example, I was just a tad surprised when the news reported that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who is here now, told the Post that our plans to build in Gilo, as regrettable as they might be, did not have to be an obstacle to returning to negotiations.

    Kouchner, who has not been a friend, seems to have chosen to refrain from leveling harsh criticism at us and instead to implicitly chastise the Palestinians for refusing to come back to the table.

    Apparently he was unmoved by Ahmed Qurei's designation of the Gilo building plans as the "final nail in the peace process's coffin." And it seems he was unruffled even though Saeb Erekat called our plans a "provocation against the international community."

    Kouchner said he knew this wasn't a political decision. And he's right. This didn't reach Netanyahu's desk — it was routinely processed.

    Just possibly this time the Palestinians have overplayed their hand, trying the patience even of their supporters.


    We are still stymied here as to why Gilo, in particular, has made such big news. An American friend tells me that it has made considerable press in the US. Strange, with all that is going on.

    Please know that it's not only the residents of Gilo who are reacting — Israelis in general are irked. As analyst Herb Keinon has pointed out, the way Obama has handled this situation indicates a "continued misreading and misunderstanding of the Israeli public."

    After all, writes Keinon, this is not about "a far-flung settlement overlooking Nablus, nor even in one of the settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, nor even a Jewish complex in one of the Arab neighborhoods of the capital, but in Gilo, one of the large new neighborhoods built in the city following the Six Day War.

    "...many Israelis [are] clearly dismayed that the US — like Europe — now seems to be considering as settlements the post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem."

    Obama had called for a complete settlement freeze that included east Jerusalem, which Netanyahu rejected. "By continuing to press the issue, Obama — who recently showed nascent signs of wanting to engage the Israeli public out of an understanding that if you want to get Israel to make concessions, Israel will need to trust the US president — risks further alienating the Israeli public. According to a Jerusalem Post poll conducted in August, only four percent of Israelis consider him to be pro-Israel."

    Says Keinon, one of the assumptions that Obama made when taking office was that the Israeli public was anti-settlement.

    "But [the assumption was] mistaken. The Israeli public does not hate the settlements...the large settlement blocs, such as Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion...are well within the Israeli consensus. And the public certainly doesn't view the neighborhoods of Jerusalem...as 'settlements.'

    "Pressing a construction freeze in those areas was widely viewed by the public as an unreasonable demand, especially when it was not accompanied by any demands on the Arabs or Palestinians.

    "Rather than rallying around Obama, Israelis have — according to polls that shows Netanyahu's popularity rising — rallied around Netanyahu. And no issue will make them rally even further around the prime minister than Jerusalem."
    www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566462450& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


    In spite of the focus on Gilo, there actually are a number of matters to report with regard to housing in Jerusalem:

    [] A new Jewish housing community — a private venture on privately owned Jewish land — is being constructed in Nof Zion, situated adjacent to the Jabel Mukaber neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem, on the Armon Hanatziv ridge. The first stage of building, close to 100 units, is already complete and residents began to move in some months ago.

    Yesterday, the cornerstone was laid for the second stage of building. Construction is slated to begin in six months, and will ultimately add 125 apartments to the community.

    Some 100 people gathered for the cornerstone ceremony. MK Danny Danon (Likud) was there. "I have a message for President Obama," he told the crowd. "Take your hands of Jerusalem. Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and we have every right to live and raise our children here."

    Participating as well was a group of Americans — lead by NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind — completing a tour of Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem, with an eye towards coming to live here.

    [] Also yesterday, in spite of local resistance — including rock-throwing — five illegal housing structures were demolished in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Issawiya and Silwan. This is in addition to two demolished just days before and another 14 slated for demolition. The Municipality of Jerusalem reports that these buildings were all constructed without necessary permits, and at least one was on land designated for a road. The Arab residents claim they cannot get permits.

    [] The Jerusalem Municipality has announced plans for the construction of more than 5,000 new housing units for Arab residents of the city:

    Construction of 2,000 housing units in Tel Adasah, in north Jerusalem, and 2,500 units in a-Swahra, near Jabel Mukaber, were to begin following final approval by relevant municipal committees, while construction of 500 new housing units in Dir-al-Amud, near Beit Safafa, were in the advanced stages of planning.


    An observation here: Obama has said that "Settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security."

    In point of fact there are issues of security — maintaining strategic depth around Jerusalem and holding on to the high places in Samaria, from which rockets could be shot at our airport, etc.

    But what this teaches us is actually a broader and very important lesson: We should not, we must not, make our case based on security alone. We have rights to build and live in Judea and Samaria born of our heritage in the land and international law going back to the Mandate.

    It is time we spoke in these terms.


    "The Good News Corner"

    I have been wanting to write about the economic miracle of Israel, and the amazing entrepreneurship demonstrated by Israelis. Here, instead, I provide you with a video clip of an interview of the co-author of a book called Start-Up Nation. We demonstrate some unique characteristics that do us proud.

    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 19, 2009.


    Nuclear proliferation triggered by Iran? The website of this verbatim material has an accompanying article that quotes Arab leaders' grave concern about Iran's clandestine and illicit nuclear arms program. Hence my headline.


    • February 2009: Algerian Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil announces Algeria will establish a nuclear power plant by 2020.[9] In addition, Algeria plans on building a new reactor "every five years."[10]

    • November 2008: Argentina signs a deal with Algeria to cooperate on nuclear energy development.[11]

    • June 2008: France signs a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Algeria, its former colony.[12]

    • June 2007: Algeria signs a nuclear cooperation pact with the United States that permits cooperation between Algeria and U.S. laboratories and researchers.[13]

    • January 2007: Algeria and Russia strike a deal on future cooperation in nuclear energy technology.[14]


    • December 2008: Bahrain and France hold talks over nuclear development.[15]

    • March 2008: U.S. and Bahrain sign a nuclear power cooperation agreement.[16]

    • February 2008: Bahrain and other Arab countries jointly evaluate their nuclear energy development plans.[17]

    • November 2007: Bahraini's crown prince tells The Times, "While they [Iran] don't have the bomb yet, they are developing it, or the capability for it."[18]

    • October 2007: King Hamad declares a plan to introduce nuclear energy technology to Bahrain.[19]


    • July 2009: Russia and Bangladesh sign a nuclear cooperation pact.[20]

    • September 2007: Bangladesh's head of the Atomic Energy Commission declares a new nuclear plant will be built by 2015[21] in Rooppur, 77 miles (125 km) northwest of Dhaka.[22]

    • June 2007: IAEA gives approval to Bangladesh to build a nuclear reactor.[23]


    • July 2009: Egypt's ambassador to Kuwait declares that all nations have a right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program.[24]

    • May 2009: An IAEA report reveals inspectors found traces of weapons-grade uranium in Egypt, specifically at Inshas, where two nuclear research reactors are located northeast of Cairo.[25]

    • December 2008: Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit says, "Egypt supports international efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."[26]

    • October 2007: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak declares Cairo will build 10 nuclear power plants.[27]

    • September 2006: Egypt revives its dormant nuclear program and announces it will construct a new nuclear power station within a decade. Cairo admits that its previous nuclear IAEA reports lacked transparency.[28]

    • February 2005: The IAEA reports it is investigating Egypt's nuclear program, which began four decades earlier.[29]


    • August 2007: Indonesia's vice president states that uranium needed for its nuclear plants will likely be purchased from Australia.[30]

    • April 2005: The Indonesian government announces its first nuclear reactor will be built on the island of Java by 2016.[31]


    • July 2009: Jordan and Russia sign a 10-year deal to build four new nuclear reactors.[32] Britain, France, Canada and the United States previously signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Jordan.[33] Japan also agrees to help develop the infrastructure necessary for Jordan's nuclear program.[34]

    • August 2008: Jordan and China sign an agreement for uranium exploration and mining cooperation.[35] An estimated 200,000 tons of uranium can be extracted from Jordan.[36]

    • November 2007: In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel, Jordan's King Abdullah says "Iran, I believe, does have aspirations to develop nuclear weapons."[37]

    • August 2007: At a meeting of the Supreme Committee for Nuclear Energy Strategy in Amman, Jordan announces it will start operating its first nuclear power reactor by 2015.[38]

    • January 2007: Jordan's King Abdullah says his government seeks to attain nuclear power.[39]


    • June 2009: French and Kuwaiti officials hold talks, proposing increased cooperation for developing a joint civilian nuclear program.[40]

    • February 2009: A French company begins studying Kuwaiti plans for nuclear power plants.[41]

    • January 2009: Kuwait orders 5.4 million anti-nuclear radiation pills for its citizen-safety program.[42]

    • February 2008: Kuwait Petroleum Corporation's CEO says nuclear energy could supply the country's energy needs.[43]


    • July 2009: At a Sharm el-Sheikh summit of 118 developing nations, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi says, "If Iran wants to enrich uranium to make an atomic bomb, we are against this."[44]

    • November 2008: Libya and Russia sign a nuclear cooperation agreement.[45]

    • August 2007: Nuclear experts reveal that Libya continues to store hundreds of tons of uranium marked for destruction since 2003.[46]

    • July 2007: France and Libya sign nuclear power cooperation deals in which France agrees to facilitate the construction of a nuclear reactor for Libya.[47]

    • December 2003: IAEA Secretary General Mohamed El Baradei reveals that Libya was just a few years shy of developing a nuclear weapon when the United States and Britain dismantled Libya's nuclear program in December 2003.[48]


    • July 2009: Malaysia's deputy science, technology and innovation minister says his country will consult with the IAEA and the United Nations on its nuclear development.[49]

    • September 2008: Malaysia's energy, water and communications minister announces Malaysia's intention to use nuclear power by 2023.[50]

    • June 2008: Malaysian utility company, Tenaga, tenders the construction of the country's first nuclear reactor for $3.1 billion.[51]


    • October 2007: France signs a deal with Morocco to help develop its civilian nuclear project.[52] Morocco says it is seeking to build a nuclear plant within 15 years.[53]

    • March 2007: Russia's Atomstroy export company commences construction of a nuclear power plant in Morocco after the two countries sign an agreement.[54] Morocco holds an international conference on nuclear energy technology.[55]

    • November 2006: The IAEA reveals Morocco is seeking nuclear technology.[56]

    • December 2005: Morocco approves the construction of a nuclear power plant.[57]


    • June 2009: Russia signs an agreement with Nigeria, consenting to build a nuclear power plant and research reactor.[58]

    • August 2008: Nigeria signs a nuclear pact with Iran, agreeing to share with Iran nuclear technology for civilian purposes.[59]

    • March 2004: Pakistan offers Nigeria its nuclear know-how.[60]


    • June 2009: Russia and Oman sign an agreement for nuclear cooperation.[61]

    • October 2004: Oman echoes Iran's declaration that all countries have a right to develop nuclear power.[62]


    • September 2009: Pakistan's former chief nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan admits helping Iran develop its nuclear program with Islamabad's permission.[63]

    • May 2009: Pakistan is estimated to have 60 — 80 nuclear weapons.[64]

    • May 2009: Satellite imagery reveals Pakistan continues construction of the world's largest plutonium-producing reactors.[65] In addition, France signs an agreement with Pakistan to cooperate on civilian nuclear power projects.[66]

    • November 2004: A CIA report states that Khan provided "significant assistance" to Iran's nuclear program, including designs for "advanced and efficient" weapons components.[67]

    • July 2002: The UK's Joint Intelligence Committee concludes that Khan's network is crucial to all aspects of Libya's nuclear program.[68]

    • May 1998: Pakistan detonates nuclear devices underground.[69]


    • November 2008: Qatar launches a study to determine the best locations for its nuclear reactor.[70]

    • January 2008: Qatar signs a nuclear assistance and cooperation deal with France for an estimated $700 million.[71]

    • June 2007: IAEA agrees to assist Qatar develop a nuclear security plan.[72]

    • February 2006: Qatar and South Korea begin talks on nuclear energy cooperation.[73]

    Saudi Arabia

    • August 2009: Saudi minister of water and electricity announces a plan to build the first nuclear power plant.[74]

    • March 2009: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal says the Arab world needs "a common vision for issues that concern Arab security and deal with the Iranian challenge," including its "nuclear drive."[75]

    • January 2008: France and Saudi Arabia sign a nuclear cooperation pact.[76]

    • March 2006: Western security sources say Saudi Arabia is developing a clandestine nuclear program with Pakistan's help.[77]

    • September 2003: A strategic Saudi government document recommends that, for the kingdom's security, it either needs to acquire nuclear capabilities for deterrence, align with nuclear powers or campaign for a nuclear-free Middle East agreement.[78]


    • April 2006: Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says he is willing to transfer nuclear technology to Sudan, a country designated by the U.S. as a state-sponsor of terrorism.[79]

    • March 2006: Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir announces plans to develop a civilian nuclear program.[80]

    • January 2006: International investigators implicate Sudan as a possible transit and storage location for nuclear weapons' equipment.[81]


    • February 2009: U.S. and Israel believe Syria is secretly helping Iran develop nuclear technology.[82]

    • October 2008: IAEA officials state that the agency found traces of processed uranium at the nuclear reactor Israel bombed in September 2007.[83]

    • June 2008: Israeli intelligence reveals Syria's plan to transfer nuclear fuel to Iran for development of weapons-grade plutonium.[84] UN Security Council Resolution 1737, passed on Dec. 23, 2006, banned the transfer of nuclear materials and technology to Iran by any country.[85]

    • April 2008: United States intelligence accuses Syria of using North Korean assistance to build a covert nuclear reactor.[86]

    • September 2007: Israel reportedly conducts airstrikes against a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction in the Syrian desert. The reactor was modeled on a similar one in North Korea.[87]


    • April 2009: France signs a $100 million deal with Tunisia to help develop its nuclear program.[88]

    • November 2006: A Tunisian electricity and gas company chief announces that Tunisia will have its first nuclear power reactor by 2020.[89]


    • August 2009: Russia agrees to assist Turkey in developing a nuclear reactor.[90]

    • June 2008: Syria and Turkey sign a mutual nuclear cooperation understanding.[91]

    • March 2006: Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler declares the first nuclear reactor will be built by 2012.[92]

    United Arab Emirates

    • June 2009: United Arab Emirates signs a nuclear agreement with South Korea, stipulating the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how.[93]

    • May 2009: UAE announces its first nuclear reactor will be built by 2015.[94] In addition, President Obama signs an agreement to assist the UAE in attaining nuclear power.[95]

    • July 2008: UAE begins surveying new sites for construction of three nuclear power plants.[96]

    • January 2008: France signs a nuclear assistance pact with the UAE.[97]

    • March 2008: UAE launches the Nuclear Energy Implementation Organization for the purpose of tendering proposals for its nuclear energy program.[98]

    • December 2005: In response to a letter by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa raising concerns over Israel's alleged nuclear weapons, UAE's foreign minister says that if Moussa is "talking about threats to Arab national security, [he] should have raised concerns about the Iranian program."[99]


    • October 2007: Yemen cancels a $1 billion deal with a U.S. company following revelations that the company is not qualified to construct the proposed nuclear reactors.[100]

    • September 2007: Yemen signs a $15 billion deal with the U.S. company Powered Corp to build five nuclear reactors over a period of 10 years.[101]

    This article on the site comes with extensive documentation, as you can see from the numbers in ellipses.
    (www.theisraelproject.org, 11/17from suanema@gmail.com)


    The government of Israel is in process of approving 900 new houses in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem, on land acquired in 1967.

    The U.S. calls this "expanding a settlement." The White House press secretary "was 'dismayed" and asking both parties to avoid unilateral actions that could 'pre-empt or appear to pre-empt negotiations.'"

    "Disagreements over settlement building are in large part the reason that the negotiations, which have been stalled for months, have not resumed."

    Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is seeking support for statehood without negotiation. The State Department disapproves of that route.

    Abbas said he has "no option but to try a different course." (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 11/18, A6.)

    The comparable Wall St. Journal article mentions that Israel annexed the area.

    U.S. officials said "The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes."

    Former P.A. negotiator Ghaith Al-Omari said, "Both sides understand it's in their interest to return to negotiations." Some Mideast experts fear that both sides will harden their positions "even more." (Jay Solomon, 11/18, A10.)

    Hardened? The P.A. has raised its demands, whereas Israel has lowered its demand for no pre-conditions by acquiescing 90% on housing, by not approving any new housing in the Territories. I call that softening. It is just anti-Israel propaganda to try to rip away that last shred of Israeli dignity, and for what? To protect the new P.A. demand to pre-condition negotiations? It is a double standard not to blame just the P.A., for raising new demands as the obstacle to negotiation. Of course, the negotiations won't cover the cause of the conflict, which is not territorial but existential for Israel because Islam insists on dominating people of other faiths.

    Another double standard is the U.S. saying it asks both sides not to pre-empt negotiations, referring to Jews building houses but not Arabs. Another double standard is U.S. objection to Israel applying the rule of law on eviction and demolition. The eviction is because Arabs won't relinquish property owned by Jews. This puts the U.S. in a Jim Crow position of contending that Jews may not own property in that part of town. The demolitions are of houses built illegally. The U.S. objection to that is objectionable.

    What is the significance of Israel's annexation of eastern Jerusalem, which included the Old City and mostly vacant tracts for normal municipal growth? Was the annexation legal? Yes, because: (1) Israel is paramount heir to the Palestine Mandate, incorporated into the UN Charter, and which requires "close settlement of the land by the Jews," and the area was part of the legally unallocated territories of the Mandate; and (2) Victims of aggression may annex areas needed for national security. Protecting the capital from the nearby P.A. would protect Israel from a third invasion from Palestinian Arabs, the other two being from Jordan, the Palestinian Arab state.

    Therefore, to call a neighborhood in Israel's biggest city a "settlement" is absurd. But since the term is pejorative, it is used and exclusively against Israel, despite extensive construction by Arabs, often illegally.

    One problem is that first the Arabs coin a loaded term, then the Left adopts it, and finally it becomes politically correct. Then when people use it, they assume facts that do not exist.

    Another double standard is in equating the two sides, as in asserting that both sides should want to return to negotiations. Israel repeatedly has offered to negotiate. The Arabs refuse.


    Ian Kelly explained the State Dept. view on Jerusalem. He said, "We believe that the — that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties." What Israel does, in building, demolishing, evicting from houses in eastern Jerusalem is "unilateral action." It is "dismaying."

    [I find it dismaying that people think that Arab squatting on other people's property is proper, and that evicting them so the property-owners can move in, is improper. I find it strange to object to demolition of houses built contrary to law, as those Arabs' houses were. Is there supposed to be no law enforcement until a final status agreement?]

    A reporter demanded that the State Dept. strongly condemn Israel, not just call their decision "dismaying." One called for U.S. action, because, he said, Israel "blatantly" "ignored" the "wishes" of the U.S. envoy.

    [Is the envoy's wish Israel's command? How arrogant! But you will see that the reporters who commented side with the Arabs.]

    A reporter commented, "...soon it's not even going to be possible — there's not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state."

    [Doesn't that reporter know that the Jewish communities in the Territories take up only about 5% of the land? They are not "expanding," they are building only within existing municipal boundaries. PM Netanyahu has not approved any new building in the Territories. The reporter should acknowledge that. I think that simply gives Arab builders an advantage and it honors Abbas' unreasonable demand for concessions in advance of negotiation..]

    On the U.S. first asking for a complete freeze, then accepting Netanyahu's 90% freeze, a reporter asked, wasn't "the President turning his back on the promises he's made to the Palestinians?" Mr. Kelly said the President had not put it that way. [Again, arrogance in supposing that the elected President of the U.S. has the right to promise to a third party what Israel, who did not elect Obama, would do.]

    A reported challenged the spokesman to cite any Arab unilateral actions. Mr. Kelly cited the move for statehood now. A reporter thought that is not as grievous as Jewish building (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/17).

    Fact is, Jewish building is permitted by Oslo, to which the PLO/P.A. agreed. If it were illegal, why didn't the P.A. say so then? Does anyone ever hold the P.A. to its agreements? Fact is, Jewish building does not change the legal status of territory being negotiated. If it did, then what about the more extensive Arab building? Fact is, moving for statehood is exactly the kind of change in status that Oslo bars. Again, the reporter's bias hindered his judgment.


    PM Netanyahu favors a proposal for Israelis voluntarily to submit biometric data for use in establish tamperproof I.D.. This would reduce identity theft.

    There is some controversy over whether to have other uses for the data (www.imra.org.il, 11/17).

    How about I.D. to track terrorists?


    Arabs moving into Jewish areas (A.P. photo/Sebastian Scheiner)

    Jerusalem is planning a city-wide, light rail system, using foreign contractors whom the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is trying to compel to withdraw from the project. The stated objection by the P.A. is that since the trolleys would run in eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem, their presence there would violate international law. The Eastern Orthodox Archbishop agrees.

    Foreign Arab states successfully have exerted pressure on some of the contractors' suppliers. Huge contracts with Arab states are imperiled (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/18).

    Having visited Jerusalem many times, and having studied city planning, I can see the need for mass transit there and in its commuting area. Even if the Geneva Conventions applied, which Israel states that they do not, the notion of holding a city hostage to them is absurd. Must the city stultify? If Israel were an occupying power there, it would be even more bound to govern and provide services to the whole city. To deny Israeli sovereignty there, the P.A. would spite its own people, for many Arabs would be served by the trolleys.

    Once again, political posturing and unwarranted indignation harm innocent people, including the very people in whose name the indignation is exercised.

    A year ago, my sources within Eastern Orthodoxy explained that the Archbishop of Jerusalem is appeasement-minded. Considering how much the Palestinian Arabs already persecute Christians, the Archbishop prudence would advise him to resist the jihad against the Jews.


    FBI got their man (A.P. photo/ Bergen Record, David Bergeland)

    The FBI believes that al-Qaida has a little capability in cyber warfare, but is planning to upgrade that. If al-Qaida could tap into U.S. files, it probably would do so with destructive intent, even to bring down vital services.

    Officials of Homeland Security and the Justice Dept. say that the U.S. has neither the preparation nor laws for a suitable defense. When sub-systems are integrated into larger systems, the sub-systems are not sufficiently vetted for security weakness (Siobhan Gorman, Wall St. J., 11/18, A4).

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 19, 2009.

    The question beginning to emerge: Is President Barack Hussein Obama the Biblical evil who was forecast as Gog who brings Armageddon to the world — or the later Christian prediction that an anti-Christ figure would appear as a false messiah to start the war of Gog and Magog — known as Armageddon.

    Strangely, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran predicts that the re-appearance of the Mahdi (Muslim messiah) who allegedly disappeared when he fell down a well is to re-emerge during a Holocaust.

    As you know, Ahmadinejad has stated he will build Nuclear Bombs to destroy Israel and attack all "infidels" (non-believers).

    It appears that there is a convergence of thought that Obama and his selected Mafia may be the evil predicted by all to arrive as a false messiah. The people, advisors, Czars and Czarinas he has gathered around him share his intentions to diminish America but advance One-World dominance or, as President George Herbert Walker Bush said, "Await the "New World Order'".

    This was written by William McGurn and it appeared November 16, 2009 in Wall St. Journal as an Opinion piece. Write to MainStreet@wsj.com


    When it comes to terrorists, you would think that an al Qaeda operative who targets an American mom sitting in her office or a child on a flight back home is many degrees worse than a Taliban soldier picked up after a firefight with U.S. Army troops.

    Your instinct would be correct, because at the heart of terrorism is the monstrous idea that the former is as legitimate a target as the latter. Unfortunately, by dispatching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders to federal criminal court for trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be undermining this distinction. And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.

    "A fundamental purpose of rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to give those at war an incentive for more civilized behavior — and not targeting civilians is arguably the most sacred of these principles," says William Burck, a former federal prosecutor and Bush White House lawyer who dealt with national security issues. "It demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone."

    We don't often speak of incentives in war. That's a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on.

    Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines — or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply.

    None of this seems to bother Mr. Holder. Since he dropped his bombshell on Friday, much commentary has focused on the possibility that KSM might be found not guilty. That, however, is unlikely: Mr. Holder is not a fool, and everyone in the Obama administration appreciates the backlash that would occur if a KSM trial results in an acquittal. Thus, the men he will send for trial will be those against whom he has the most evidence.

    The perversity here is that the overwhelming evidence of their war crimes gain them protections denied a soldier fighting in accord with the rules of war.

    It even gains them more protections than their associates who attack military targets. This double standard means that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing are sent to military tribunals while the perpetrators of 9/11 are sent to federal court.

    Andrew McCarthy has a unique perspective on the move to criminal trials. As an assistant U.S. attorney in 1993, he successfully prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheikh") for the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Even though the cases were somewhat different — that plot was conceived, plotted and carried out on U.S. soil — Mr. McCarthy says the experience persuaded him that federal trials are a bad way of handling terror.

    "At first, I was of the mind that a criminal prosecution would uphold all our high-falutin' rhetoric about the constitution and majesty of the law," says Mr. McCarthy. "But when you get down to the nitty gritty of a trial, you see one huge problem: The criminal justice system imposes limits on the government and gives the defendant all sorts of access to information, because we'd rather have the government lose than unfairly convict a man. You can't take that position with an enemy who is at war with you and trying to bring that government down."

    By going down this line, says Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Holder has invited any number of dangers: making the Manhattan courtroom a target for terrorist attack, inviting the disclosure of sensitive intelligence, opening the possibility that some al Qaeda operative will be acquitted and released within the U.S., etc.

    Worst of all, he says, is turning the laws of war upside down: Why fight the Marines and risk getting killed yourself or locked up in Bagram forever when you can blow up American citizens on their own streets and gain the legal protections that give you a chance to go free? With this one step, Mr. Holder is giving al Qaeda a ghastly incentive: to focus more of their attacks on American civilians on American home soil.

    "It is foolish to think that al Qaeda does not train to our system and look for our vulnerabilities," says Mr. McCarthy. "Remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told his captors when we got him, 'I'll see you in New York with my lawyer.' It seems he knows our weaknesses better than our government does."

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by David Wilder, November 18, 2009.

    Chabad Sichat HaShavuah for Parshat Chaye Sarah 5770

    I'm leaving tonite, together with Noam Arnon and Simcha Hochbaum for the annual Hebron Fund Dinner, to be held at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows, NY. We are looking forward to seeing many friends at the event. We're expecting many people to attend, and I'm told there are still some tickets left. So if you haven't purchased yours yet, call today — 718-677-6886 or register online at: https://secure40.securewebsession.com/hebron.site.aplus.net/ english/form.php?id=4

    You may have seen in the media that the NY left is trying to prevent the dinner from taking place at Citi Field and will probably show up to demonstrate on Saturday night. It is imperative that we have BIG numbers at the dinner, showing them that New York stands behind Hebron. (I even have a friend coming in from Texas, especially for this event!)

    A couple of nights ago I had the privilege to attend an amazing wedding, of two amazing people, with an even more amazing story. Below are some of the photos at the ceremony, together with short version of Dr. Aharon Abraham's life story, translated from a Chabad Shabbat magazine. There's also a link to a half hour video of the wedding, at Ma'arat HaMachpela. Enjoy!

    Also take a look at the photos of Kiryat Arba-Hebron's participation in International Clean Up week. (And see you Saturday night.)

    The article below is entitled "The Doctor Who Shattered the Statues". It was translated from an article appearing in Hebrew in Sichat HaShavuah for Parshat Chaye Sarah
    http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp? ArticleID=6356&CategoryID=1341
    Video: http://www.hebron.com/english/show.php?id=147


    A year ago, Dr. Aharon Abraham was Director at the ICU Medical Center in prestigious British Kennedy in Mumbai, India. The horrible terror attack at the Chabad house caused him to leave India and go to Israel."This house was the center of my life," he says with pain. "There we spent Shabbat and holidays. The terrorists took part of me, they took my soul. Following the incident, finally I decided to leave India and go to Israel. I have no more business there."

    He currently resides in Kiryat Arba examining job opportunities suitable to his expertise and experience. Concurrently he completes the conversion process which he and his wife and children began in India, thereby closing a chapter of his life story, very not routinely.

    Confrontation with the father

    His previous name was Vagirds Frads. The story is very reminiscent of the story Abraham. His father was a senior Hindu cleric. "He had all kinds of statues, he attributed to them special powers," he says. "I did not understand how Dad honored a man-made statue. I didn't understand why Mother bother preparing food for statues, and sometimes I eat it in secret".

    When grown up and graduated from high school, he began to confront openly his father. "I told Dad: How can you believe this nonsense?! Father heard and said nothing, had no answers. One day I took a hammer and simply smashed the statues. He shouted at me: the gods are angry! I answered him: If they're angry, let them do something, reconstruct themselves "...

    Identification with Abraham

    The young man left his village and enrolled to study medicine at the University of Mumbai, where he made contact with Christian students. They saw he was looking for faith, and gave him a Bible. "A new world opened before me," he recalls excitedly. "I eagerly read the Psalms and became acquainted with the figures of Moses and Abraham's story and with Am Israel."

    He successfully graduated and became a doctor specializing in one of the medical centers in Mumbai where he met his wife, who worked as a nurse. She followed his interest in the Bible. After they married they decided to change their family name to 'Abraham', following the admiration they felt for Abraham. He also decided to change his first name to Aaron. "Aaron the priest was a wonderful person, full of glory," he explains with a smile.

    That terrible night

    They gradually made the decision to convert and become full-fledged Jews. The were tempted to undergo a Reform conversion, thinking they were already Jews. Then they met Chabad emissaries Rabbi Gabi and Rebecca Holtzberg HY"D in Mumbai. They approached him about their sick child (who later died later from disease). Following this bond, Dr. Abraham realized that a Reform conversion was worthless. He began studying Judaism with the Rabbi, while his wife studied with the Rabbi's wife.

    'Our whole life centered around the Chabad House, "he said in a trembling voice." It's the only place where we could get kosher food. Gabi and Rivki were our guides, we did not move without them. They gave us Judaism and we gave them medical care for their sick child. We began a process of true conversion and found the extraordinary beauty of the Torah commandments. Then came that terrible night, and took away my Master ..." He sobs a few moments and says: "But what we learned from Gabi and Rivki will accompany us and our children forever."

    TONIGHT, HAVING COMPLETED THEIR CONVERSION, Aharon and Ruth Malka Abraham married at Ma'arat HaMachpela in Hebron, on the first anniversary of the murder of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg HY"D. Their children have new names too: Sarah, Shmuel Gavriel and Sharona Rivka.

    Aharon and Ruth Abraham

    David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 19, 2009.

    "Perhaps my father will feel me, and I will be in his eyes as a mocker and I will bring upon myself a curse and not a blessing. And his mother said to him, 'May your curse be upon me, my son'."
    (From this week's Torah portion, Toldot, Genesis 27:12-13)

    A youth who had "illegally" entered Gush Katif in its last days asked me:

    "I don't know what to do. I must leave Gush Katif for a few days and then I will not be able to return."

    "Why not?" I asked him.

    "Because if I come back I will have to use a false identity at the checkpoint, and that would force me to lie," he answered. "I do not want to sin."

    "I have a great solution," I said to him. "I will write you a note in which I accept upon myself the Divine punishment that you will receive for lying to get back into Gush Katif. After you have lived out your 120 years on this earth, request to be buried with the note and I will merit your Divine retribution. Do we have a deal?"

    It didn't take the boy long to see the absurdity of his question, and I lost out on the deal of a lifetime.

    It is easy to confuse young people. They are inexperienced and naive. Jacob lacks the life experience of his mother, Rivkah. He is not yet worldly, spending all his time learning Torah. He has not yet acquired the perspective needed to place contradicting values in their proper order. Suddenly, his mother makes an outrageous request of him — to lie to his father, Isaac, and to re-arrange events so that he will give him the blessing reserved for his brother, Esau.

    Isaac loved his sons. He was blind to the fact that Esau was deceiving him. He was liable to entrust the faith in G-d revolution that his father had pioneered in the hands of his wicked son, Esau.

    Rivkah understood that this would be a tragic mistake. Jacob also understood. So now what? It is forbidden to lie!

    The answer to this dilemma is not simple. Generally, the preferred course of action is not to break the law — even for a worthy purpose. "Justice, justice must you pursue," says the Torah. Justice must also be pursued with justice.

    That is generally the case, but not always. When should one break the rules?

    "Who should one listen to? The teacher or the student?" the Rambam rhetorically asks in the Laws of Kings. In other words, if a person is instructed to carry out an action that is against the commandments of the King of the world and His Torah — he is forbidden to do so.

    In reality, this simple directive becomes more complex. In any given set of circumstances, there will always be the rabbis who will explain that it is a terrible sin to deceive Isaac, that Jacob is a terrible soldier, the whole country will fall apart because of him and that we will be left with no army.

    We have already witnessed the result of this approach; the destruction of Gush Katif, Israel's defeat in the two wars that came on its heels and the world's negation of Israel's right to exist. Those military, political and spiritual leaders who confused the naive Jacob, leading him to believe that it is a terrible sin to oppose the law — have brought the State of Israel to the edge of the precipice. Today, when they once again condemn the conscientious soldiers who refuse to evict Jews from their homes, they prove that they have learned nothing from their mistakes.

    "Who is it who hunted food and brought it to me, and I ate from it all before you came, and I blessed him, and he shall surely be blessed," says Isaac to Esau. The famous Biblical commentator Rashi explains that it is not true that if Jacob had not deceived his father, he would not have received his blessings. In this verse, Isaac endorsed the blessing that he gave to Jacob. Ex post facto, he agrees with Rivkah and Jacob.

    Rivkah and Jacob identified and prevented the mistake before it happened, warding off catastrophe in the process. Likewise, now is the time to deal with the crimes into which the government is dragging the IDF — not after the next catastrophe, G-d forbid!

    The role cast upon the youthful Jacob is not an easy one. His commanders and some of his rabbis are pressuring him, trying to confuse him into gagging his own conscience. They would prefer that he would stop listening to the voice of G-d that clearly instructs him to stop.

    May your curse be on me, my son. May your curse be on me.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Moshe Feiglin

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 18, 2009.

    No standing firm on the ground for these guys. With what I suppose they imagine to be nimble steps, they move this way and that. Except that their steps, seen from here, are shamefully clumsy.

    Today Saeb Erekat, PA negotiator, declared that Israel was twisting Palestinian words, as they never said they were going to declare a state unilaterally.

    No? You could have fooled me.

    All they want, he explained, is to preserve the two-state solution, as one state is not an option. And, since negotiations are stalemated (through no fault of theirs, of course), they want the Security Council to endorse the two-state solution, with the border of the new Palestinian state set at the Green (pre-'67) Line.

    This strikes me as patently ridiculous. Every mention within the international community of the two-state solution or anything akin to it — Oslo, which was formally signed, the informally agreed-to Road Map, etc., specifies that the details must be determined via negotiations.

    Even SC Resolution 242, which doesn't even mention Palestinians, never mind address a "two-state solution," says Israel's borders must be determined via negotiations.

    And let's look back even further than this: When Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan in 1949, it stated explicitly that the armistice line that was being established (which is the Green Line) would not prejudice negotiations in the future to determine the final border for Israel. The Green Line wasn't it.


    At least one Israeli government source is cited as saying that the statement by Erekat is an effort to backtrack after it became apparent that the EU and the US were not supportive of a unilaterally declared state. Slip-sliding...

    But I'm seeing something else, as well: "One state is not an option..."

    Yet not long ago leaders in the PA were saying that if the negotiations weren't going to progress, it was time to think about one state. Of course, in voicing this threat, they were envisioning a "bi-national state" that would render it impossible for Israel to be a Jewish state — that would, ultimately, be Arab/Muslim in nature.

    But then matters shifted. WE said, well, if negotiations aren't going to progress, and there are going to be unilateral declarations from the PA, we might unilaterally move to assume full sovereignty over significant parts of Judea and Samaria. That would make the bulk of Judea and Samaria, which the Palestinians covet, very Jewish indeed, and block the very possibility of forming a viable Palestinian state.

    So they, slip-sliding, said, uh oh, let's reverse tactics.

    What we learn from this is the value of making offensive moves and not appeasing.


    There might have been some advantage to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, however.

    MK Uri Ariel, of the right wing Ihud Leumi (National Union), is one of those who sees it this way:

    "I pray for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to declare a state unilaterally. That is the only way we can finally annul the wretched Oslo accord, which exacted a price in blood and brought the PLO terrorists into the state of Israel.

    "A statement of this nature means that the government will have no choice but to annex all of the communities in Judea and Samaria. In practice, it will have to annex the entire region and formally turn it into a part of the state of Israel."

    Everything is so much in flux, it's difficult to predict what will come next. But it remains extremely unlikely that we'll extend sovereignty over even parts of Judea and Samaria except in response to some PA stance that essentially voids Oslo. More's the pity.

    At very least there has been a paradigm shift of sorts — as Israel is making it increasingly clear that return to the Green Line is not an option.


    And, as the PA leaders continue to slip-slide, we must not forget the option of "armed resistance," which they maintain is their right. This past August, Fatah (the major constituent party of the PA) held a congress, its first in 20 years. This provided the party with an opportunity to genuinely moderate, by adjusting its constitution to eliminate the call for violence. That, however, is not what happened. They continue to embrace this option.


    And it happens that I see the following news item as having a connection to their embrace of this option:

    The PA is calling an international conference, which will be attended by representatives of such countries as Spain, Canada, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, and Sweden who are involved in international legal systems.

    A major goal they intend to advance in the course of the conference: Securing a change in the status of their terrorists in Israeli prisons to "prisoners of war."

    According to Israel National News, this will enable them to secure more "rights" for the prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. But frankly I find it hard to believe that it would be possible to provide them with any more rights. As it is, I'm ashamed that these terrorists are treated as well as they are. They not only can have family visitations, but also conjugal rights. And they can actually earn a degree from an Israeli university while sitting in our prisons.

    I would suggest the possibility that what they really want is to redefine terrorism down. Terrorism, what terrorism? Our brave soldiers are merely engaging in "resistance against the occupation," which is their right under international law. Watch and see.


    Sources in the Netanyahu government are claiming that there is no crisis with the US over our building in Gilo. Although surprised at the intensity of the US response (with the US saying it is "dismayed" about this), these sources maintain that it is understood that there will be no building freeze in Jerusalem. This reaction, they say, is a show for PA consumption.

    I'm not sure if this take is quite accurate. Obama has actually given an interview to Fox news, in which he criticized the plans to build in Gilo, saying this makes it more difficult to re-start negotiations and "embitters" the Palestinians. Embitters? Give me a break.


    A question occurs to me here:

    The statement about how it's understood that there is no freeze in Jerusalem makes it clear that we are abiding by some informal and very quiet agreement regarding a freeze at least in major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria (whatever the parameters with regard to completing units for which tenders have already been issued). This was supposed to be done to make the PA happy, so negotiations could begin. Obviously, Obama is still hoping — oi! is he hoping — this will happen. But if the PA is intransigent, and there are no negotiations, precisely how long do we wait before we say the deal is off? This is the danger inherent in these open-ended arrangements.


    The articles about Fort Hood keep coming, and just when I think I've read enough, one appears that is significant enough to merit being shared. (Thanks, Dick B)

    This powerful piece has a significantly different tone because it is written by an ex-army man. Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) was actually a Battalion Commander at Fort Hood and is now running for Congress in FL.

    He wrote:

    "...A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our "Band of Brothers and Sisters" can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole, but as family units.

    "A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.

    "On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.

    "There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.

    "...Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men to a virulent Wahabbist ideology....one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic-centric revisionist history in our schools.

    "We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic......that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and, if done by an American, treason.

    "There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America. That has nothing to do with First Amendment Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.

    "When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

    "I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone. "Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.

    "The reality of your enemy must become your own."
    http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/ %E2%80%9Ctragedy-at-ft-hood%E2%80%9D- from-lt-col-allen-b-west-us-army-ret/

    Share this man's words broadly, my friends.


    "The Good News Corner"

    From many places on the earth, there are Jews who come home to Israel. In some cases, individuals whose ancestors were Jews come here to reclaim their heritage and join with us.

    See this video of descendants of the Jews of Kaifeng, China, come to Israel to re-connect with their Jewish roots and convert formally to Judaism.
    http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=edhtdoPukk0 (Thanks, Cheryl)

    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 18, 2009.


    Israel allotted land along the coast for the Palestinian Authority to build a desalination water plant. The Arabs refused the offer (www.imra.org.il, 8/11).

    No other details to confirm the Israeli government's citing of that affair as an example of Palestinian Authority incompetence as a prelude to statehood.


    Two similar cases in U.S. judicial proceedings led to opposite decisions on the same principles.

    The Treasury Dept. had seized the assets of two charitable fronts for terrorism, al Haramain for Chechen rebels, and Kindhearts for Hamas, without securing warrants. The organizations' attorneys contested the seizure as violating Fourth Amendment protection requiring warrants.

    The U.S. legal system does not require warrants for all seizures of property. The exception is when the seizure is not primarily for use in criminal prosecution. The seizure of terrorist funds is to prevent those funds from being used in terrorist activities. [They do this in regular criminal cases.] The government contended that showing probable cause and securing a warrant were impractical.

    The Kindhearts judge found the government explanation unconvincing. The other judge allowed the seizure to stand. "As the court explained, not only must the government act fast to prevent asset flight, but it would be nearly impossible 'to meet the specificity requirements in an application for a warrant, and...to track down assets belonging to the designated individual and apply for a warrant in each jurisdiction in which the asset is located.'"

    The dichotomy may be headed for Supreme Court resolution (Steven Emerson, 11/17, sent via suanema@gmail.com from Jewish World Review).

    America, like Israel with Hamas and Abbas, lacks the clarity and courage to declare war. In our case, this would be the war on Radical Islam, what Pres. Bush called "war on terrorism." War, it is understood, permits greater government power to prosecute it. After all, in war, time is of the essence and lives may be at stake. President Obama is confused about whether to use civilian courts or military tribunals, because he does not seek to put us on a wartime standing. If he were concerned about civil liberties over which kind of court to use, why have his Administration and his Party muzzled criticism in several different situations, the way that they had criticized Pres. Bush for doing?

    Nevertheless, it grates to allow government to seize property in the U.S. without due process. It is not wise to tempt government abuse. How about allowing seizure on a temporary basis, with a non-time-consuming explanation to a court? The government would have a limited but sufficient time to show probable cause, and if not satisfactory, the charities would be deprived for a limited time.


    Why has Egypt allowed the number of tunnels smuggling goods into Gaza to return to pre-war levels of several hundred? The war destroyed about 300 tunnels.

    Israel knows that Egypt could end the smuggling by putting a barrier along the Rafiah corridor. Trucks unload contraband just yards away from nonchalant Egyptian soldiers. The U.S. provides technical support to Egypt on tunnel detection, but has been unable to persuade Egypt to act decisively against the smuggling.

    Yaakov of the Jerusalem Post explains that Egypt's Sinai economy depends on the smuggling. Smuggling has become a big business. The U.S. is trying to help the Sinai economy grow independent of smuggling.

    Besides, Egypt does not want to end the smuggling, until Israel ends its embargo on Gaza, which led to the increase in smuggling. Egypt worries that if it ended the smuggling, demonstrations in Egypt might destabilize the regime.

    Now, U.S. officials suggest to Israel that it end the embargo, in order to boost Abbas' prestige (www.imra.org.il, 11/17).

    Omitted from the report is Egypt's strategy. Egypt's strategy is like Saudi Arabia's failed balancing act: deflect terrorism from itself to enemies. Egypt is letting Hamas conduct a war of attrition against Israel, but worries that Hamas also will send terrorists into Egypt.

    How precarious is Egypt's regime? Has the U.S. blundered into building a first class military for Egypt, that might fall into Radical Muslim hands?

    The U.S. assumes the false stance that Abbas is a moderate, but always "weak" and needing Israeli sacrifices to boost his power. He is a terrorist jihadist, a dangerous enemy of Israel. The sacrifices allegedly to boost Abbas' standing have brought death and potential war, as P.A. forces gain strength.

    The latest proposed sacrifice would enable Gaza to become stronger and to bring in more arms. Israel's mistake was in ceding control over the Gaza-Sinai border.

    Notice that the U.S. and the major media ignore Egypt's battening off smuggling rather than battering it. Publicly, the U.S. turns a blind eye to Egypt's indirect war on Israel. This is a world of pretense. One cannot take official statements at face value. Some of my readers cite such statements as evidence against my refutation of them. That is not logical.

    Is the U.S. hope to offer alternative employment to Sinai residents a realistic way of ending smuggling? Smuggling is a tradition there. If Israel ended its embargo of all but items of military use, wouldn't the smuggling of arms remain more profitable than civilian employment?


    Part 1

    The Obama administration decided to try the 9/11 mastermind in New York. This decision is a blunder. The decision should have been to try him elsewhere, by military tribunal.

    A civilian court offers more rights to defendants who killed civilians than a military court offers defendants who attacked our military facilities abroad. This defendant, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will enjoy "more legal protection than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone."

    One main purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to offer incentives to reduce casualties as by not targeting civilians, carrying arms openly, and fighting in uniform. As you can see, the decision makes terrorism on U.S. soil more attractive to perpetrators.

    Like other terrorists, Mohammed flouts the Conventions and U.S. law, yet avails himself of its courts in order to continue his effort. He might get acquitted, though that is not likely. But it is possible, because civilian courts restrict government maneuverability and allow defendants access the records on which government evidence is based. To safeguard security secrets, the government may withhold incriminating evidence.

    Attorney-General Holder has given the government a choice of revealing military secrets or getting weaker prosecution in this and other cases. He made a target of the Manhattan courtroom (William McGurn, Wall St. J., 11/17, Op-Ed).

    Part 2

    Mohammed and four others will be tried a few blocks from Ground Zero. Holder said this would give the bereaved an opportunity to witness justice. But will justice be done in a civilian court? More likely, the locale will boost defendants' morale, as they think of the nearby hole they made in the ground, originally a site of mourning and defiance, but now a symbol of American incompetence and failure to recover, all these years later.

    The trial will give defendants a stage for influencing people. They may try to turn the tables on the U.S.. An Al-Qaida training manual instructs, "At the beginning of the trial...the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them, by state security, before the judge...." In other words, lie. (Remember that, when evaluating Islamist testimony.] In this case, Mohammed was waterboarded, and often.

    The decision to use civilian courts has been defended as successful in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker." For him, from arrest to sentencing took five years. He turned the trial into a mockery, as he entered contradictory please. He explained, "You're allowed to lie for jihad." [Remember that, when you judge Islamist credibility.]

    The trial of the blind sheikh unearthed intelligence data that, relayed to Osama bin Laden, informed him what the U.S. knew about his arrangements (William McGurn, Wall St. J., 11/17, Op.-Ed.).

    Osama could change his compromised arrangements.

    Part 3

    Parts 1 and 2 related the case for using military tribunals to try Islamist terrorists. They came from the Wall Street Journal. Part 3 relates the case for using a New York civilian court. It comes from the New York Times, and is by Steven Simon.

    Mr. Simon distinguishes between the types of terrorism cases suitable for civilian and for military courts. He suggests using "military forces in places, like Afghanistan, where conspirators can't be arrested by federal agents driving Fords." [I think that the method of apprehension is less a determinant of where to try someone than whether civilian trials risk security, as parts 1 and 2 argued.]

    Would a civilian trial risk letting terrorists free [and perhaps on U.S. soil]? Simon thinks not. It hasn't happened in New York yet, and the indicted Mr. Mohammed has confessed. [The earlier parts mentioned that it was a close call. The principle here is not just whether to try terrorists in New York, but in any civilian venue. What may happen next time, with a different prosecutor, judge, jury, and venue? In trials, confessions get overturned or replaced with "not guilty pleas." This time around, the federal government is suspected of brutal, unfair, and careless arrest, treatment, and accusation. Also, prosecutors have been over-reaching and using poor strategy.]

    Does civilian trial risk disseminating intelligence data to terrorist organizations? Simon doubts it. Prosecutors claim to have enough unclassified evidence. This case is about an old situation, whereas al-Qaida wants to know where the next drone will attack. [Again, Simon ignores the principle of civilian trial for terrorists, and bases his argument on the specifics of this case. What about the next case? I think that al-Qaida would gain from a knowledge of our intelligence methods, still being used, or which al-Qaida agents we are aware of. Trials bring surprises about what evidence is excluded and included.]

    Would a civilian trial provide terrorism with a platform? Simon thinks it would provide anti-terrorism with a platform. Federal courts do not permit TV cameras in, to broadcast live. Testimony may be given, but not speeches. Judges may quash oratory.

    Simon admits that earlier trials were a circus. He dismisses the effect of that by scoffing, who remembers them. [Judges may allow more leeway in capital cases. Demonstrations may be held outside.]

    To the contrary, Simon assets, the trial will allow a platform for anti-terrorism. The horror of terrorism would be made clear. Americans will be reminded of how low our enemy is. [The Arab world saw the horror of the event, and generally celebrated. I don't have confidence that our government will use that platform, given Pres. Obama's failure to do so.]

    Suppose the trial were by closed military tribunal, followed by execution. It might inspire terrorist recruits. By contrast, an open trial may strengthen American's reputation just as the Muslim world is losing its regard for terrorism [which has turned on fellow Muslims]. The trial could illustrate the depravity of specifically attacking civilians, as some Muslim clerics have begun declaring (11/18, Op.-Ed.).

    Here is an example of Radical Muslims having "hijacked" Islam, whose doctrine disapproves of attacking civilians. This point is well taken, although terrorists have contempt for U.S. openness and exploit it.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by >Véronique Chemla, November 18, 2009.

    On October 15, 2009, the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd [see Left] gave a biased press conference at the CAPE (Foreign Press Centre) headquarters, in Paris (France). She generally underlined Israel's responsibility for Gazans' difficult life under "blockade and occupation". She also drew a revisionist parallel between Israel's Cast Lead Operation and the Holocaust. She generally presented the Palestinian narrative as the truth.

    On October 15, 2009, I hurried to attend UNRWA Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd's press conference in Paris.

    Oops! I arrived about ten minutes late.

    The audience was scattered.

    "Blockade, occupation" and revisionism

    Ms Abu Zayd was raising the alarm over the 7 million dollars' deficit gap which corresponds to its general expenses (education, health and social services). With about 29 0000 employees, UNRWA is "responsible for 4.6 million refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the occupied territory".

    Ms Abu Zayd was expecting political support from France. She was also looking for new partners, including in the private sector and municipalities.

    For about 25 minutes, Ms Abu Zayd often blamed Israel, "blockade and occupation" for Gaza residents' problems. On the destruction of UNRWA's buildings, "Israel is willing to pay compensation, especially to what happened to our warehouse. Our report has to be verified by" adjusters. « 37 schools and 11 clinics experienced damages, which were not important, so we were able to repair them ». Moreover, if compensations are paid to UNRWA, « this will be a precedent which will help us" in another topic: the consequences of Intifada.

    Noha Rashmawi, a press officer of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Delegation in France, asked Ms Abu Zayd: will UNRWA sue Israel? "No", Ms Abu Zayd answered. She added that this is not UNRWA's mission, rather that of human rights NGOs' missions in « Israel and Palestine ».

    Ms Abu Zayd insisted upon the impact of the Cast Lead Operation on the UNRWA. "Obviously, Israel wants us to be operating... We could get everything we need for our 'summer games'". She delightfully told that the Gaza children set a Guiness world record by flying 3,167 homemade kites sending peace messages.

    I asked the last question upon textbooks used in UNRWA-run schools and the future teaching of the Holocaust in the schools it runs.

    Ms Abu Zayd explained that UNRWA has respected "the agreement with UNESCO (Editor's note: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) for 60 years. The textbooks that we use in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, West Bank and Gaza are the textbooks of the local authorities. We have an "enhancement curriculum" which is human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance. We have negotiated that with all the departments of education of every country where we work. We found that it is a particularly important curriculum in Gaza which is living in this conflict under occupation, and that the children really need to know very seriously about what their rights are... Children make plays, poems on human rights, on their right to play".

    Concerning UNRWA's recent decision to include the Holocaust in its curriculum for the "higher grades and the preparatory grades, people are interested, but they are worried about their own children having to learn about the Holocaust while they just came through this horrible war in January, when there were so many of their rights, in fact all their rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated. Palestinians [do not enjoy any] of their rights, especially in the Occupied Territories. That is why people are asking questions... We will develop that curriculum draft with university professors who are advising us, parents, human rights groups », Ms Abu Zayd said.

    No time to ask explanations: the press conference was over.

    I went up to Ms Abu Zayd to question her about that false parallel between Holocaust and the situation of Palestinians in Gaza. Another journalist had priority. Thus, I moved away. Suddenly, angry Noha Rashmawi talked to me. She justified that parallel alleging a genocide of Palestinians. « How many dead? », I asked her. Moreover, a genocide is an intentional act. She answered: "One dead person is enough!" « This is not the legal definition of a genocide », I replied. "This is my definition", she told me. A French public TV journalist remained curiously silent beside her.

    I finally invited Ms Abu Zayd to explain her parallel. She dryly said: "If you had lived in Gaza and went through the 22 days of that war, that is what you would have in mind". And she moved away.

    UNRWA's Palestinian narrative

    Ms Abu Zayd, who will retire at the end of 2009, often expressed the Palestinian narrative, excluding facts justifying the Israeli policy, and concealed Hamas' policy.

    For instance, Ms Abu Zayd deliberately misused the term "blockade". On November 9, 2009, she admitted before the UN Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) that she did not use that word in its "judicial meaning".

    A beach in Gaza

    Thus, while blaming Israel for pitiful Palestinian living conditions, she did not say a single word about the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, the economic and humanitarian Israeli aid to Hamas-run Gaza, the still flourishing "tunnel economy" and the belle vie in Gaza. Her speech, which tarnished Israel's image, aimed at inspiring the public opinion's sympathy, and concealed the international community's billions of dollars to Palestinians since 60 years. Ms Abu Zayd was thus justifying the UNRWA's existence, in particular its appeal for financial aid. That controversial UN Agency is known for its failure in solving the problem of hereditary status Palestinian refugees, for connections between terrorism and its camps or facilities, for terrorist organizations' members on its payroll, etc.

    Moreover, Ms Abu Zayd did not evoke the Hamas' responsibility for the destructions it caused. Hamas deliberately targeted the civilians of Israel, which caused the Israeli military response, and Hamas exploited its own civilians as human shields, which are war crimes: for instance, it placed its rockets among the Gaza civilian population, near the UNRWA facilities. According to the international humanitarian law, a military objective does not cease to be one if it is located inside a civilian population.

    Furthermore, Kites, which symbolize Palestinians' aspiration for freedom ("open-air prison Gaza"), are a prominent theme in the anti-Israeli propaganda, ranging from movies to art exhibitions.

    Last but not least, Ms Abu Zayd had already stated that slanderous Nazifying parallel in an interview to Jerusalem-AFP, without seemingly being questioned. That infamous parallel conceals the relevant reasons that justify the Cast Lead Operation as well as the IDF's ethical behaviour. It was underlined by the hateful pro-Hamas "Arab street"'s demonstrations during the Cast Lead Operation in order to demand boycott and condemnation of Israel by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice (The Hague, Netherlands). It was also expressed in particular in a United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) conference at the UNESCO Headquarters on April 29 and 30, 2008.

    That demonizing parallel also aims at two perverse goals: withdrawing the Jewish Diaspora' support to the Israeli state and marginalizing the Jewish Diaspora in their own countries. If the Jewish Diaspora remains on the Israeli side, then, the public's opinion will perceive it as badly as it perceives Israelis. Furthermore, the public's opinion will justify anti-Semitic acts. And if that Jewish diaspora complains and requests for protection and justice, the public's opinion will think: "The Jewish diaspora has what it deserves!"

    It is shocking that the UNRWA Commissioner-General expressed such a biased discourse and endorsed that infamous revisionist comparison. We can be troubled by the way the Holocaust will be taught in the UNRWA-run schools.

    What is also troubling is the fact that an allegedly neutral UN agency expresses an unbalanced discourse, presents that anti-Israeli narrative, including its revisionism, as the truth.

    Veronique Chemla is a journalist for L'Arche, Front Page Magazine and American Thinker. Her website is in French and English. Visit it at htttp://veroniquechemla.blogspot.com/200 This article is archived at
    http://veroniquechemla.blogspot.com/2009/11/ unrwa-commissioner-general-karen-abu.html

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 18, 2009.

    Pre-Election Stunt of Another Swindler?

    Mahmoud Abbas announced that he is not going to run for re-election in January's elections. He accused the Israeli government with "adopting a policy that ruins all peace efforts." He also criticized Hamas for not reaching reconciliation with his Fatah faction. Most likely Fatah may hold a rally to pressure him to change his mind since the faction has no major candidate to replace him. (Everyone is at fault but not he! He continuously rejected any offer of peace made by Israel and it is most likely that he wants to boost his popularity by orchestrated 'popular' support or has stolen enough for a comfortable retirement. His predecessor, Yasser Arafat, had done the same! For someone who is planning retirement, Abbas has been doing quite fancy and active election campaigning.)

    Note: It is easy to subscribe to this editorial letter. Just send emails of your friends and relatives to stevenshamrak.e with the word "Subscribe" on the Subject line at any time.

    May be Something isn't Worth to Save. The collapse of the Palestinian Authority, Israel's (fake) negotiating partner, was raised as a possibility after Mahmoud Abbas said that he intended to resign (good riddance). Meanwhile, PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad is accused of quietly staging a ''bloodless coup'' against PA President Mahmoud Abbas (What coup? Hasn't Abbas announced his resignation?). And, Azzam al-Ahmed, a prominent Fatah figure closely associated with Abbas, declared that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist and would never do so. ''Fatah is a liberation movement,'' he said. ''Fatah cares only about the interests of the Palestinian people.'' (The time is long overdue for Israel to start to care only about the interests of the Jewish people!)

    Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

    The killings in a Texas army base were not the first religiously motivated homicide committed by Muslim military personnel in the US Army. Politicly correct idiots in America, Europe or Australasia are deliberately avoiding questioning the loyalty of Muslims to their country of residence. Same Jew-hating bigots have never been shy questioning Jewish loyalty!

    Who does not Want Peace? The Palestinian Islamic Hamas movement said on Tuesday that it will never negotiate with Israel : "Hamas will not negotiate with the occupation (Israel) and will not be the lifeboat for Oslo team," said Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, referring to the Palestinian National Authority's (PNA) negotiation with Israel under the Oslo accords since 1993. (They reject the Oslo peace agreement, Israel's right to exist and unity among so-called Palestinians. So, who is the villain here?)Ending Another Stupidity. The Knesset approved a preliminary reading of a bill by Likud MK Danny Danon that would stop the practice of allowing public funding for burials of (Arab) citizens who committed terrorist attacks.

    A Self-Hating Jew is the Worst Enemy. Israel's desire for peace seems to have ''completely vanished,'' France's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said. ''What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that there used to be a great peace movement in Israel,'' (Why does the absence of the peace movement on the Arab side not hurt or shock him?)

    Islamic Brotherly Love. The leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula, Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, warned: ''They are being driven by a greed to take over Muslim countries and they are full of a wish to annihilate Sunnis... Their threat to Islam and its people is much bigger than that from Jews and Christians,'' (And both branches of Islam want to achieve world domination by Islam!)

    Quote of the Week: "We are living in a global, post-national, post-modern, post-identity, world where people (Jews) are again asked to make a choice between universalism and nationalism, between freedom and identity& A young Jew after months and sometimes years of standing in the face of extreme and false slanderous attacks on Israel, finally says enough — I want to live in a world without Israel & Strengthening our Jewish identity is the best guarantee to continue kibbutz galuyot, gathering of the exiles.... rebuilding our Jewish identity can empower us to fight for tikun olam (perfection of the world at large — ed.), with more justice and more freedom for everyone." — Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel — Zionism is the Jewish independent movement with the goal of the creation the Jewish homeland on our ancestral land. Enemies of Jews are determined to deny us this freedom. The true freedom is to know and appreciate who you are. The abandonment of one's Jewish identity is return to slavery!

    King Abdullah Rejects "Jordan is Palestine". Jordan's King Abdullah on Tuesday condemned his fellow countrymen who have envisioned Jordan as a homeland for the Palestinians. Abdullah said that Jordan could defend itself — and that the 'Jordanian option' was no option, as far as he was concerned. (I agree — Jordan occupies 77% of Jewish land, hosting Bedouin refugees from Saudi Arabia and fake Palestinians, 60% of its population. The Sinai Option is a better solution!)

    Little Economic Miracle. Israel has stood out among advanced economies as a place where the crisis hit softer and may have passed quicker, than almost anywhere else. Israel's economic growth has not been based on easy credit or a real estate boom, but on the technology-driven productivity gains that economists believe is the key to sustained economic growth.

    It is Official: Lebanon is a Rogue State! Lebanon's prime minister has formed a Cabinet that includes the terrorist organization Hezbollah and its allies. Hezbollah has significantly expanded its ability to strike deep into Israel with rockets that can now reach the Jewish state's largest cities, and now possesses tens of thousands of projectiles. (And it is all due to supplies from Iran and Syria and the inaction of the Lebanese government and the United Nations.)

    Hamas and Ethic are Incompatible. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) rebuked the Islamist Hamas group that runs the Gaza Strip for banning a gathering of Palestinian reporters who hoped to discuss ethics in journalism. (Surprising criticism — they, the journalists, must be truly pissed off with Hamas!)

    Hypocricy of the Headlines.

    Alleged Gaza rocket launch renews war threat... — timesonline.co.uk — There is nothing "Alleged" about Hamas and Hezbollah rockets!

    Another Hypocritical Friend of Israel. The Indian Chief of Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor arrived in Israel a week ago. Israel and India enjoy close defense ties and Israel last year overtook Russia as the number-one supplier of military platforms to India. Since the Mumbai attack, Israel has assisted India in beefing up its security, particularly along its coast, where the terrorists allegedly infiltrated from nearby Pakistan. India is interested in working with Israel on submarine-launched cruise missiles, ballistic missile defense systems, laser-guided systems, satellites as well as unmanned aerial vehicles. (India supported and anti-Israel resolution of the UN Human Rights Council not long ago and does not miss an opportunity to reassure its oil suppliers with periodic anti-Israel outbursts!)

    Islamic Bigotry of Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to lash out at Israel's Cast Lead counter-terror operation in Gaza last winter, as he came to the defense of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who faces worldwide condemnation for the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of his country. (Sudan has expelled 4 million refugees from Darfur, the same as the number of Arabs living in Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Must Israel follow the Sudanese government's example to earn the approval of Turkey?)

    Unjust System and Self-hating Media Support Arab Thugs. Arab squatters stoned Jewish property owner Yitzchak Herskovitz,78, who has been fighting a decade long battle in the courts to have his property returned, as he came to give them an eviction order. Two people who escorted Herskovitz were wounded by the stone barrage, but the self-hating Israeli media had depicted Herskovitz and his friends as the aggressors in the incident.

    Shameful Result of Jewish Assimilation.

    A man who starred in a video released by al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri, inviting Americans to convert to Islam, has been identified as Adam Yehiye Gadahn, an American with Jewish ancestry. He was born Adam Pearlman on September 1, 1978, the grandson of a prominent Jewish surgeon and the son of musician Phil Pearlman, who converted to Christianity and changed his named to Gadahn (apparently derived from the Biblical figure Gideon) He grew up in Santa Ana, California, converted to Islam and, in 1995, posted an essay on the USC Web site describing his conversion. According to his parents, Gadahn moved to Pakistan in 1998, where he married an Afghani refugee. (As a result, conspiracy nuts and anti-Semitic idiots are already using the individual tragedy of some Jewish families and accusing the CIA/Mossad/British Intelligence of creating Al-Qaida. Another sad case of Jewish self-hate is Yousef al-Khattab, born Joseph Cohen)

    Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Peck, November 17, 2009.

    I don't consider myself a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican. When it comes to political elections, I am an independent. And, when the next election comes around, I'm voting for the "other one."

    Yet, for those Americans still in a self imposed trance of "Obama is the man and going to bring change" attitude, I want to talk about "buyer's remorse."

    Our President compares the "suffering of the Palestinians" with the Nazi's murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

    The Obama administration is systemically changing our culture. In fact, when I watched a recent television show, I saw a class of Kindergarten children reciting the phrases of their "leader" and it reminded me of Chinese children marching in lock-step for Mao when I was a child. Then it was considered brain washing. Is that the "change" he meant?

    When anyone dares criticize the President, it's a race issue. The man was elected on personality, not policies. He also is a master speech maker and realized early the power of words.

    The president with the good old wholesome American name of Barak Hussein Obama has created a government sub-culture of Czars who are not checked on or responsible to anyone. Now he has appointed two devout Muslims to sensitive positions, this after the "Allahu akbar" massacre at Fort Hood.

    His men say they want to '"share the wealth." Have you noticed that they don't plan on giving up the ''perks" that they get from their job related health care policies in the House and Senate? This president came out of nowhere and ran on the wave of resentment created by Bush. The country was so dissatisfied at that time with the "same old, same old" it would have elected "Jack the Ripper."

    And, that folks, is what we got. Even the Christian community seems concerned that Obama, while talking to the United Nations, spoke at length about the need for Israel to fulfill Palestinian claims and rights. He also used his favorite word "refugees" in hopes of "returning" millions of Arabs to the Jewish State.

    When he awarded two of the most virulent anti-Israel and Jewish people today, Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tuto of South Africa, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, that was terrible, but Norway outdid that with the Noble Peace Prize. Once I took pride in the large number of Jews who joined this exclusive body of men. Then came Arafat and Jimmy Carter. Arafat left his legacy as being the "Father of Terrorism" and the damage he did will be felt for decades to come. Carter? Never a man of peace, but an anti-Semite who when he was governor of my state of Georgia, was the most incompetent in memory. Obama's entrance into this group completes my loss of faith in the value of this award.

    Obama made the settlement freeze a condition for negotiations. His envoy just tried to prevent building in Gilo. However, the "conflict" in the Middle East isn't, nor has it ever been, about land. It's about the reality that none of the Arab states can bring themselves to state that they recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State.

    Land is NOT the issue. It's obvious for those who might take the time to look at a map. Israel is a speck surrounded by twenty-hostile nations with huge land and oil reserves. Picture a pack of matches on a football field with Israel being the matchbook. Obama can't admit that.

    So for Obama to "sneak" in not only how Israel must give up more of it's "occupied" land, but also settle the "refugee" problem, is a major move against the Jewish state. Bibi managed to stand strong on that while Obama backed down. His comments on "refugees" means, "Lets move millions of displaced into the Jewish state."

    What I can't understand or tolerate is how so many of my Jewish brethren in the USA continue to have trust in this man or his policies. It does warm my heart to see that the ones who are actually in the Jewish State think the opposite.

    Amazingly, like Ahmadenijad in Iran, Obama is making little effort to hide his disdain for the Jews. He gives out a Muslim holiday greeting while leaving the Jews in the cold. It is obvious that his roots and heritage and sympathies are Muslim.

    In the recent "giveaways" another little known gift from Obama and Company has quietly, with little fan-fare, given three hundred million dollars of our tax payer money to "re-build" Gaza and its perpetual refugees from what he considers the war of aggression from Israel. So my question, while he's getting ready to pressure Israel to open the jails and let the the terrorists out to roam the streets, is why doesn't someone pressure the White House to tie that tainted money to the release of captured Gilat Shalit and gain his freedom?

    Arlene Peck, an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess ("WOW! It's Arlene Peck"), is a weekly commentator on ShalomTV and a guest commentator on the Middle East for radio station KABC. Listed as one of the 100 most influential Jewish women, Arlene has been featured in magazines such as Lifestyles, where she was described as "Politicallly Incorrect and Loving it."

    This article was published today in Arutz-7.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 17, 2009.

    Well, some reason, anyway — and from a surprising source.

    The PA had appealed to the EU for support in their efforts to unilaterally declare a state. I was certain that the response would be encouraging and enthusiastic. After all, the EU has been deeply enamored of the Palestinians for years, exhibiting a political bias in their favor and lavishing upon them huge sums of money for which they demand insufficient accountability.

    But no! I was wrong. This is what Carl Bildt — the foreign minister of Sweden, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency — said today:

    "The conditions are not there as of yet...I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first, so I think that is somewhat premature."

    Forgive me if I take a moment to savor this. "There has to be one first..." Chickens coming home to roost. All these years in which the PA leaders did zilch to build the solid basis for a state has perhaps caught up with them. They imagined, perhaps, that they could coast forever — constructing a virtual state diplomatically without actually producing one.

    Methinks that the response was a self-protective one, at bottom. Ultimately the EU would look silly if it backed a state that doesn't have its act together and would fail to function.

    But oh, the disappointment in Ramallah must be huge right now. (Although Abbas, predictably, says he'll keep at it.)


    In point of fact, the Palestinians have been there, and done that, before.

    In 1988, the Palestinian National Council (the legislative body of the PLO, which at that time met in Algeria) proclaimed an independent state, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. This was via Resolution 43/177, which "acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council...and affirmed the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."

    What happened subsequent to this was nothing. Because there was no state. You will note, please, that there is no representative from Palestine in the General Assembly, only a Palestinian with observer (non-voting) status.


    To declare a state unilaterally a second time would not be terribly smart. In fact, right now it seems that this whole gambit is likely to weaken the PA, and diminish whatever respect it has in the street and internationally. Abbas has backed himself out on a limb and cannot climb down without looking foolish.

    Ultimately this may strengthen Hamas, which will have a field day with the failure of the PA to garner international support.

    The State Department has come out solidly for formation of a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and the EU has declared itself prepared to help get the PA back to the table. But if the PA does return to the negotiating table — even though we haven't, in line with absolute PA demands, frozen all building activity in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem — its position will be diminished by virtue of the fact that it was coerced.

    Arabs, culturally, are very big on issues of pride and face. On at least two occasions already, Abbas has been upset with Obama for pushing him to take positions he didn't want to. Once in September, when Abbas met with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN, after swearing he wouldn't. And a second time weeks later, when Abbas, at US prompting, withdrew a motion in the UN Human Rights Council on the Goldstone Report, which caused him considerable flack in the Arab world and prompted a quick reversal. He's barely recovered from that.

    If the PA refuses to come back to the negotiating table, there would be stalemate, which would not sit well at all in a number of Western capitals, most notably Washington DC. What I wonder at this point is whether Abbas is willing, or able, to be coerced into backing down.


    You might be interested in seeing a piece by Jonathan Schnazer of the Jewish Policy Center, regarding ways in which a unilateral declaration of statehood could backfire on the PA.
    www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1502/ unilaterally-declaring-a-state-could-backfire-on


    Now as to a decision, or policy statement, that does not reflect a whole lot of reason. (Can't expect too much reason in one day, I guess.)

    US Envoy Mitchell, acting on behalf of his government, has brought pressure to bear on us to stop building in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Gilo? It seems strange that the US should focus on this neighborhood in particular (but see more below).

    Gilo is fully within the municipal borders of Jerusalem and is constructed on land that had been Jewishly purchased (there is no suggestion that it rests on Arab land). It made news repeatedly some eight years ago when there was shooting at residential housing along its southern periphery by terrorists in adjacent Beit Jala.

    While it is beyond the Green Line, so are numerous other neighborhoods of Jerusalem — Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Pisgat Zeev, etc. From our perspective, this is irrelevant as it falls within full Israeli sovereignty and is an integral part of the city.


    The pressure from Mitchell in this regard has had no effect on Israeli policy. Just today Jerusalem's Construction and Planning Committee approved the building of 850 new housing units, and Interior Minister Eli Yeshai signed the approval.

    Said Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, in a statement released by his office:

    "Israeli law does not discriminate between Arabs and Jews, or between east and west of the city. The demand to cease construction just for Jews is illegal, also in the US and any other enlightened place in the world.

    "It is inconceivable that the US government would demand a construction freeze in the US based on race, religion or sex, and the attempt to demand this from Jerusalem constitutes a double standard and is unacceptable. The Jerusalem Municipality will continue to enable construction in every part of the city for Jews and Arabs alike."



    And here we have a PA response to this, from Saeb Erekat:

    "We condemn this in the strongest possible terms. It shows that it is meaningless to resume negotiations when this goes on."

    Meaningless, huh? Does this provide a clue regarding whether the PA will ultimately back down and come to the negotiating table?

    I want to get this straight: If they can't get Gilo, there's no point negotiating a Palestinian state?


    The British government also objected, saying:

    "The Foreign Secretary has been very clear that a credible deal involves Jerusalem as a shared capital. Expanding settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem makes that deal much harder. So this decision on Gilo is wrong and we oppose it."

    So let's take a look at a map. (The Green Line is yellow here.) Gilo is not even in the east of Jerusalem. It is, as I said, beyond the Green Line to the south. Everything that was not in Israeli possession before '67 is being called "east Jerusalem." And the presumption being made is that it all belongs to the Arabs.

    In their dreams.


    "In their dreams" is pretty much what Gilo residents have to say about this, as well. YNet is reporting that people in the neighborhood are furious about the US demands, which they see as totally out of line.

    Most interesting was this quote from Meir Turgeman, a Jerusalem council member, who blames what's happening on "collaborators who went and leaked it out."

    He explained:

    "I don't believe that the Americans are up to date on the construction situation in Gilo and they aren't interested in it either. This came from within. There are people in this country and on the city council who are collaborating with external bodies who don't have Jerusalem's best interests at heart.

    "There hasn't been construction in the Gilo neighborhood in over 10 years. What brought it on the agenda now all of a sudden? This is a good and diverse neighborhood. An example of Arabs and Jews living together in peace for many years.

    "If anyone supports this and freezes construction in Gilo, the neighborhood's residents will go out and fight. We will not sit quietly and we will not allow any government to hurt Gilo."

    So, Bravo! a second time.


    Yesterday I wrote about the way in which former president Clinton misused demographic data to make the case that we must give the Palestinians a state before our Jewish state is swallowed up. That argument has been thoroughly debunked. To begin with, there was an over-estimation in the number of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. An over-estimation to the tune of about 1 million people. In addition, Palestinian birthrates have either stabilized or dropped (during various time periods), while Jewish birthrates have increased.

    To see details and have access to various articles on the subject, see:
    http://www.israeldemography.com:80/ (Thank you Michael W.)


    One more article (of the probably dozens I've seen) on the Fort Hood jihad massacre. This by Charles Krauthammer, who speaks of "Medicalizing mass murder."

    "...Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

    "And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as 'compassion fatigue.' The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2009/11/12/AR2009111209824.html


    Then you might want to see what was put out on this by Caroline Glick's "Latma" website of satirical video clips:
    http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/11/ video---latma-on-ft-hood-attac.php


    Iran, Iran, Iran. The story that was horrendous gets more horrendous, as IAEA inspectors conclude Iran may have more hidden nuclear plants. And still Obama waivers.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 17, 2009.

    Lower approach to Ein Avdat National Park

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


    If I had to vote for the most spectacular and beautiful spot in Israel, Ein Avdat National Park would be it. This narrow, spring and rain-carved canyon in the middle of the Negev Desert features towering rock walls, a waterfall, reflecting pools and abundant wildlife. Photographing inside the park is tricky because the high walls create extreme contrast during the hours the park allows visitors. I tried sneaking in at sunrise one morning but was escorted out by a ranger who lectured me on disturbing the peace of the animals coming to drink from the spring. (He was right!).

    This shot, taken two years ago in December, shows the approach to the park from the lower entrance. I was surprised to see a small grove of trees burning late fall colors. To my additional good fortune, a bit of sunlight managed to duck under the clouds, poke through the canyon and brighten the orange tree crowns. To complete the shot, I chose a wide view that gives perspective to the high canyon walls. For those who have never been there, this composition delivers the best impression of what it feels like to hike through this breathtaking park. Once again the desert, feared and maligned for its inhospitable climate, reveals its power and beauty to the intrepid visitor.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by UCI, November 17, 2009.

    This was written by Mark Steyn and it appeared November 9, 2009 in the National Review Online.


    For the purposes of argument, let's accept the media's insistence that Major Hasan is a lone crazy.

    So who's nuttier?

    The guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats?

    Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel?

    Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death?

    Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia?

    Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further? Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion?

    Or his media colleagues who put Americans in the same position as East Germans twenty years ago of having to get hold of a foreign newspaper to find out what's going on?

    General Casey has a point: An army that lets you check either the "home team" or "enemy" box according to taste is certainly diverse. But the logic in the remarks of Secretary Napolitano and others is that the real problem is that most Americans are knuckledragging bigots just waiting to go bananas. As Melanie Phillips wrote in her book Londonistan:

    Minority-rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority.

    To the injury of November 5, we add the insults of American officialdom and their poodle media. In a nutshell:

    The real enemy — in the sense of the most important enemy — isn't a bunch of flea-bitten jihadis sitting in a cave somewhere. It's Western civilization's craziness. We are setting our hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer.
    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 Richard H. Shulman, November 17, 2009.


    Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sinwar, a lecturer on Islamic history at the Islamic University of Gaza, defamed the whole Jewish people past and present and Benjamin Franklin.

    He claimed that Jews don't like to work, but prefer to have other people work for them. Therefore, he alleged, they complained about their forced labor on pyramids. The pharaohs had the right to their labor. Archeological finds show that they enjoyed work privileges, so their complaints were unwarranted.

    Likewise, Al-Sinwar asserted, Benjamin Franklin warned America that the Jews will take over the U.S. and get the other Americans to work for them. Americans are occupiers of their country
    (http://www.memri.org/, 11/16).

    If Americans are occupiers, what are the Arabs descended from those who conquered Egypt?

    Benjamin Franklin said no such thing as imputed to him. This is one of those myths that Arabs make up and then they and other antisemites repeat until they all deem it fact. Franklin must have been aware of the fortune that a Jew, Haym Solomon, sacrificed for the American Revolution, perhaps saving it.

    I have heard of no archeological evidence that Hebrews worked in ancient Egypt. It is difficult to justify forced labor, and even more difficult to believe that its victims enjoyed rights. It sounds like the usual Arab review of the Bible as a platform on which to erect all sorts of calumny against the Jews.

    What people dislike having others work for them? The mechanism by which such a trait is transmitted is conveniently omitted. It isn't religious. It isn't cultural. Note the racist nature of the accusation. It applies to Jews across the thousands of years and miles. That makes it genetically inherited, or racial.

    The notion that Jews are more inclined to exploit people is prejudiced. But let us consider the behavior of Jordanians and Saudi Arabians. They have a high percentage of unemployment and a very high percentage of foreign labor. Saudi Arabia wants to replace alien employees with citizens. Its people refuse to do it. They not only hire foreign maids. They are notorious for refusing jobs they consider not sufficiently prestigious. They expect the government to carry them, financially. I think this is human nature, and the Saudi excess of this trait is economic and cultural, not genetic.

    Perhaps the professor's claim is Islamic deception.


    Abbas, head of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) led Fatah supporters in commemoration of the anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Arafat.

    The crowd chanted Arafat's slogans, such as "millions of martyrs are marching to Jerusalem," meaning to take it away from Israel by war. Bypassing negotiations [to which Arafat and the P.A. committed itself in writing), Abbas said the P.A. would appeal directly to the UN for statehood.

    ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "How can Mahmoud Abbas be claiming to seek a real peace with Israel when he honors someone who ordered the killing of thousands of Israeli citizens? We condemn this obscene ceremony held in Ramallah.

    "Yasser Arafat founded a terrorist movement, deceitfully engaged in negotiations with Israel while radicalizing Palestinian society with poisonous incitement to hatred and murder. He then responded to extraordinary Israeli concessions in a peace plan proposed by President Bill Clinton and accepted by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak with a wave of terrorism that claimed the lives of some 1,500 Israeli men, women and children and the maimed thousands more (11/16 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member, http://www.zoa.org/ ).

    No moderate, Abbas! Nor is he sincere about peace. Then why is the U.S. subsidizing his regime and supporting its acquisition of the sovereign right to import heavy weapons?

    A declaration of independence to cover Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria and part of Israel's capital would mean war to get it, ethnic cleansing if they succeed. If they succeed, they will have deprived Israel of secure boundaries. That means the P.A. would start another war, involving their committing genocide. Imagine, a group of people who never themselves had a country, demanding part of another country's capital! That, alone, would mean war.

    Now wasn't it foolish of Israel to let them advance to that stage and not to have scotched it years ago by annexing at least the nearby settlement blocs? What does this show about PM Netanyahu's policy of helping prepare the P.A. for statehood? How did he ever anticipate eventual peace from such fanatics?


    10/28/09: Islamic terrorists murdered 100 in Peshawar, Pakistan

    2008: Islamic terrorists murdered a couple of thousand Pakistanis

    2008: Islamic terrorists murdered 1,391 Indians

    2008: Jihadists trained indoctrinated and trained in explosives returned from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria to France. There they remain a menace, although France is pro-Palestinian Arab

    Britain has become a hub of terrorist activity. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007, Muslim terrorists set off three bombs in his country, which is pro-Palestinian Arab, too.

    Sunni Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorize Shiite regimes, while Iran-supported Shiites terrorize Sunni regimes in the Gulf region, Egypt, and Jordan, seeking Iranian domination of the Gulf. Yemen is a new center of both Sunni and Shiite terrorism.

    "Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century, in order to settle their domestic and inter-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with non-Muslims, irrespective of the Palestinian issue, Israel's policies and Israel's existence?"

    "Contrary to the 'Palestine First school of thought, Islamic terrorism is raging in the Middle East and the entire globe, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of US-Israel friendship, Israel's policies or Israel's existence." "...Islamic terrorism is not driven by despair, but by local, regional and global religious, political and territorial ambitions, terrorizing Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews." (Yoram Ettinger in Prof. Steven Plaut daily postings of 11/13).


    During the Iraq War and before the insurgency, media reports accused U.S. forces of destroying ancient Iraqi artifacts or letting them get stolen; those reports were false.

    "A Jan. 15, 2005, BBC report, for example, began...'Coalition forces in Iraq have caused irreparable damage to the ancient city of Babylon, the British Museum says.' It continued with such details as 'sandbags have been filled with precious archeological fragments and 2,600 year-old paving stones have been crushed by tanks,' and that long trenches were dug 'through archeological deposits.'"

    Another claim was that a coalition helicopter base cracked the animal bas-reliefs on Babylon's original walls.

    In truth, Iraq's National Museum retains its great treasures, many having been kept locked in vaults. What happened?

    Saddam's regime looted the Museum of some of his country's national heritage. It even substituted fake items for genuine ones.

    Western Archeologists, including critics of the U.S., inspected the important, southern fifth of Iraq. They found that the archeological sites suffered almost no damage since Saddam. Saddam had damaged the ancient Babylon site by building a palace in it, removing ancient remains clumsily, deploying a tank regiment there, etc..

    Marine Chaplain Emilio Arrero, records arriving early and finding the murals and other parts of the site already damaged. He described "how they worked conscientiously to protect the site, ejecting looters, undertaking repairs of the perimeter and establishing ground rules for the war's duration."

    The helicopters were too far away, and rise too vertically, to have damaged artifacts, far below ground. Iron railings, still in place, indicated that allied tanks had not crushed sensitive areas. The allied trenches reported by UNESCO had been dug and sandbags filled beyond the site.

    The earlier reports were defamatory. Some of the same archeologists who sponsored them have begun acknowledging the truth, but too slowly and softly (Wall St. J, 11/14, A15).


    Iran is demanding that sanctions on it be rescinded before it agrees to a nuclear fuel exchange. That is the plan for its fuel to be enriched outside Iran, to less than weapons grade. Iran explains that the West needs to show goodwill (www.imra.org.il, 11/16).

    Iran is a proved nuclear scofflaw. If any party can reasonably be asked to show goodwill, that party is Iran.

    The plan is phony, especially as Iran amended it after having said it accepted it. The amendment is that some fuel would stay in the country. Iran could turn it into weapons grade, itself.

    The original plan was a snare, too. The foreign country would enrich the fuel almost to minimum weapons grade. Iran then could all the more easily upgrade it the rest of the way.

    The notion of a promise-breaking miscreant demanding that punishment be removed in return for a promise, is ridiculous. Iran is acting like the Arabs, in making agreements that it breaks but insisting that the other party keep its commitment.

    For more on this, click here http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d14-Ahmadinejad-declares- victory-on-Irans-nuclear-program

    For an earlier article on whether Iran is reputable, click here:
    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d16-Us-to-seize-Irans- tower-in-New-York-and-mosques-in-Us


    The government of Israel reacted to Abbas' threat to declare a state, by threatening unilateral actions of its own. Those include annexing nearby settlement blocs, ending excise tax payments to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), and withdrawing from the Oslo Accords.

    The P.A. answered that its threat to act is not unilateral, because much of the world approves. It also scoffed at the Israeli threat, asserting that all the area it claims already is occupied (www.imra.org.il, 11/16).

    This is uncharted procedure, in a prejudiced and overly political world. If the P.A. succeeds, it would have evaded totally acting against terrorism and indoctrination in bigotry that it had pledged officially, yet be rewarded with sovereignty.

    The answer that most of the world approves does not keep the proposed P.A. declaration from being unilateral. It would be a unilateral change violating the Oslo Accords it signed, and which bars unilateral change in the legal status of territory.

    Most countries probably would approve. They would approve of a mendacious, terrorist state eager to cause more problems. Dozens would approve because they hate the Jews. What does that tell us about the moral fibre of the "international community?"

    The P.A. answer to the Israeli reaction about annexation is mistaken, too. The areas that may be annexed are not now part of Israel. If the P.A. held negotiations, as it is supposed to do, it might get some of those areas. As for the other areas, they are under P.A. control except that Israeli forces cull out some terrorists, a duty that the P.A. was supposed to do but does not. Also, the P.A. cannot control its border with Israel and Jordan nor import arms.

    Why will it have taken 16 years of P.A. violations of Oslo for Israel to take the actions it threatens only now?

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 16, 2009.

    To the Editor,

    Mr. Lerner's letter to today's Post ("Mideast answers" 11.16.09) is a tragic example of how half-truths are far more misleading than lies.

    Lerner asserts that during the 1948 war, Jordan made a deal with Ben-Gurion so that Jordan would get the West Bank but not join other Arab states in war against Israel. Such an assertion is nonsensical. There is no evidence for such a deal. Moreover, Jordan did enter the war, slaughtered half of the Jewish population of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter, and proved the most formidable of all of Israel's Arab opponents.

    He quotes Dov Weisglas "..withdrawal would put formaldehyde on the peace process..." to show that Israel's unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 would guarantee no Palestinian state. Such an assertion is nonsensical. Weisglas did indeed say that Israel's withdrawal would bring the peace process to a screeching halt, and he was right. Israel pulled out and Hamas quickly slaughtered hundreds of Fatah supporters, took over, and re-started the qassam attacks and suicide bombers. Hamas' bald-faced aggression did indeed put an end to the peace process, just as Weisglas predicted. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal in this unilateral withdrawal was to show Israel's commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state living at peace with Israel. Hamas torched the olive branch.

    Lerner asserts that 200,000 Israelis cannot live in the West Bank because international law prohibits the transfer one's population to occupied territory. Such an assertion is nonsensical. He is apparently unaware that the law refers to forcible transfer. Israel has never forcibly transferred Israelis in, or Arabs out, of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Israelis have voluntarily chosen to relocate to ancient Israelite sites on the West Bank or to locations that enhance Israel's security. Contrary to Arab propaganda, these actions in no way violate the Fourth Geneve Convention (1949) prohibition on forcible transfer.

    Lerner does get one point right. Arab citizens of Israel are not first class citizens. They do suffer discrimination in a variety of ways. Of course, they are much better off in just about every respect than their brethren in Arab lands, and enormously better off than religious and ethnic minorities in Arab countries who suffer brutal discrimination and in some cases massacre and expropriation of land by government forces (think, for example, of Darfur in Sudan where nearly 2,000,000 black African Christians and animists have been genocided by the Arab Sudanese government over the past 25 years).

    Does Lerner simply not know the facts that he omitted, or does he just hope that your readers don't?

    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 Arlene Kushner, November 16, 2009.

    The Palestinian claims continue:

    They're preparing their state for unilateral independence. Abbas has already spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. PA leaders have already approached the EU and they plan to take the issue to the Security Council. Etc. etc.


    But now we're starting to see our government's response to these threats. At yesterday morning's Cabinet meeting there was a stiffening of positions.

    Silvan Shalom (Likud), Deputy Prime Minister, who's been singing a less conciliatory song of late, said:

    "I think the Palestinians need to know that unilateral moves will not yield the results they hope for. Every action will receive an appropriate Israeli response."

    While Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) declared:

    "The unilateral Palestinian move is a hostile initiative. I think it is brazen. The initiative is meant to torpedo any chance for negotiations. It must be made clear that any unilateral declaration on their part that is meant to deteriorate the chances for negotiations needs to be accompanied from our side with annexation of territories in Judea and Samaria."


    Broadly, what he was referring to were the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria — not all of Judea and Samaria, which would include areas that are heavily Arab-populated. Within Jewish-populated Judea and Samaria are some major community blocs, a few cities, a scattering of smaller villages, and that small part of Hevron that we control, with Kiryat Arba immediately adjacent.

    Caroline Glick, in her column last Friday, made a similar suggestion. She said that — in response to the various pressures and attempts to diminish us that we currently endure — it's time to incorporate into Israel all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, plus the Jordan Valley, which is crucial for our security.

    Technically, the process would not be one of annexation, for these areas are part of unclaimed Mandate land. All we need to do is claim them, by extending Israel's civil law to these regions — just as we extended civil law to eastern Jerusalem and the Golan. (Communities in Judea and Samaria today are administered under Israeli military law.)

    While ALL of the land is ours from the river to the sea, extending Israeli civil law to areas such as Ramallah would be a "tad" difficult now. This could have, and should have, been done in 1967.

    But how marvelous it would be if we made it clear to the world that Gush Etzion, and Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, and Shilo, and Beit El, and Jewish Hevron (see below) and Kiryat Arba, etc. etc. are all fully under Israeli sovereignty. That there could be no expectation, ever, of our returning to pre-67 lines. And how wonderful for the residents of these areas, finally and at long last, to be governed under the same laws that govern residents of Tel Aviv.

    What Landau was suggesting was something that would be done only in response to a unilateral Palestinian action.

    But to have this mentioned in a Cabinet meeting... a move in the right (double entendre intended) direction.


    That Prime Minister Netanyahu was thinking roughly along the same lines was made clear later in the day yesterday.

    For the past two days a major Forum has been held here in Jerusalem, run by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy (which is part of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC and is directed by Martin Indyk).

    Last night Netanyahu addressed the Forum. His talk included this:

    "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel."


    Today, Landau, in cooperation with Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, has carried this one step further, proposing legislation with regard to extending our sovereignty. The full content of that proposed legislation has not been spelled out (if indeed it is even worked out), but what seems clear is that it is conceptualized as a response to a Palestinian unilateral move.

    But now Landau was a bit more specific, and a great deal more expansive, in terms of what areas he is talking about: "Israeli sovereignty over all of area C." (Citation from the Post.)

    This refers to the division of Judea and Samaria agreed upon with the Oslo Accords: Area A = full PA control, Area B = PA civic control and Israeli military control, and Area C = full Israeli control. This encompasses an area far greater than that of all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria combined — which comprise less than 5% of the whole.

    Designed as it would be to counter Palestinian unilateral action, it would render a Palestinian state an impossibility.

    I hasten to caution, however, that unless we're pushed a whole lot harder, something like this is not likely to go very far in the Knesset. In fact, it's most likely to go nowhere. More's the pity.

    But I like it that this is entering the political discourse.


    I would like here, in this context, to recommend an article by Timna Katz, "Love of the Land: The Testing Ground of Shdema":

    "The lesson of Oslo is tragic but profound. Oslo turned the 'peace process' into the country's supreme value and goal. To keep this process going, the Israeli leadership was prepared to sacrifice almost every Jewish and Zionist truth. It exchanged the old values and ideals for a realpolitik that served the enemy's narrative and goals. Even when the results of Oslo proved to be the polar opposites of its intended goals — war instead of peace, increased Arab rejectionism instead of increased Arab acceptance, international isolation instead of international normalization — Israel continued down the same disastrous path. The one and only justification against total capitulation to Arab demands that Israel mustered was the 'security' card: Israel can't immediately relinquish all of Yesha because she has no choice but to defend herself against 'terrorism'.

    "While the damage of the above approach has been great, its bankruptcy has become so evident that even current leaders who continue to dance to the Oslo tune have started to pay lip service to the old values and truths: that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People and Jews cannot be 'occupiers' in the Biblical heartland and cradle of their civilization."
    http://rickscafamerican.blogspot.com/2009/11/ love-of-land-testing-ground-of-shdema.html


    Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has predicted that the chances that a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state would receive Security Council sanction are very low. In addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today, he said:

    "...the Americans also understand that unilateralism buries any chance for peace. They will be very uncomfortable with such a move." And indeed, US senators visiting here today expressed displeasure with PA intimations of unilateralism and the expectation that the US would veto this.

    Leiberman then reiterated the government position:

    "Any unilateral move will be met with a unilateral move on our part. We have a lot to do in response."

    And he made a very significant point:

    "Unilaterally declaring a state is a violation of the agreements [the PLO] signed with Israel, and Israel will also be freed of its obligations."


    What irks me the most is the way in which the PA continues its eternal role as victim — in this instance painting itself as the negotiating partner ever-eager for peace that has had to confront an intransigent Israel.

    Consider this statement today by Ahmed Qurei, member of the PLO Executive Committee and former PA prime minister:

    "So far we have made negotiations our top priority, but this has led nowhere apart from additional settlements, creating facts on the ground and reinforcing the process of Judaizing Jerusalem."

    "...as people living under occupation, we are committed to looking into other options. Diplomacy is an option, turning to the UN is an option, the popular struggle is an option. All options are available and we have many possibilities."


    I will remind one and all that:

    [] The PLO is still committed to Israel's destruction, having never amended its charter.
    [] The PA during the entire period of Oslo has supported terrorism in one guise or another.
    [] The PA textbooks are still rife with incitement.
    [] The PA idea of negotiations is to make intractable demands without conceding anything. They are still seeking return to pre-67 lines (including in Jerusalem) and return of "refugees."
    [] The PA was twice offered a state in negotiations and twice turned it down.
    [] Since the formation of the PA via Oslo over 15 years ago, this authority has neither built proper infrastructure nor established the civic underpinnings for a responsible and self-sufficient state.

    Note: The PLO is the over-arching umbrella organization that ostensibly speaks for all Palestinians; it negotiated the Oslo Accords. The PA is the (theoretically interim) administrative entity established by Oslo. In reality the two are broadly overlapping.


    Former president Bill Clinton also spoke at the Saban Forum. He talked turkey to the Palestinians, telling them, "Take where we are and the reformulation of the settlement issue and find a way [to move forward]," by which he meant it was time for them to stop making a federal case about the fact that Obama had insisted on a settlement freeze and then backed off on that.

    But he also threw statements at us — in an attempt to push us along — that were either inaccurate or unreasonable. First, he used the demographic card, telling us that because Palestinians are having children at a faster rate, our Jewish state is at risk. But this argument has been disproved by statistics in recent years.

    And then he said that it was only a matter of time before Hamas would be able to put a GPS system on its rockets launched into Israel. "The trajectory of technology is not your friend, ... you need to get this done and you do have partners."

    This facile warning, this attempt to frighten us into an agreement, on the face of it is nonsense, because we're currently supposed to be negotiating with the PA in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza is outside the loop in any event.

    Why do ostensible leaders (or former leaders) persist in ignoring this elephant in the room?


    "The Good News Corner"

    This past Shabbat we read "Chaye Sarah" as our Torah portion. It tells of the death of Sarah and the purchase by Avraham of a field, which held a cave, for Sarah's burial. This was in Hevron, and Avraham paid Ephron the Hittite 400 silver shekels for it. (Bresheit 23:16) All of our patriarchs and matriarchs, with the exception of Rachel, are buried there, in the Ma'arat HaMachpela. (The original double cave is hidden way beneath the current structure.)

    It is customary in recent years to visit Hevron during the Shabbat of this reading. But this year was incredible: 20,000 people came. They were hosted by families in Hevron and in adjacent Kiryat Arba. They slept in yeshiva buildings and in tents.

    Surely this is something akin to a miracle, and echoes the theme of the awakening of our people that is emerging slowly now.

    For more about the Machpela: http://www.machpela.com/. Enter the site, take the tours.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Benami, November 16, 2009.

    This was sent by J. Doron on the "peaceful commemoration by the tolerant majority of Muslims."


    From a friend in Houston ..

    Today I went to the Harwin Central Mall to pick up some crystals. The very first store that you come to when you walk from the lobby of the building into the shopping area had this sign posted on their door. The shop is run by Muslims. I couldn't stay in the building, it made me so sick.

    Feel free to share this with others.

    Imam Ali flew one of the planes into the twin towers.

    Nice huh?

    Contact Benami by email at farme@012.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Plaut, November 16, 2009.

    Friends, I have at long last come to a realization. The only way to create stability and peace in the Middle East is through creating a new independent state and homeland in Palestine and moving all of the Palestinians into it.

    I am of course referring to Palestine, Texas.

    Yes, there is a town in Texas named Palestine and frankly I think it would be a wonderful place to erect a homeland for Palestinians. The weather is not all that different from that in the area of the Land of Israel referred to incorrectly by some people as Palestine.

    Moreover, there are oodles of advantages to moving all of the Palestinians to Palestine (Texas).

    First, their water problems would be solved. Palestine, Texas is home to the lovely Lake Palestine. Second, the largest employer in Palestine is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. I guess that means the prison authorities. And who better to host the large number of Palestinians moving in to town and making them feel snug and comfortable!

    Moreover, Palestine has a rich cultural and historic heritage. The town's web page claims there are more than 1800 historical sites in the town. It even has its own "Old City," its own 'Ir 'Atika, called, well "Old Town." (See this photo of it at

    Palestine was where the Space Shuttle crashed. It also has a wonderful history of accommodating itself to those with strong religious beliefs. David Koresh, the whacko who ran the religious cult calling itself the "Branch Davidians," set up his first religious camp in Palestine, Texas. The Palestinians could name the site "Al Aqsa," if they wish. After all, they have as much bona fide theological connection to that site as they do to East Jerusalem! The founder of the "Branch Davidians," a flake named Victor Houteff, wanted to set up the new Kingdom of King David there in Palestine, Texas. And he was into having dozens of virgins as his reward also!

    Palestine has parks and a library and a YMCA. Just like Jerusalem! There is a nice branch of the University of Texas at Tyler that operates in Palestine. I am sure it could be renamed Bir Zeit or Ben Gurion University. It even has a gazebo. Take a look at downtown Palestine here at
    http://thm-a04.yimg.com/image/1154918c89fa4da2 There is even some oil in the ground nearby.

    And best of all, it really is not too far to commute to Fort Hood in case any Palestinian still wants to protest occupation!

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Saul Issroff, November 16, 2009.

    This man should be appointed King of the World. Truer words have never been spoken.

    It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Austrilia's beliefs. Whole world Needs A Leader Like This! This is his speech below.

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd — Australia

    Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

    If you agree please SEND THIS ON and ON to as many people as you know.


    Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..

    Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:

    'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

    'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

    'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!'

    'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

    'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

    'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

    'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Boris Celser, November 16, 2009.

    This below was written by Tom Gross and is archived at
    http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjdlNzNmNTViMmIx MWQyZmVhNWUwZGMyN2FjNjI0MmE=&p=1


    Tomorrow evening, Britain's Channel 4 will broadcast a one-hour documentary, called Inside Britain's Israel Lobby hosted by Daily Mail journalist Peter Oborne, a well-known critic of Israel and America. The preview of the program on the website of Channel 4 (a channel which is more highly revered among many in Britain's intelligentsia than even the BBC, despite it having invited Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver its annual Christmas message last December 25) reads:

    Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.

    Despite wielding great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby.

    Political commentator Peter Oborne sets out to establish who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.

    He investigates how accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny the lobby is, particularly in regard to its funding and financial support of MPs.

    The pro-Israel lobby aims to shape the debate about Britain's relationship with Israel and future foreign policies relating to it.

    Oborne examines how the lobby operates from within parliament and the tactics it employs behind the scenes when engaging with print and broadcast media.
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/ series-42/episode-1

    If only.

    Whereas there is a pro-Israel lobby with some influence in the U.S. (though not the kind of influence ascribed to it by anti-Semites), contrary to what Channel 4 and others think, there is no effective pro-Israel lobby in Britain.

    The complete lack of any effective pro-Israel lobby in Britain (as opposed to well-organized anti-Israel groups) helps explain why some of the coverage of Israel in the British media is among the worst in the world, and sometimes rivals the Iranian and Egyptian media for its sheer nastiness.

    It also explains why Britain failed to back Israel last week at the U.N. General Assembly vote on the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes, while other democracies — including the U.S., Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Macedonia, and the Czech Republic — voted with Israel.


    Interestingly, the makers of the program contacted the Community Security Trust (CST) for interview. The CST has got nothing to do with lobbying for Israel. It coordinates security activities with the British police to protect Jewish schools, synagogues, and other institutions from attack. Physical attacks on British Jews are running at near-record postwar highs. Per capita, British Jews have in the last couple of years been attacked more than any other religious or ethnic minority in Britain.

    The makers of Channel 4's program, Hardcash Productions, wrote last week to the CST's chairman to inform him that they "will be looking at a number of groups and leading individuals who collectively make up the pro-Israel lobby, including the Community Security Trust," and to ask him for an interview.

    When one looks at the advance wording about the program that Channel 4 has placed on its website, it is hard not to conclude that they have been influenced by the many virulent anti-Zionist conspiracy theories spread around the web.

    Already the readers' comments on the Channel 4 website contains many anti-Semitic notions about secretive all-powerful Jewish conspiracies "to undermine Britain and the human race." "The agents of a foreign power embedded at all levels of our government and politics need flushing out," writes one reader.

    Predictably, the program is being promoted on the Internet message board of the far-right British National party and various neo-Nazi websites.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 16, 2009.


    What do the media make of the Ft. Hood massacre and its relationship to Afghanistan?

    NY Times columnist Frank Rich wrote, "The dead at Ft. Hood had not even been laid to rest when their massacre became yet another political battle cry for the self-proclaimed patriots of the American right."

    "Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the defense Dept., the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration. All these institutions had failed to heed th warning signs raised by Hasan's behavior and activities because they are blinded by political correctness toward Muslims, too eager to portray criminals as sympathetic victims of social injustice, and too cowardly to call out evil when it strikes 432 innocents in cold blood."

    "The invective aimed at these heinous P.C. pantywaists nearly matched that aimed at Hasan. "

    Later, Mr. Rich admits, "And it's quite possible that some of what this crowd says is right." (11/15, Op-Ed.).

    If his targets of sarcasm quite possibly are correct, what justifies his sarcasm? Nothing. But he writes, as more and more of the supposedly staid "grey lady" at Times Square does, with liberal invective. Hysteria should be omitted by both liberals and conservatives.

    Consider the emotional opening, about the dead not yet buried before right-wingers find lapses in national security. It is a false emotion. One justifiably seeks to plug a leak while it is leaking.

    Rich calls them "self-proclaimed patriots of the right," but they quite possibly are correct? That is both nasty and a cover-up for the liberals having become less patriotic than during the Cold War. Many call themselves citizens of the world. Their political correctness has helped prevent a proper assessment of the menace from radical Islam.

    I don't know what right-wing hysteria Rich came across, but I read the conservative Wall St. Journal, besides the liberal NY Times. The Journal has a sober assessment. It weights the evidence as it comes in. Indications of ever greater security lapses have been coming in. A fair question is, has the F.B.I. failed to reform its notorious failure to share evidence of crime? The Journal does not accuse government agencies of being conspirators, that is hyperbole.

    Rich should admit that it is too soon to reach conclusions, but a Senate investigation of some agencies may be warranted when the Army finishes its own.

    Rich accuses right-wingers on the warpath against the shooter and his possible Islamic motive and association of opposing the proposed new Afghanistan war strategy. That strategy calls for more troops, partly in order to be able to win the friendship of the people of Afghanistan, who are Muslims.

    I do not see the self-contradiction Rich does. I think that if we can prevent Islamist terrorism here, we should, even while trying to win friendship abroad. They and we have the same enemy! How we handle ourselves, whether with professional objectivity or with hysteria, is the key.

    I don't know whether Afghanistan is too corrupt for us to save it, or whether American has the staying power. We need to study the issue and combine our talents, not be partisan about it, the way Rich is. The Journal is conducting itself the right way about this, at this stage, in asking questions.


    A new book on competing religious and ethnic claims in Jerusalem was co-authored by people on different sides. It is an unusual collaboration. One co-author is Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al-Quds University. He usually is portrayed as a moderate, the label lending him credibility. Not mentioned was a way of assessing his decency, for example, his having let Al-Quds U. use its chemistry classes to teach bomb-making.

    Another misinterpreted statement is that the visit to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon, "set off riots that heralded a Palestinian uprising." The riots were prepared for Arafat by Barghouti, who exploited and distorted Sharon's inoffensive visit into a religious affront. Sharon did nothing wrong. It hasn't occurred to the Times that Palestinian Arab leaders are rabble-rousers, and their rabble too easily roused, possibly because of their religious notion of superiority. A co-author hinted at that by explaining that Muslims consider the whole compound a mosque. They think they should have exclusive religious access.

    The article: "More recently, the authorities on both sides have accused both Jewish and Islamic extremists of incitement, and there have been sporadic clashes between the police and stone-throwing Muslim protesters on the mount this fall."

    The NY Times should not resort to the question-betting, vague Israeli terms, "incitement" and "extremists." For decades, the Palestinian Arab leadership has fomented violence and even war. Certain religious Jews want to pray on the Mount, but do not incite to violence.

    Again, the article: "The lack of archaeological evidence of the ancient temples has led many Palestinians to deny any real Jewish attachment or claim to the plateau." Attachment need not come from archeological evidence. Otherwise, why wouldn't the Times point out that there is no archeological or any other evidence to support the Muslim claim of the site's holiness to them?

    But there is archeological evidence of the Second Temple and archeological evidence of the Jewish presence at the time of the First Temple. Ironically, while claiming no evidence for them exists, the Muslim Waqf destroyed much of it. Also, the Second Temple existed in historical times, and the record shows it.

    Mr. Nusseibeh urges a stoppage by "Israeli-led archaeological excavations near the mount that threaten Muslim relics" that "totally flout what is divine!" Why doesn't he urge stoppage of illegal Arab construction that could have collapsed the whole Mount down and that destroys Jewish artifacts?

    By contrast, Israeli excavation endangered nothing, despite malicious rumors spread by Muslim leaders. Israeli archeologists to not threaten the few Muslim relics they find — they are professional, not political.


    Commemorating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rabin, Bill Clinton remarked that if Rabin had lived, he would have made peace within three years.

    Not true. The polls showed his opponent, Benjamin Netanyahu, well ahead. Rabin's assassination caused Netanyahu, whom Rabin's Labor Party smeared for the assassination, to drop in the polls. He barely eked out a victory. If Rabin had lived, his party would not have gotten a sympathy vote, and he surely would have lost (www.imra.org.il, 11/15).

    Clinton is mistaken for another reason, too. He assumes that peace is up to an Israeli leader. He supposes that such a leader need only make more territorial concessions. Actually, PM Barak did, but Arafat spurned them. In any case, the cause of war is not territory but religion, specifically jihad. No Israeli leader can reform Islamic approval of jihad. It is not up to Israel to make peace, when the Muslim Arabs do not want genuine peace.

    Implied by Clinton is criticism of Rabin's successors for not having made peace. That shows that, at least publicly, Clinton does not understand the jihad-Israel conflict.


    Iran plans to set up Internet police, to deal with crimes via Internet. Iran's police chief attributes 26% of crimes to slander and lies (www.imra.org.il, 11/15).

    When a totalitarian regime gives a reason for its action, there is no reason to give it credence. What Iran refers to as slander and lies may largely be accuracy and truth. But when the Internet statements criticize either the regime or anything Islamic, truth in an Islamic country is not a defense, they want to ban it. Notice that mere protests caused police to beat, arrest, torture, and murder Iranians.


    Arab protestors broke through a gate in the Israeli security wall [probably just a fence, there] near Tulkarem. They rioted, but Israeli police arrested some. The arrests were noted by Anarchists Against the Wall, an Israeli group.

    The protestors claim that the fence cut off Arab farmers from some of their fields, and they did not get permission to enter them (www.imra.org.il, 11/15).

    Jews often lead Arab protestors, though the article was not clear about that. The route of the fence has been greatly changed by court appeals. Israel tried to place many openings in the fence and arrange for Arabs to pass through, so why violence? The article did not state that violent protests are staged almost every week, about the fence in general. Where are the protests against Arab terrorism that caused Israel to erect a fence?


    California Gov. Schwarznegger signed an alliance with Israel on renewable energy. Both parties have companies specializing in the new technology, into which the U.S. is pouring billions of dollars. The companies will pool their research in order to produce results (www.imra.org.il, 11/15).


    Israeli President Peres, speaking in Brazil, said that Israel should relinquish Judea-Samaria, and get peace. He claimed that his statement was coordinated with PM Netanyahu.

    National Union Party head MK Yaakov Katz believes Peres. He cited Housing Minister Ariel Atlas, who said that Netanyahu ordered him not to approve any new housing in the area.

    Katz asserted that voters are getting disillusioned with the Left, including Netanyahu. Many voted for Netanyahu, because they believed his professing to have learned from his [appeasement-minded] concessions. But he has not changed. Netanyahu also gained votes from the efforts of Moshe Feiglin, a religious right-winger who urged his own followers to try to gain influence in Likud and therefore voted for Likud. However, since he was a rival of Likud, Netanyahu had the part switch Feiglin to a place on the candidate list so far down, that Likud did not get enough votes to elect him. Katz hopes that all these votes will accrue to his party, staunchly nationalist (IMRA, 11/15).


    Claiming that the Alavi Foundation is a terrorist front for Iran, the U.S is moving to seize four mosques, an officer tower in New York, and other Alavi assets. The Foundation lawyers will contest the action.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, November 16, 2009.

    Four films this week merit consideration as related thematically. They concern killing, death, genocide and the future of mankind in surviving these scourges. WORSE THAN WAR, by the noted archivist and nazi-era historian, Daniel Goldhagen; Florence Berkowitz Siegelberg's THE ROAD FROM DESTRUCTION; DEFAMATION, by Yoav Shamir; and the uplifting cheer of Andrew Jacobs' FOUR SEASONS LODGE.



    Directed by Daniel Goldhagen
    Reviewed by Marion DS Dreyfus

    Historian Daniel W. Goldhagen (HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS) and his documentary, Worse Than War, treats the why of genocides the world over. His less-inflammatory term for the concept is eliminationism. "Genocide" lives among tricky definitional thickets. Goldhagen states resignedly that, on this issue, "The UN is absolutely useless," and cannot — and will not — do a thing to stop leaders from underwriting and designing the planned extermination of the minorities and populaces they choose to eliminate. Goldhagen says the conundrum is that, were these murderous leaders (Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Montt, al Bashir et al.) to have attempted to destroy outliers, people from beyond their borders, they would have been stopped. But inside a sovereign land, the thought goes, they cannot be stopped because it is an "internal matter," though it is not.

    We asked why decent colleagues could not fix their heads around the glaringly obvious that the Fort Hood massacre was a deliberate planned attack over many months of prep, buying guns, giving away household goods and food, giving away that book that encourages murder of all of us who don't bow to the pederast thief illiterate prophet. Intoning as he killed the magic suicide killer refrain, Allahu Akhbar. His personal card says on it: SOA = Soldier of Allah. Not a secretive sort; a man who wanted to kill as many of us as he could.

    Goldhagen, the historian struggling to master his disgust as he spoke with mass murderers in the fields of Rwanda, and to the mass murderer in Guatemalan public administrative offices where 25 years ago he slew so many, getting away absolutely Scott free, who genially smiled and denied the public record of his thousands upon thousands of murdered Maya tribesmen for no reason at all except inconvenience, smiled wanly at my question and explained that people fear the implications of such clear signs of endless desire to kill. Goldhagen's elderly and uber-articulate father (who has lectured at Harvard with courses on the Holocaust) accompanies his son on a reluctant revisiting of the site where thousands of his villagers in Prussia/Romania/Poland were murdered in cold blood, into open graves. How his family survived is a miracle that protrudes in the moist eyes and laconic surrealism that afflicts the videographers and historians as they encounter the ghosts of the past.

    This film is harrowing — Serbia (Thousands of longtime muslim locals shot to death), Germany (6+ mm Jews, other white Russians, Gypsies, and more), Bosnia, Rwanda (450,000 Tutsi hacked to pieces with hatchets), Guatemala (200,000 maya slain), Turkey (genocide — 1 mm dead — against the Armenians, which the Turks deny still) — the dead from these countries and others mounts to higher than all the war dead in history — just in the 20th century alone. And the ongoing sore of the rape of millions of black animist and Christian blacks in Sudan, where al Bashir does not give a rap about the world's opinion, and blithely says "We have oil, so we don't have to listen to anyone."

    So the Janjaweed continue their decade-long massacre and vast rapine of their own countrymen (though non-co-religionists). I have worked on this Sudanese issue for more than a decade, and have participated in buying back slaves ($250-$500 per slave-life) from Sudan, many of whom now live in NJ, and are devout Christians.

    Goldhagen's suggestion remedy: "The calculus of greed versus loss has to be countered by the cost of their crimes." His recommendation: Substantial bounties on the heads of all mass murdering leaders. All survivors of massacres and eliminationisms in their countries, Rwanda prison, Bosnia, Guatemala and elsewhere — agreed that such an incentive would pretty much eliminate the casual fearlessness of these autocrats who murder masses because they know they will never be held to account.


    Directed by Andrew Jacobs

    A joyous hand-held documentary on the 60-year-long vacation resort up in the Catskills where some 100 Holocaust Survivors come together annually to dance, play cards, dine together, revel in each other's love and comfort. Having no relatives of their own from the Europe of WWII, they love each other as the families they lost forever under the Reich's plan to extirpate all Jews. A remarkable commonality among these Polish, Rumanian, Austrian and Hungarian Jews is that though they came to the US with nothing at all, they are now healthy, well-off, largely optimistic parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Their joy is palpable. This documentary could as well be called Triumph of the Spirit — and mean it.


    Created and Directed by Florence Berkowitz Siegelberg A documentary from the heart, with an even tighter budget that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, this 2-hour labor of love explores not only the overview history of European anti-Semitism in the past millennium in matter-of-fact voice-over accompanied by the bleeding of maps and country borders, but also itemizes the Nuremberg Laws, and the many restrictions on Jewish citizens' freedom to live, act, work or earn money in any profession as the 30s marched into the Night of Broken Glass, Krystallnacht, that signaled the brutal start of the hitlerian war against 'his' European Jews in earnest. What never fails to stab one in the entrails is the information that after the Stormtroopers and Gestapo and average Germans ransacked and burnt hundreds of priceless homes and synagogues, concert halls and schools to cinders, breaking the windows of every Jewish-owned business they could identify (these were Germans, so homework had of course been done long before 9 November 1938)

    It is technically rougher than most documentaries available commercially; with its in-depth interviews of some 10 Holocaust Survivors from Germany, Austria, Hungary, Rumania, Poland, Italy and Greece and elsewhere during the war years complementing the chilling historical and legal passages, however, viewers are treated to nearly astonishing true stories of escape by a whisker or eyelash. These are articulate men and women in their 80s and 90s, all living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, all attendees of the synagogue known as "OZ," Ohav Zedek (Love of Justice) all of sound mind and tearful memory, who detail for those who might not yet know how anyone made his or her way to Switzerland, over mountains and rivers, into France and the UK, oftentimes to Israel or the US. Most of these interviewees were fortunate in having been from privileged backgrounds. Indeed, had their families not been quick to use every particle of their considerable assets to obtain passports and papers, transit through unfriendly way-stations and "acquired" temporary religions and friends, we would not have them, and their grateful children and grandchildren, today.

    Why another documentary on what some might think they know, about a blood-drenched time?

    TRFD is an invaluable witness to what transpired 60 years ago. It captures stories not elsewhere told. It traces the path of grim violence and inconceivable brutality of the massively documented effort to kill every one of the world's 18 million Jews. THE ROAD FROM DESTRUCTION is a faceted, welcome addition to the historical cachement that we have no permission to forget.


    Directed by Yoav Shamir

    Director Shamir, a louche Israeli, asks: What is the measurable extent of anti-Semitism today: USA, Europe, the World? Shamir travels with Abe Foxman, controversial head of the Anti-Defamation League, on speaking engagements, and on accompanied tours to Israel, monuments to the Holocaust dead, and the Holocaust Museum in Israel. He does not stick to just those who would aver massive anti-Semitism alive throughout the world today: He ventures into interviews with well-known antagonists such a Norman Finkelstein, himself the son of Survivors, who is bizarrely antagonistic toward the commemoration of the damage and history of the Holocaust. He interviews scary "former" Nazis. He speaks with the Orthodox and the assimilated, not forgetting the ADL staffers themselves. His tracking of a busload of Israeli teenagers as they travel to Auschwitz and other camps for the first time is revealing for the gradual disintegration of their tough-guy Sabra exteriors, to unstoppable eventual weeping and grief as they come to feel and know the significance of those piles of baby shoes, those hillocks of shorn hair and bifocals.

    The film title cuts both ways. To some, it might represent just the defaming and caricaturing of a noble people who have been tormented beyond reason for centuries, and even now, in the US, is still the #1 recipient of hate crimes and attempted attacks in synagogue and elsewhere. To others, the film coverage itself produces an unsatisfying resolution at seeing and hearing the vile frothings of those who have some not-hidden agendae to spout, and some unwarranted personal attacks against those who work ceaselessly to soothe and delete the calls for killing even the Jews of today. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/536605/blogs/ view.php?id=625124#blogs_main

    Contact Marion DS Dreyfus by email at mdsdm

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Daily Alert, November 16, 2009.

    The U.N.'s Goldstone commission missed a chance to promote accountability on 21st-century battlefields.

    This was an editorial in yesterday's Washington Post.


    IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians.

    Was that toll "disproportionate" to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime?

    This is the sort of fraught question that the United Nations and its Human Rights Council, in theory, ought to be focused on. Asymmetrical wars, in which terrorists and insurgents deliberately mix among civilians, are the story of the 21st century so far — and there are no clear norms for managing the moral dilemmas they pose. Can a drone's targeter knowingly expose civilians to injury if a terrorist leader is in range? How should a civilized army respond when its soldiers are mortared, or its own civilians exposed to rocket fire, from a position inside a schoolyard?

    A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict.

    But Israel refused to cooperate — and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.

    By pretending it did not know whether Hamas employed such tactics and by claiming that Israel's actions were driven by a motivation to kill civilians on purpose, rather than to defeat Hamas, the panel dodged the hard issues it should have tackled. It did not seriously attempt to balance civilian deaths against the threats Israel was targeting or to understand the real motivations for the destruction in areas from which rockets were launched at Israeli cities.

    As it happens, Israel is ahead of most other nations in managing these issues. In Gaza its forces used thousands of e-mails, phone calls and even non-lethal explosives to warn civilians away from airstrike targets. Its army's criminal division is investigating 45 complaints of abuses.

    A broader, government-sanctioned independent investigation is called for: a number of specific allegations in the Goldstone report, one-sided though they are, deserve a full answer. Not just Israel but the United States and many other nations ought to face more pressure to justify the means they use to fight insurgents and terrorists. Sadly, the only thing proved by the Goldstone commission is that the United Nations is incapable of performing that service.

    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 16, 2009.

    Most people view miracles as 'one-time' events, such as the parting of the sea during the Exodus from Egypt, or the sun standing still at Givon. But I have news for anyone who so thinks: there are miracles that are continuous acts of G-d.

    A number of examples come to mind, but at the present, the phenomenon at the forefront of my thoughts is none other than: Hebron.

    A few months ago we marked the eightieth anniversary of the 1929-Tarpat riots and massacre which decimated Hebron's age-old Jewish community. A small group which returned in 1931 was expelled by the British in 1936. Who could have imagined that Jews would ever return to this holy city, especially following the Jordanian occupation during the War of Independence?

    Even in the midst of the Six Day War the Israeli government attempted to prevent Jordanian participation in the battles, but Hussein, carried away by is own propaganda, began shelling Jerusalem. The result was Israel's liberation of the Wall, Temple Mount and all of the holy city, as well as Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people.

    Who would have believed that an ancient city such as Hebron could be repopulated by Jews, a city left vacant of Jews following the horrid 1929 massacre? But it happened.

    At no time in the history of the world has a people been able to literally 'return home' following a 2,000 year old exile. No people has ever been able to gather in the exiled, from the four corners of the earth. No people has ever been able to reestablish an ancient language, the tongue of the sacred, the letters and words of the Torah. This is not only renewal. It is rebirth. It is a stage in the revival of the dead.

    But the miracle does not stop there. After all, an infant does have life, an infant can breath and eat, but little more than that. An infant must also survive, living long enough to grow, learn, and develop, physically and mentally. That can be more difficult than the birth itself.

    But so it has been. No lack of difficulties, acting as stumbling blocks, have stood in the way of advancement. A plague, a disease called anti-Semitism, an inbred hate of Judaism and Israel, struck immediately, attempting to stamp out the newborn life at its very inception. Yet that affliction was unable to wipe out the inner yearnings that had lived within the souls of the almost lifeless body called Israel. Israel's essence refused to yield, breaking through the eggshell of infancy to being a full-fledged global presence.

    Despite attempts, again and again, of that potentially fatal affliction, Israel overcame. And it was only natural that the sign of triumph not only be progressing forward, but also, no less important, reaching back to the beginnings of our existence, to the roots of our collective soul, from which we evoked the strength to keep alive for thousands of years, from which we were able arouse the inner fortitude to negate the deadly viruses attempting to destroy us.

    It was only natural that the Jewish people would return to Hebron, to Ma'arat HaMachpela, to the original city of David, to the cradle of civilization, to the foundation of our existence.

    Over the years attempts continue to cut off, or renounce those roots. To no avail. This past Saturday over 20,000 people compressed themselves into one huge body of Am Yisrael, in the holy city of Hebron, to take part in 'Shabbat Hebron,' when we read in the Torah how Abraham paid Efron the Hittite 400 silver shekels ($750,000 today) for a field and a cave at the edge of that field.

    It is no small feat to host 20,000 people for 24 hours, but residents of Hebron and Kiryat Arba, working together, did just that. And these 20,000 people joined the over 150,000 Jews and gentiles who visited Hebron during the holiday season. And these tens of thousands joined the half a million who visit Hebron each year.

    But the trials continue. We can never stop and rest, not even for a moment. The infectious bacteria are still at work. Next Saturday night Hebron's US affiliate, the Hebron Fund, is hosting its annual dinner event in New York. This year's occasion has taken a unique turn, being held at Citi Stadium in Queens, new home of the New York Mets. For the past few weeks germs have been eating away at the Mets front office, trying to convince them to cancel the event. However those courageous people refuse to kowtow to them and call off the dinner.

    But that is not enough. We must ensure that hundreds and hundreds show up at Citi Stadium, next Saturday night (call 718-677-6886 now for details!or go to
    https://secure40.securewebsession.com/hebron.site.aplus.net/ english/form.php?id=4) to prove to those still trying to delete us from the map: Hebron is here to stay!

    A friend asked me how we can associate with the Mets; after all, they are 'losers.' I had two responses: first of all, I remember the 1969 Mets, the Miracle Mets with Tom Seaver, Buddy Harrelson and all the others, who took the World Series in 5 from Baltimore. With them I can certainly relate.

    But much more importantly, the Mets have proven that they are the real 'winners,' denying attempts to prevent Hebron from celebrating at their stadium. Moral victories are much more impressive than 'games won.'

    The Mets have had their miracles, and so has Hebron. Together, with all of you, we will unite to continue to prove to the world: Hebron, Meaz u'leTamid — Hebron, Now and Forever.

    See you Saturday night at Citi Stadium!

    David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 16, 2009.

    This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg.


    1. By endorsing the establishment of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, Israel's heartland, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has revealed his intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Netanyahu simply refuses to take Islam seriously — its implacable hatred of Israel and its undeviating religious-political commitment to Israel's annihilation.

      That he is anxious to resume negotiations with Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas is further evidence that Netanyahu — who is rich in oratory but poor in deeds — is a politician, not a statesman. Abbas, extolled by fools as "moderate," recently selected as his successor Muhammad Ghaneim. Ghaneim, a founder of Fatah, rejected the 1993 Oslo Accords as "too moderate."

    2. Netanyahu has ignored the fact that even a large majority of Israeli Arabs support terrorist attacks against Jews. This has been established by opinion polls and the following facts:
      a. Arab Knesset Members have incited Arab citizens to emulate Hezbollah.

      b. Arab citizens have aided terrorist attacks against Israel.

      c. Arab citizens held demonstrations in support of Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

    3. In view of these facts, let us recognize,
      a. First, that Israel's Arab citizens constitute a "fifth column" that would support attacks on the Jewish commonwealth.

      b. Second, let us also recognize, however, that no Government of Israel is going to expel Israel's disloyal Arabs citizens, which may number more than one million. Even if the Government were so inclined — which can hardly be contemplated — no Middle East state will accept these Arabs. This obviously applies to the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Let us also admit that Jordan is not going to help Israel solve its Arab problem by the old nostrum "Jordan is Palestine." Indeed, no external power is going to help Israel remain Jewish.

      c. Third, let us also admit that the Obama administration is effectively pursuing a non-violent counterpart to Ahmadinejad's policy of "wiping Israel off the map" of the Middle East.

      d. Finally, let us admit that Israel's Government does not have a constructive long-term strategy whose goal is to preserve Israel's territorial integrity and Jewish identity. Indeed, since Israel's government or cabinet has ever consisted of a coalition of five or more parties, each with its own political agenda and partisan ambitions, the pursuit of a coherent, resolute, and long-term national strategy is virtually impossible.

    4. This last mentioned fact induces Israeli government to respond primarily to immediate issues, to be preoccupied with the utterances of American presidents, to be distracted and unnerved by Israel's standing in the world, whether in the United Nations or in world public opinion.

    5. To propose a constructive policy at this moment in time would appear to be an exercise in futility. But we need to go beyond political analysis, which has only led us to political paralysis. We need to be reminded that if we do not address the Jewish problem, or what is required to preserve and enhance Israel as a Jewish commonwealth, we shall be on a ship without a rudder, reacting to currents and waves made by others.

    6. This said, I contend that only Israel can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conflict is actually a manifestation the Jewish-Muslim conflict, which in turn involves a life-and-death struggle between Islam and Western civilization, at the heart of which is Israel. Here I will limit the discussion to Israel's "Arab" problem.

    7. The only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to make Israel increasingly Jewish and proud, on the one hand, and to make its government accountable to the Jewish people on the other! This will result in a steady emigration of Arabs. How can this be accomplished?

    8. Most commentators will say: "Increase the Jewish content of public education." Of course, but no less important, indeed, utterly necessary is basic reform of Israel's political and judicial institutions. Here is a brief program, elaborated in some of my books:

      1. First, Increase the impact of Jewish convictions on those who make the laws and policies of this country. The only way to do this is to make legislators individually accountable to the voters in multi-district elections — the practice of almost every democracy.
        a. Translate into geostrategic reality a groundbreaking study conducted by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group. This study revealed that such is the increase of Jewish fertility rates and the decline of Arab fertility that Israel does not need to retreat from Judea and Samaria to secure Jewish demography. The study shows a solid 67% Jewish majority with Judea and Samaria.

        b. The study also advises Israel to scrap its parliamentary system which makes the entire country a single district where party slates compete on the basis of proportional representation. The study recommends a multi-district voting system divided along the lines of the Interior Ministry's administrative partition of the country. It turns out that with regional elections, Jews will form large majorities in every administrative district in the country except the northern district, where Arabs comprise a bare 52% majority. The internal migration of just 52,000 Jews to the North would overturn that majority.

      2. Second, replace multi-party cabinet government with a presidential system.

      3. Third, have the President nominate, and the Knesset confirm, the judges of the Supreme Court, which has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy whose decisions diminish Israel's Jewish character.

      4. Fourth, enforce the Foundations of Law Act 1980, which was intended to make Jewish civil and criminal law "first among equals" vis-à-vis the foreign systems of jurisprudence used by the Supreme Court.

      5. Fifth, enforce Basic Law: The Knesset, which prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the State. (Overbearing Arabs would be humbled while unassertive Jews would be heartened if Arab parties were expelled for violating this law!) Also, enforce the 1952 Citizenship Law, which empowers the Minister of Interior to nullify the citizenship of any Israel national that commits "an act of disloyalty to the State." The term "act" should be clarified to protect freedom of speech and press.)

      6. Sixth, rescind the "grandfather clause" of the Law of Return, which has enabled hundreds of thousands of gentiles to enter Israel.

      7. Seventh, phase out U.S. military assistance to Israel (now less than 1.5% of the country's GDP), as well as American participation in Israel-Arab affairs. Both undermine Israel's security interests as well as Jewish national pride.

      8. Eighth, consistent with the Torah, and even with Israel's Declaration of Independence, enact a Basic Law stipulating that Israel is first and foremost a Jewish commonwealth to which all political principles are subordinate.

    9. Although there are various proposals for constitutional reform in Israel, their tendency is to multiply the number of political parties which cannot but undermine national unity, which is best fostered by a unitary executive system of government as the Talmudic sages well understood.


    The question arises: What about the so-called Palestinian Arabs, now that Netanyahu has endorsed a Palestinian state? I do not believe that a Palestinian state bordering Israel will come into existence, and for two reasons. First, if Abbas or his successor recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, he will be assassinated, as was Anwar Sadat. Second, a Palestinian state would entail the expulsion of 300,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria. This will not happen. But making Israel more Jewish will lead to a large emigration of Arabs west of the Jordan River. This means that what is needed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the establishment of a Palestinian state, but to transform the State of Israel into an authentic Jewish Republic.

    Critics will say my program for constitutional reform is unrealistic. But those who think Israel can solve its conflict with the Palestinians by economic means, that is, by making them comfortable bourgeois democrats, are living in denial. Consider Israel's own Arab citizens, whose standard of living and opportunities far exceed those of their kinsmen in the Arab world. Yet most of these Arab citizens are committed to Israel's extinction.

    I invite my critics to ponder the experience of the Children of Israel who wandered in the desert for forty years before a generation arose free from Egyptian idolatry. There is no short-term solution to a civilizational conflict.


    *Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 16, 2009.

    Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Boris Celser, November 15, 2009.

    This was written by Noam Schwartz and appeared in
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/extremism-anti-semitism- accomodated-at-london-school-of-economics/


    When introducing Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) at a recent lecture [1], Professor Michael Cox said the school invites such guests to critically engage and debate the perspectives of the speaker. And as a university in a democratic society, he said, the LSE must uphold the principles of free speech, tolerance, and pluralism.

    However, the school's administration and student newspaper, the LSE Beaver, have collectively provided an environment that validates extreme, hateful views of Israel while failing to provide a competing perspective. This has provoked not a thoughtful debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict but instead a race to the bottom — of who can slur Israel the most.

    The LSE hosts hundreds of speakers every year from all political leanings and dispositions, but recently its record is questionable with regard to censorship. Last winter it uninvited conservative author Douglas Murray from chairing a debate on the grounds of security concerns, while in 2006 the school hosted members of al-Muhajiroun (who were later banned under the British Terrorism Act of 2006). And according to the Telegraph, in 1995 the school's Freshers' Fair featured extremist groups [2] promoting an Islamic state in Britain.

    But in this debate the school has not stifled freedom of expression. After all, it did not submit to the demands of professors who wrote to the Beaver [3] saying they were "shocked" and "appalled" by the mere invitation of the deputy foreign minister to campus. The letter, signed by over two dozen LSE academics, scorns the university for giving "extraordinary prominence" to Mr. Ayalon by alerting members of the university community to the event via email. Another professor went so far as to call for an investigation to uncover who invited Mr. Ayalon. Fortunately, the school's commitment to free speech is greater than that of some of its distinguished professors.

    But whatever prominence had been granted to Ayalon by hosting him surely was outweighed by the despicable actions of anti-Israel protesters during the minister's (attempted) one-hour lecture and the tacit approval of these disruptions by the chair.

    Introduced amidst a chorus of boos, Ayalon had scarcely delivered his eighth sentence when various students began shouting obscenities at him and delivering impromptu sermons on their view of Israel. Called a "racist," "baby killer," or "fascist" before he had even commenced his lecture, he was drained out by hostile, ad hominem attacks and struggled to utter consecutive sentences for the duration of the event. The event, entitled "The Situation in the Middle East: The View from the Middle East," turned into a showcase for angry students to vent their displeasure with Israel through vulgar and repulsive remarks.

    While Professor Cox attempted to limit the hostility of the crowd, he did not impart a neutral voice into the debate. He somewhat grudgingly welcomed Mr. Ayalon to the stage and admitted openly to disagreeing with him, thereby encouraging the protesters. Mr. Cox exuded a rather cold demeanor relative to his treatment of United States Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano a few days later. Ms. Napolitano was bestowed with a gift from Mr. Cox, who said he was "delighted" to present her.

    In stark contrast, Mr. Cox asked students to "boo if you want to boo" at the conclusion of Mr. Ayalon's speech.

    When it came to the Q&A session following the "lecture" portion, Cox fueled further ugliness by granting the microphone to the student who was singularly responsible for interrupting the deputy foreign minister more than any of the other three hundred individuals in the hall.

    The student had nothing more constructive to offer than incredulity that Mr. Ayalon conceived of Israel as a Jewish state. He shouted: "Where was your father born?" He argued (wrongly, as Mr. Ayalon pointed out directly afterwards) that Jews are a minority in Israel and had never inhabited the land prior to 1947.

    The refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist has of course been a common thread in the history of this conflict. Just days after the birth of Israel — or al-Nakba ("the Catastrophe") as it is known in the Arab world — Israel's neighbors lined up to eliminate it. To this day, Hamas calls for it to be "obliterated [4]" in its charter. How unconstructive for the chair to reward someone who had shouted obscenities and slurs for forty minutes to further expound this kind of abhorrent worldview.

    While audience members labeled him a "racist" from the start, in fact Mr. Ayalon's rhetoric represented views substantially closer to the center of Israeli politics than of his own party. He pledged that Israel would make "painful concessions," and preached moderation and negotiation as the keys to conflict resolution. He underrepresented the problem posed by continued Israeli settlements, but encountered little willingness on the part of the opposition to debate such issues. An advisor to the Israeli Knesset remarked to me that Mr. Ayalon would never utter such statements to an audience in Israel.

    The LSE Beaver made its editorial view on the topic quite apparent in its news story ("Outrage at 'racist' Israeli Deputy FM [5]"), which contained no evidence to corroborate the claim of racism. The paper mentioned that hecklers interrupted Mr. Ayalon's lecture, but devoted more space to the case of Mira Hammad.

    Ms. Hammad, who repeatedly yelled "Racist!" at Mr. Ayalon, was allegedly told to "f*** off" by a professor sitting next to her. At plenty of other venues, Ms. Ammad would have been shown the door, along with the rest of her hooligans. To the Beaver, she is simply standing up against racism.

    The paper also failed to recount that one audience member was encountered with a shout of "Jew!" when she tried to hush the protesters.

    That the Beaver was able to turn Ms. Hammad into a victim of "intimidation and aggression" is a true testament to the double standard at work whenever the topic of Israel is broached. Since Mr. Ayalon had no legitimate right to speak, it is the protesters, not Mr. Ayalon, who are the true victims.

    The Beaver also published several articles related to Israel leading up to this event. On October 6, it ran a story about the sad situation of Othman Sakallah, a Palestinian who was due to enroll at the LSE for this academic year but is currently in Gaza. Individuals quoted in this article as well as subsequent opinion pieces repeatedly blamed the "oppressive Israeli government" as solely responsible for the plight of Sakallah. The causes of the Gaza War are complicated, and stem originally from Hamas choosing to build up its terrorist capacity rather than build a state after Israel, under Ariel Sharon, withdrew from every last inch of Gaza in 2005. No piece in the Beaver explored any possible ambiguity as to the root causes of this conflict. Likewise, the appearance of Mr. Ayalon on campus did not spark a debate on his views. Instead, the debate was over whether the school should provide a platform for a "racist."

    The ability to hear first-hand from high-level, elected government officials is a privilege, but such events serve no good purpose when the atmosphere bears more resemblance to a sporting match than an exchange of ideas. Had anti-Israel protesters brought with them real arguments instead of empty slogans and obscenities, LSE students may have been persuaded one way or another. The only take-away from this event was that one side of the debate wants no dialogue with anyone but themselves.


    [1] recent lecture:
    [2] featured extremist groups:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ 1382818/Al-Qaeda-terror-trio-linked-to-London-School- of-Extremists.html
    [3] demands of professors who wrote to the Beaver:
    http://thebeaveronline.co.uk/2009/11/02/ an-objection-none-too-academic/
    [4] obliterated: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/ 395702_israelproonline13.html
    [5] Outrage at 'racist' Israeli Deputy FM: http://thebeaveronline.co.uk/2009/ 11/02/outrage-at-israeli-deputy-fm/

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 15, 2009.

    President Barack Hussein Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder may be the best friends of Muslim Terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks and other Muslim Terror attacks. Once they were safely locked up in Guantanamo Prison, Cuba — called Gitmo. But, Obama, in deference to the Liberal Left, had pledged during his presidential campaign to close Gitmo without any deep thought. He and his collaborators had one goal which was to get elected, no matter what the cost to America's well-being and safety.

    Many think that the Obamas are Muslim sympathizers who cannot be trusted with the safety of the American nation when dealing with Muslim Islamist/Terrorists.

    Now, instead of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in military court, the known, self-confessed organizer and planner of 9/11/01 in collaboration with Osama Bin Laden, is being transferred to New York City for a civilian criminal trial. This show trial is expected to take at least two years or more — with the possibility of release due to laws supposedly reserved for U.S. citizens.

    In the earliest days after his capture he asked to be tried in New York. He wanted to be tried and sentenced to death, making him a "Shahid" (martyr for Islam). But, before execution, he wanted a huge public platform to advance the cause of Islam. His goal was to urge more Muslim world-wide, especially American Muslims, to adopt "Jihad" (holy war for Islam). Now Obama/Holder have given him the platform to extend his Terrorist mission.

    Relatives of the 3000 dead victims of KSM are furious with Obama and Holder. This was a dumb, if not biased, political decision by a President who claims to be a Christian but, was raised and trained as a Muslim. One never leaves Islam.

    Representative Pete King of New York made the point that, where Sheikh Khalid Mohammed will be held in a lower Manhattan jail which is a block from Ground Zero, the Twin Towers, and a host of other high profile targets, inviting more Terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    Should there be such an attack based on Obama and Holder's decision to provide a safety net for Terrorists within American civilian law, Obama should be driven out of office by the Congress with Holder fired.

    Never has America been so deeply cursed by a President and his ideological Leftist cronies. Even Jimmy Carter did not display the ineptness of Obama — although he came close.

    The pain Obama and Holder has caused to the survivors and families of 9/11 as well as the entire nation is unforgivable. You can tell how bad it is when the ultra-Left Liberal ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) cheers the decision to use American laws designed for American civilians and transfers these rights to foreign Muslim Terrorists to the American Justice system.

    Apparently, if Osama Bin Laden is caught, Obama would give him the privilege of also being tried as an American citizen and given all the protection that affords such a defendant.

    Regrettably, I do not believe the Obamas like America confirmed by Michelle Obama's original statement when she said "For the first time I am proud to be an American." While she was silenced by the Obama election committee, the family attitude regarding America was clearly an established agreement within that family. They seem to neither approve of America nor America's military — denials and ceremonies notwithstanding.

    What could have been an efficient, safe trial under military jurisdiction, with military secrets protected, far from exposure to risk of Terrorist attacks or rescue is now converted into a show trial, a circus of Media and controversy and danger that will benefit only the masterminds and 'community organizers' of 9/11.

    Obama wishes to trot out his now well-known apologetic policy so the world will admire his presumed fairness doctrine and outreach to Islam — including the anti-American Islamic countries. But, Obama has shown no fairness to the 3000 dead nor to those left behind. This clearly is a President who wishes to jut out his chin in his now infamous pose of arrogance and be applauded by nations who do not admire America. Til now America's enemies have mostly let America live in peace because they were afraid of America's strength of arms, strength of purpose in freedom and dignity for all whom America protects.

    Obama was given an unearned Nobel Prize for Peace by a radical Leftist Nobel Committee who thought that the Grandfather of Terror, Yassir Arafat deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama now wants to earn that false Leftist political prize so the nations will applaud America's descent into a Third World nation.

    For Obama and Holder to re-ignite New York as a target of opportunity for Muslim Terrorists, they should be driven out of office. Clearly, Obama ought to be impeached with Holder judged as complicit in an egregious miscarriage of Justice against all Americans.

    If the five 9/11 co-conspirators who pleaded guilty, are given opportunities to further encourage "sleeper Terrorist cells", then the Obama-Holder conspiracy will have joined their efforts to publicize Muslim requirements to commit Terror in the name of Allah.

    This duo, in their doctrine of false fairness, don't even deserve their office but, rather to be prosecuted themselves for endangering all Americans and cruelly hurting the direct victims of the Terror which Islam unleashed in America's Muslim Pearl Harbor.

    They are not worthy of their offices and they have shamed the American nation.

    But, let us look at the likely underlying selfish and self-serving political motives to eliminate a military trial in favor of transferring the confessed murderers to a civilian court blocks from where they perpetrated their heinous Terror.

    Obama and his obedient servant, Holder, knew that a military trial would be over comparatively quickly since the defendants had already confessed to their roles in the 9/11 planning. These confessions were heard in open hearings, in addition to being questioned in private. But, if they are transferred to a civilian court, experts in law have been estimating the time of such trials would be a minimum of two years, five years and a few have estimated a decade (10 years) of dragging the nation and the victims' families through more Hell.

    Clearly, Obama and Holder knew this and chose the lengthy civilian trial so whatever happened in terms of judgement and sentencing (if any) would occur only AFTER the campaign to re-elect Obama for his second term was over. In politics, timing is everything! This calculated timing also bypasses mid-term elections November 2010 in which many Democrats are expected to lose office. As Obama's ratings plummet, his coat-tails shrink because the voters are disgusted with the "Change" he brought.

    Most of the American people wanted swift justice in what should be an open-and-shut case. But, Holder (on Obama's orders) did NOT want a death sentence to be declared within the year in a military court. Playing for time in the hope that this blunder of his decision to close Gitmo would fade away and the impact on the victims' and the nation of transferring hundreds of imprisoned Terrorists to places in America, including the 9/11 Terrorists will evaporate before elections.

    Be assured, the Chicago politicians, including Obama, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod were burning the midnight oil to minimize the negative effects of a swift trial. Wasn't it Rahm who said something like: "Take advantage of every crisis"? Bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others here to America for a show trial would normally be considered a stupid, political move — unless an early trial and judgement in a military court would be considered politically worse for Obama and the Democrats.

    Obama and Holder knew that, under American (civilian) law, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other four could be freed on a technicality — namely that damning evidence was gained under duress. Additionally, Obama/Holder knew that state secrets on Intelligence gathered on the battlefield and from Gitmo itself, would have to be disclosed in open court — exposing American methodology to current and future Terrorists, putting the entire nation at risk — again.

    I believe this is a political scam that will hang around Obama's neck like a smelly albatross — as the saying goes. But, then again, such crass manipulation works for native African Chieftains, like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, et al — so, why can't it work here in America for Chieftain Obama and his spear carriers — the Chicago manipulators? We don't expect elected or appointed Government officials to adopt roles equal to moles who sell out the nation they ostensibly work for.

    Besides, if you were a Chicago politician, a stretched-out trial fits Rahm Emanuel's doctrine wherein every crisis is an opportunity. In this case, Obama can give lengthy orations about how, what is being done demonstrates his fairness as our messiah just arrived to set things straight.

    I wonder how many glorious speeches Obama will make during the coming years of the trial(s) and how the Leftist Media will, thereby, give him free air time as it was — "because it's news — not a political ad."

    For Obama, his Chicago thugs and his 35 or 45 Leftist Czars and Czarinas, this is the grand opportunity to trumpet his Leftist doctrine of Fairness all through the years of trial. They relish the opportunity to castigate America for squeezing the truth out of Muslim Terrorists for the 9/11 Massacres and all the other Muslim Terrorist attacks — wherever they gathered and executed their diabolical bloody schemes toward their ultimate goal: a Global Caliphate for Islam.

    In addition, Obama can continue to plead with the nations to "forgive us'" for the aid and the thousands of American soldiers killed on the battlefield on behalf of Global Security. This was the grand opportunity to plead for forgiveness for the many times Americans have been called upon to rescue these other countries who so easily caved in to conquering enemies. How they hated America for the Marshal Plan and all the free aid to re-build their economies — through to the present.

    Look at the Leftist subversives Barack Hussein Obama has chosen as his advisors and know that they are only a minor reflection of his ideology: "Spread the wealth"...."Bow down to Islam"...."Reach out to violent Muslim countries"...."Weaken America's connection and support of stalwart allies"......

    And so America must endure endless, needless trials for several years with Muslim Sleeper agents using every moment to launch more Terror.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, November 15, 2009.

    This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.


    This WAR is for REAL!

    To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

    The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

    First, let's examine a few basics:

    1. When did the threat to us start?

    Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001 with the following attacks on us:

    * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
    * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
    * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
    * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
    * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
    * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
    * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
    * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
    * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
    * New York World Trade Center 2001;
    * Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
    2. Why were we attacked?

    Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

    3. Who were the attackers?

    In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

    4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

    5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

    Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
    (see >http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

    Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world — German, Christian or any others.

    Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way — their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

    6. So who are we at war with?

    There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

    So with that background, now to the two major questions:

    1. Can we lose this war?
    2. What does losing really mean?

    If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

    We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question — What does losing mean?

    It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

    What losing really means is:

    We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

    We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

    They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

    The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

    If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

    The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

    Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

    So, how can we lose the war?

    Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

    Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

    President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

    And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

    Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

    No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

    Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

    Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

    And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

    And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

    Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

    Can this be for real?

    The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

    To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned — totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

    Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

    We are the last bastion of defense.

    We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

    We can't!

    If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are > defeated.

    And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

    This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

    If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

    Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

    And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

    They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

    I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

    After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but ourchildren, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

    Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. The cartoon is by Dry Bones, and is not part of the original article.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Israel Behind the News, November 15, 2009.

    This was written by Samuel Sokol and it appeared November 12, 2009 in Israel Behind the News.


    A new report released by the Center for Near East Policy Research, a Jerusalem based think-tank, discusses the possible connection between American military aid and Palestinian terrorism. It is available at
    http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/Assessment_of_ US_Military_Aid_to_Fatah_US.pdf

    The report, "Implications of U.S. Military Training of Palestinian Security Forces," was authored by center chairman David Bedein and deals with the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC), run by Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton.

    Established in 2005, the USSC manages a multinational team of advisors, whose role is to restructure the PA security forces and train personnel. American tax dollars pay for advanced military and constabulary training for the Palestinian security forces at bases in Jericho in Israel and Giftlik in Jordan. The cost of training an entire battalion of National Security Forces (NSF) troops in Jordan is $11 million.

    Since 2008 approximately 2,100 troops, enough to make four battalions, have been trained by Americans in Jordan. The American government utilizes advisors from the DynCorp International Corporation for training Palestinian forces. Soldiers enrolled in American training programs are vetted for terrorist links by the Palestinian Authority, American intelligence and the Israel General Security Services (Shabak). However, there is evidence that many people in the Palestinian security apparatus are also members of banned terror groups.

    The report elaborates. "Salam Fayyad, PA prime minister, reached an agreement with the forces of Al-Aqsa Brigades...not to arrest them as long as they maintained a low profile. Al-Aqsa people are sheltered and receive salaries from Fayyad. When PA security troops were deployed in Nablus, Al-Aqsa people who had not been trained in Jordan and were not vetted received command positions. This included one individual who had engaged in extortion."

    Some members of the Israeli political and military establishment have expressed their support for General Dayton and his program, citing a decline in terror in Judea and Samaria. In contrast, Bedein writes that the willingness to work with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades indicates that the Palestinian Authority is not, in principal, opposed to the use of violence. Operations mounted by PA forces are most often aimed at destroying Fatah rival Hamas, rather than in reducing terrorism.

    Bedein told the Five Towns Jewish Times, "The reduction of terrorism from Judea and Samaria is because of the success of Operation Defensive Shield, launched in April 2002, which placed IDF troops in strategic positions to patrol and surround every possible Arab terror stronghold, so as to prevent terror attacks."

    "Ever wonder why the shelling stopped from Beit Jalla on Gilo in Jerusalem? For only one reason: Simply put, the IDF took back Beit Jalla, quietly and without fanfare."

    Fatah recently has been attempting to reconcile with Hamas, creating the possibility of American trained forces being merged into joint units with Hamas fighters.

    There is also a risk of American trained forces turning on Israel. As Abbas stated, he "reserve[s] the right to resistance" if negotiations do not turn out the way he likes. This occurred during the second intifada when Yasser Arafat had failed to gain his demands by negotiations. During that period, American training was also used against Israeli civilian targets...

    In the report, Bedein commented that human rights have not improved in the Palestinian Authority since the inception of the program. "Palestinian and other human rights organizations report brutality, torture, and arbitrary arrest by those PA security forces trained by both the United States and European Union."

    General Dayton looks on his Palestinian charges with pride. During a military ceremony, he announced to Palestinian forces that he "couldn't be more proud of the fact that you stepped up to be the founders of a Palestinian state."

    However, the nature of that state remains to be seen. A new plan for Palestinian statehood, written by PM Fayyad, discusses restoring unity with Gaza [Hamas] and of implementing Sharia law.

    The report quotes a "prominent Palestinian journalist" as saying that the association between the Americans and Fatah could give Hamas a boost in the polls in the next election. This would certainly prove detrimental to efforts to create a demilitarized Palestinian state as envisioned by Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, every officer in the Palestinian forces is required to swear an oath of allegiance to Fatah. This had led to "elite PA forces trained in Jordan [being] unwilling to stop Fatah militia operations, including extortion and abductions."

    Israeli Maj. Gen. (Res.) Ya'akov Amidror commented regarding the Palestinian security forces' efforts to reduce terror. "There is a huge difference in the Palestinian view between law enforcement, which is seen as legitimate, and anti-terrorism, which is not seen as legitimate...The U.S. confuses the two."

    In the report, Dr. Mordechai Kedar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University is quoted as saying that American trained forces cannot be expected to fight against terror when members of their own clans participate in terror organizations. "...When (not if) there will be domestic problems in the PA/Palestinian State these people will be loyal primarily to their clan [Arabic: hamula] rather than to the state, since they will never shoot their brothers or cousins... you can surely say that their loyalty will be according to the context of the event in which their participation will be required."

    Dr. Kedar spoke with the Five Towns Jewish Times regarding the USSC and its role in the peace process. "On one side, it [the USSC] is good because it strengthens those sectors that might work with Israel, especially the security forces. But on the other side, no one can guarantee that these weapons which the Americans are giving those Palestinians will not be turned against Israel," Kedar stated.

    When asked about the unwillingness of American trained forces to act against the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Kedar responded by saying that the PA forces "can become very easily a terror group against Israel...with all respect to Dayton and his efforts, this is a mine which is being implanted in this area...I'm pretty sure that they will be the front power against Israel when the day comes." Asked if he believed that American training will be used in a war scenario against Israel, Kedar responded in the affirmative.

    Bedein's research indicates that current aid to the Palestinian security forces is in direct contravention of American law. Congress, in making appropriations for Palestinian training, instituted a caveat, "None of the funds appropriated by this act may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that...the elected governing entity of a new Palestinian state...is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling of terrorist infrastructures..."

    Continued Palestinian Authority support for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades means that it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to honestly certify that this provision has been met. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, "Congress wants to ensure that U.S. assistance is used for legitimate humanitarian projects and that no U.S. aid is diverted for military or terrorist use against Israel."

    Bedein recently traveled to Washington to present his report's findings. He spoke with staffers of 25 key members of the U.S. Senate and House and presented copies of his report to make them aware that, in his words, "U.S. military aid to Fatah may backfire."

    Despite being cleared for terrorist ties, some recipients of American training are former leaders of banned terror groups that have received amnesty from Israel as a gesture to build up Mahmoud Abbas...

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 15, 2009.


    In 2005, a high proportion of Israeli draftees volunteered for combat units, indicating a patriotic attitude. It was 69.6%. Now it is 73%.

    Of the November 2009 people considered for a draft, exemptions were issued to: 11.5% Yeshiva study
    2% Medical deferment
    5% Psych deferment
    4.5% Criminal record/draft dodgers
    4% Live overseas (www.imra.org.il, 11/13).

    The bulk of Israelis drafted want to feel they are actively protecting their people.


    Before the Goldstone report, the IDF began investigating its troops' conduct in Gaza. It provided a venue for Arab organizations to submit complaints. 100 complaints received. Arab witnesses were interviewed. 45 complaints have been investigated.

    Investigators found no problem with the general offensive but some individual mistakes. Some of those mistakes got Israeli troops killed. No Israeli troops deliberately killed an innocent civilian (www.imra.org.il, 11/13).

    In recent years, Israeli officers who break the IDF rules of engagement, or make mistakes in judgment lose their commands. That policy was not applied to Yitzchak Rabin in the 1948 war nor to Ehud Barak and other blundering generals in the first Lebanon war. Incompetent leftist officers, some of whom were groomed by the Labor Party for political leadership, were shielded.


    Saudi Arabia is winning its war with the Yemeni rebels, but may not be able to extricate itself from it. S. Arabia announced an arms blockade of northern Yemen. It stated that unless the rebels retreat further from the border, it would pursue them on the Yemen side.

    The rebels were called Shiite, but their doctrine really may be closer to Sunni. That mistake, and Iran's natural inclination, may prompt Iran to furnish military aid to the rebels, in order to tie Saudi Arabia and Yemen down in a proxy war (Robert Worth, NY Times, 11/13, A4).

    Saudi Arabia created a Frankenstein monster when it set out to radicalize Muslims all over. The monster is turning on its creator, just as in fiction. The Arabs in general hypocritically said they oppose terrorism, but excuse the same criminal methods when used against Israel. Gullible Westerners noticed only the Arabs' headlines against terrorism. The chickens are coming home to roost.

    The Arabs created this problem in their Peninsula. It has nothing to do with Israel. Israel could disappear, without peace arriving in the Mideast.


    Haaretz poll question A: "Who is to blame for there being no negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians?"
    Responses: Abu Mazen 50%, Netanyahu 15%, Both to same extent 27%, Don't know 8%.

    Question B:" Do you support that Israel in the future negotiates with Hamas?"
    Responses: Support 57%, Don't support 39%, Don't know 4%.

    Headlines misrepresented the responses to Question B as "57% of the public supports the plan of Shaul Mofaz for negotiations with Hamas." The question did not ask whether they support the Mofaz Plan, which had more to do with what to negotiate for than whether to negotiate. The headlines reflect unsupported assumptions.

    At Mofaz' press conference, he mentioned talking with Hamas only if it recognizes Israel and steps terrorism. That is a big "if." Polls show that most Israelis do not believe that the Palestinian Arabs will recognize Israel and cease terrorism.

    I find that poll questions predicated upon such a condition are a trap. If terrorists become angels, voters might make certain concessions, but since voters doubt such a transformation, they really don't want to make those concessions. Nevertheless, the appeasement-minded Left then proclaims a popular mandate to make the concessions. Those who proclaim it are manipulating those who are naïve enough to believe them.


    Haaretz took a poll of Israelis, including Arabs. It shows a nationalist trend. What is called the "nationalist camp" would get 76% of the vote, Kadima would get 29%, Labor, 6%, and Meretz 3% (www.imra.org.il, 11/13).

    That poll may be accurate within 4%, but its conclusion is dubious. Not its conclusion about the voters, but about the net result. The net result is based on the assumption that since the voters for Netanyahu's and Lieberman's parties are nationalist, and they are the majority, they will get nationalist policies. Some of my readers assume that since Netanyahu talks about being firm, and Lieberman talks as if Israeli Arabs are a fifth column, they would be tough.

    Those assumptions are based on underlying assumptions of Israel being democratic and its leaders having integrity. Neither underlying assumption is valid. Netanyahu is not corrupt, but he broke away from several nationalist or Zionist policies. He gave in to U.S. demands. Terrorism resulted. [So much for U.S. demands!] Lieberman covers his appeasement with bombast. The bombast provides a pretext for anti-Zionists to express indignation, but his bombast does not get implemented.

    Netanyahu has proved weak under pressure. He does not campaign hard for nationalist issues that he can explain well. He is not trustworthy. But he runs Likud! It doesn't matter how nationalist its voters are, he makes policy.

    It is an unfortunate fact of life that false labels are give to politicians, parties, and movements, in order to steer people to desired conclusions. People need to become more sophisticated about labels.

    Political issues can be much more simple or complex than people realize. There may be more than two points of view. An amusing misunderstanding by some of my readers is that I am an agent of Israel. After the faults I have found with the policies and character of Netanyahu and Lieberman as well as their predecessors?


    Adalah-NY petitioned the renter of space to a Hebron Fund event cancel its contract. The Adalah-NY website contains the text it sent to the landlord, making that, so far unsuccessful, attempt.

    The letter has too many details for me to discuss in detail here. The overall case Adalah-NY makes against the Hebron Fund is that it supports Jewish development in Hebron, whose Jews ethnically expel Palestinian Arabs, and do so for racist reasons. That case misrepresents the issues.

    The overall fallacy in that case: (1) The Hebron Jewish community has been the victim of ethnic cleansing by the Arabs in the past; (2) It has suffered Arab riots (and diplomacy) attempting to drive it out; and (3) Palestinian Arabs have committed many terrorist and sexual assaults in recent years; and (4) The Palestinian Authority bars Jewish residency and imposes capital punishment upon Arabs who sell land to Jews.

    All this ethnic cleansing and racism — Radical Muslims depict Jews as inherently evil, which make it an alleged racial trait) — goes unmentioned in Adalah-NY's case. Indeed, Adalah wants Jews out of Judea, their homeland. Now there is ethnic cleansing!

    The letter offers what seems to be much evidence. I notice that it all is one-sided and simplistic. It cites as respected authority organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, ACRI, B'Tselem, the State Dept., and the UN, whose bias I have exposed often. It boils down to Israel-bashing.

    Thus the letter states that Hebron's Jews, always in inapplicable pejorative terms such as "occupied" and "settler," as people "...who are regularly described, both worldwide and among Israelis, as violent racists." Described, that is, by the Israel-bashers mentioned above. The Hebron Jews are accused of violating international law and promoting ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from their homes in Jerusalem. Let's discuss ethnic cleansing in Hebron.

    Jews had lived in Hebron for about three millennia. In 1936, the Arabs there rioted, murdered, and drove out the Jewish community, for reasons of religious bigotry. That was ethnic cleansing. That was violent. That was bigoted.

    When Israel liberated the area, it did not restore the houses to the families of the Jews from whom they were confiscated. Gradually, relatives or other Jews sought to regain those properties. They paid for the property a second time. That is unjust to the Jews, but one cannot say it is unjust to the Arabs paid for relinquishing stolen property.

    Since Arabs get murdered for selling property to Jews, some of the paid Arabs claimed they didn't sell the property. In such cases there and in Jerusalem, the courts have found the Arabs' documents false and the Jews' evidence sound, in once case by videotape. The letter puts this in an inflammatory way, "Taking over homes, terrorizing and expelling Palestinian residents." The 150,000 Arabs in the Arab zone are not bothered, only a few living in houses owned by Jews. Adalah-NY indignation against Jews is misdirected, it should be against fraudulent Arabs.

    Unfortunately for the rightful Jewish owners, organizations similar to Adalah-NY misrepresent court evacuation orders as ethnic cleansing. Israel's governments, being appeasement-minded or anti-Zionist, hesitate to enforce the law, the orders, and contracts. These cases drag on, and become the scene of Arab and Jewish leftist protests, sometimes violent. But if Jews are to be denied enjoyment of their own property, because they are Jews, then the government is biased, but against Jews, like Adalah-NY.

    Adalah-NY makes a broader argument, against the whole Jewish community of Hebron, as well as the Hebron Fund. It cites some State Dept. official's misrepresentation of the Geneva Conventions to call Judea-Samaria "occupied" and Jewish residency there illegal.

    As I have explained before, the area is not occupied, because they were not part of a sovereign country. Ask whose country is being "occupied?" Judea and Samaria are unallocated territories of the Palestine Mandate, to which Israel is the paramount heir. Therefore, Jewish communities in it are allowed. Interested in legality, Adalah-NY? Complain about the thousands of illegal Arabs' houses, often built on land the Arabs don't own and without permits where required.

    Adalah-NY uses the erroneous claim of Jewish residency being illegal in Hebron, to support complaints about the tax-exempt status of the Hebron Fund. President Obama's new stance on Jewish communities is also part of Adalah-NY's appeal to the fundraiser's landlord. The landlord now is supposed to take a politician's word about what is the law, though other politicians have said otherwise?

    The letter also claims that the Jews commit violence against the Arabs. It then claims that the Hebron Fund, by subsidizing housing there, indirectly supports violence. What a weak connection! I find the charge irresponsible.

    Sometimes, streets in the Jewish sector are closed to Arabs. Adalah-NY calls that racist. No, it is not. If anyone were racist, it would be the Arabs, whose frequent acts of terrorism against the tiny Jewish community prompted the administration to close off Arab access. Jews could not pass on those streets without being accosted by Arabs. Why doesn't Adalah-NY acknowledge those many Arab attacks?

    A similar misrepresentation is made of the closing of the old Arab market. Arab terrorists used the market, which adjoins the Jewish neighborhood, as platforms or staging points for attacks. A superior new market was built for the merchants. The Palestinian Authority ordered merchants to stay in the old market, so as to keep confrontation going.

    There has been so much Arab terrorism over the years, and so little Israeli government protection. This includes riots, snipers, attempted rape, etc... No justice for the Jews. What should they do? Perhaps now some Jews do react to the Arab population as the enemy.

    Indeed, the main instances of violence cited were reactions to Arab violence. One is the rampages by the late Rabbi Levinger. I didn't like his style. In reaction to terrorism, he led some followers to car-smashing expeditions into the Arab sector. Adalah-NY omitted this motivating factor, painting the Palestinian Arabs as innocent victims.

    Another event was the Hebron massacre. The evidence allowed into court does not fit the government's explanation. The government acted as if a major pogrom were coming. Perhaps the Jewish doctor accused of the massacre were trying to head it off. That is what my Israeli colleague, who knows the locals, tells me they are grateful to him for, not just for violence against Arabs, as Adalah-NY claims. It also is possible that he was set up by the government. It did have a dirty tricks section of agents provocateurs. They committed violence against Arabs. Their goal was to blame Jews and defame the whole religious and settler movement.

    Anti-Zionist organizations have been accusing settlers of violence for years. Most of those charges either are frame-ups by the government or non-existent. I've reported many cases of Israeli leftists leading Arabs into Jewish areas, to destroy their crops, and to get the government to arrest the Jews if the Jews defend themselves.

    The numerous documented cases of Arab terrorism, however, are real. They took a big toll. If terrorism is a justification for removing people, start with the thousands of Arabs who committed terrorism!

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 14, 2009.

    Twilight Zone

    Wood and Things

    Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to to see more of his graphic art at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Mike, November 14, 2009.

    Once again Islam makes the news with terrorism on Americas soil. The deniability factor is raised to nearly 100% by the media purposely looking elsewhere for the cause as they exhibit their cerebral condition of "political correctness."

    Soldiers who witnessed the shooting at Fort Hood reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire with a hundred bullets hitting 54 people. 13 people are dead as a result. What's so great about a god who approves of killing innocent people in cold blood?

    The 39-year-old Hasan was an Army psychiatrist trained to help soldiers in distress whose own distress was overlooked. The public statement is that he was not known to be a threat or risk as many are trying to piece together what pushed Hasan to do this horrendous massacre.

    While they psychoanalyze this by their own predilection, the answer is simple — "Islam." Yelling "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire settles the question of whether or not it was about Islam. But the media and the administration cannot state the obvious. We are being led toward Islam by not resisting it.

    On his business cards found in his apartment he had SOA printed which means soldier of Allah. His life was wrapped in Islam. Some of those in the Army feared reporting of Hasan's expressed radical views because of what people would think of them, or the possibility of losing their job. In the aftermath we can see it matters more to do the right thing for the innocent than to protect the guilty.

    U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda (he tried 20 times). His name even appeared on radical Islamic websites.
    (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact- al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873)

    Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales told Fox News the massacre did not appear to be the act of a mentally ill or extremely stressed person. "This was a deliberate act of execution."

    He was filmed in Islamic garb that is used in Jihad only a few hours before his insidious attack. Obviously the thought of being shipped out to Iraq to possibly kill his fellow Muslims did not sit well with him, he would rather kill the real enemy of Muslims.

    Hasan went beyond his religious duty as he lived in poverty despite a 6 figure income, supposedly sending his money over to Pakistan — as Moolah for Allah. We now know Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers did when a radical Imam leader was there (whom he was in contact with). After the attack He was called a Hero by the Imam (Anwar) who was at the Mosque.

    The red flags were there all the way through his career but were ignored because of political correctness. He listed his nationality as Palestinian when he was born in America. He gave presentations at Walter Reed on Islamic justice against infidels. "He expressed happiness about the shooting of two soldiers by a Muslim convert outside an Arkansas recruiting center in June. Hasan's comments were reported to Army command, Lee said, but the report fell "on deaf ears." Nov. 5, 2009
    [the Slideshow of Major Hassan
    (What ever happened to everyone using the separation of church and state, did not apply to Islam.]

    It is reported Hasan once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats, that Infidels Should Have Their Throats Cut. Fort Hood murderer repeatedly Told Military Colleagues He was a "Muslim First, American Second."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/ 6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues- that-infidels-hould-have-their-throats-cut.html

    A number of years ago when I was interviewed on a radio program in a discussion with Muslims present in the studio: I posed this question– we have Muslims that claim to be American but are they Muslim Americans? Even the host did not like my insinuation that one cannot be both. But the fact is, the more serious a Muslim becomes at his religion the more he alienates himself to American society and everyday living. Certainly there are nominal Muslims whose religion is westernized and fit into society, but this is not the majority.

    Those who promote Jihad for Islam go into jails and the Armed forces and convert others to join their Islamization. "Muslim Mafia" co-author Paul Sperry says Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating inside the U.S. military — which is too blinded by political correctness to see the internal threat.

    This would not have any merit except for the fact WND.com reports At least a dozen other Muslim soldiers have been convicted of terrorism or espionage since 9/11. Consider Sgt. Hassan Akbar from Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait killed two Americans. He was influenced by the MSU (Muslim Student Association), also Ali Muhammad a double agent that worked for the FBI and collaborated with Al-Qaeda. There are numerous stories that have made the news.

    There has been enough information circulation on how the government agencies have been infiltrated with sleeper Muslims (no different from the Marxists and socialists we now know of in the administration). Former terrorist, converted to Christianity, Walid Shoebat has been warning of Islam, he contends that the US Army, Navy, Air Force, FBI, CIA, Dept. of Homeland Security are all infiltrated with Muslim Extremists. Some very serious decisions need to made when it comes to having Muslims protecting our country, as it is impossible to know whether they maybe honorable or foxes in the hen house."

    Hasan, as a Muslim was given the opportunity for a better life. American tax payers funded 500,000 for his education as a doctor but it did not stop him from spreading hatred of the country until he finally decided to turn his gun on his fellow soldiers because of his religious views. Why? An intentional failure to recognize the ideology that accompanies the Islamic religion. They media and military quickly went to his (Islam's) defense and tried to shift the blame on anything else but his religion. If they finally blame it on his religion it will be called "radical Islam," not Islam itself. There are over 100 verses in the Qur'an that are always interpreted as violence, outright murder against those who are not Muslim, these verses are not ignored in the Mosques. He was known to say we love death more than you love life (standard statement of terrorists). In the book of Proverbs God says, "all those who love death hate me."

    There have been numerous killings by Muslims in America that are considered Jihad but this is the first on an army base. Remember the DC beltway sniper that killed 10 (gone now in history). Muslim convert, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad was against the U.S. military shot two soldiers and killed one of them outside an Arkansas recruiting center.
    www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-01-army-recruiter- killed_N.htm?csp=34.
    An Egyptian Muslim on July 4 shot people at the El Al airport terminal. A Muslim was killed in a shootout with police in NJ recently.
    (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/ 10/son-of-an-imam-killed-in-gun-battle-with-the-fbi-in-detroit- is-arrested.html)

    Many more examples can be cited: don't let the media tell you that terrorism is not taking place on our countries soil.
    See http://thereligionofpeace.com/ in the name of Islam since Sept. 11, 2001 14,362 Islamic terrorist attacks across the world since 911, what happen on Forth Hood made it 14,363.

    Another disturbing aspect of all this is that Hasan had a homeland security advisory role in President Barack

    Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.he Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled "Thinking Anew — Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 — January 2009," in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.

    If they blamed Bush administration because of negligence, can this administration be blamed; especially when he was already being investigated and was ignored! It's as if 9/11did not happen in recent history.

    But this administration no longer uses the word terrorism. The FBI immediately said it was not terrorism. So what does it take to be terrorism, is there a certain amount of people needed to be killed? Does there have to be a group instead of a single person. Ignoring his religion's influence will only deepen the diaprax that is deluding people into complacency.

    Action must be taken to prevent this attack of happening again in the military. Sharia Law mandates that Muslims cannot fight Muslims. If one is a practicing Muslim living by the Qur'an how can he serve faithfully in the military? Obviously, the thought of being shipped out to Iraq to possibly kill his fellow Muslims did not sit well with Hasan; he would rather kill the real enemy of Muslims.

    Political correctness in our agencies that are there to protect us puts us all in jeopardy. It relaxes our guard; and shifts the blame. Along with the new hate crime laws we have become sitting ducks not asking the critical questions that are needed to be asked.

    It's not why he did it (we already know why), but how. If we ask this question we find that someone is at fault for negligence in preventing it. This event is of greater significance to our safety because this is post 9/11, and we are supposed to be more vigilant. Is this only PC-political correctness or should we consider a 5th column in high places? Internal corruption is always far more dangerous than the enemy from outside.

    Walid Shoebat a former Muslim terrorist converted to Christ has this insightful statement "The argument that most Muslims are peaceful is irrelevant. In Germany, most Germans were not Nazis but that did not stop the Nazis from taking control and terrorizing its non-Nazi population. Even if the majority of Muslims are not terrorists or do not support terror, they have shown neither the ability nor the desire to reign in the terrorist element. Because Islam is classified by ignorant people as just a religion, they cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Islam is also a movement that is political, ideological, and all-encompassing. It is the same as Nazism but worse because in this politically correct culture, we focus only on its religious component but fail to study its political and aggressive militaristic nature in history as well as what is happening today. We also deny or ignore the atrocities and genocides committed by Islam in order to dominate its empire as well as spreading itself through its military plunder" (Newsletter Nov.10, 2009 Fort Hood Massacre should be a wake up call for the people and leaders of the USA By Walid Shoebat)

    A Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book exposing Washington-based CAIR's inner workings.

    Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: "Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad."

    What has been openly taking place in England is now coming to our country. America is not accepted by the majority of Muslims that live here. A Muslim group was videotaped condoning the massacre at Fort Hood because it was a military target. "America's chickens have come home to roost," shouted a representative of the group. Just like Rev. Wright who was a "former Muslim" turned Black liberation theologian. WND.com reports a website run by a Revolution Muslim is also honoring the man accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, as an "Officer and a Gentleman," saying his actions should not be denounced." I guess he should get the medal of honor, in Islamic circles his cowardly act is esteemed.

    Considering that naïve and gullible Americans were misled to elect a former Muslim to be president (assuming he is former) who has proven time and time again that he is soft on Islam and a friend to them more than he is to his own countrymen that disagree with his policies. (See this video summary of Obama's personal feelings displayed about Islam

    It appears the so called hate crimes bill was passed only for leverage against Christians, because it never seems to be used on Muslims who exhibit hatred in terrorist acts. But unless we exhibit some backbone and correct our political correctness we will begin to see these terrorist incidents escalate.

    THEN WE HAVE THE ONGOING DRAMA OF RIFQA BARY a 17-year-old Muslim girl who converted from Islam to Christianity. Her Muslim family considers what she did an apostasy and she believes they would kill her by obedience to Sharia law. She sought safety from her Muslim parents and ran away to Florida because her Muslim father threatened her life after she converted to Christianity. She tried to speak out, but has been ignored. Many believe they can be sending Rifqa to her death by returning her to her family. Rifqa is now getting blatant online threats on her face book page.

    The fact is, her situation is not an isolated one. There are Muslim parents threatening and killing their children (often daughters) in America and elsewhere for what they call 'disgraceful dress and behavior. Recently an Iraqi father drove a two ton jeep over his daughter for being "too westernized" The prosecutor has described this as an "attempted honor killing." At a court hearing in Phoenix Arizona, county prosecutor Stephanie Low told a judge that Almaleki admitted to committing the crime." By his own admission, this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family," Low said. "This was an attempt at an honor killing." Another "Taxi boss jailed for threats against daughter"
    http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/11/10/ 11698156.html

    Wikipedia definition: "An honor killing (also called a customary killing) is the murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonor upon the family, clan, or community. This perceived dishonor is normally the result of (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to the family (b) wanting out of an arranged marriage or choosing to marry by own choice or (c) engaging in certain sexual acts. These killings result from the perception that defense of honor justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonors their clan or family."
    *News source Atlas shrugs documents HONOR KILLING: ISLAM'S GRUESOME GALLERY
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/ honor-killing-islams-gruesome-gallery.html Maybe you have not considered America is under siege by Socialists, Marxists and new agers agenda to change the nation from freedom to control.

    The church is also under attack from within from those who want to change its nature and mission. Yoga and unbiblical meditation are becoming popularized in the church. A growing Green movement has churches joining with the new age movement on environmental issues disregarding that we are headed for a Tribulation. Instead, they want to save the planet from a non — existent global warming threat that is a proven hoax. Even the health care issue has churches getting politically involved.

    Contact Mike at administrator@letusreason.org

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Tsvi November, November 14, 2009.

    The "peace" process, as we all know, supposedly aims to resolve the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict. However, there is a powerful rejectionist camp whose objective is the total destruction of the Israeli state. The "peace"-promoting media minimizes its coverage of the rejectionists in much the same way we usually ignore unpleasant facts in our lives. The Arab anti-peace camp includes Hamas which rules Gaza, won the last Palestinian elections in 2006 and is generously supported by Iran. Iran also backs Hezbollah which adamantly strives for Israel's demise and points tens of thousands of missiles at Israel. It fields a well-trained militia that drove Israel out of south Lebanon in 2000 and also inflicted serious damage on the IDF in 2006. Within the allegedly moderate Fatah organization Mahmoud Abbas has his own internal rejectionist lobby. Fatah also operates the al-Aqsa Brigades; many of whose terrorist members are now being trained by US general Dayton as the nucleus of a future Palestinian state's military. Other actors in the rejectionist front include the PFLP, DFLP, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda.

    In one way or another (materially, financially and morally) the Arab and Moslem worlds support one or more of these aggressive groups. Obviously, any negotiations with Palestinian President Abbas whose term of office actually ended in January 2009 (He gave himself a one year extension) is useless and worthless because he really does not represent many people. In view of this situation, it is not surprising that Abbas recently announced that he won't run for office again in January 2010. He was probably influenced by Hamas' declaration that they (Hamas) will not allow any election activities in Gaza and violators will be punished.

    When I think about the "peace" process I think about Santa Claus. Every year from around December 1st we meet Santas in department stores and on television. We listen to songs about Santa, view animated films and parents tell their children stories about Santa. Young people, up to the age of 6 or 7, firmly believe that Santa Claus will bring them marvelous gifts on Christmas.

    The truth is that toys are manufactured in China and not at the North Pole. Likewise, no real peace process can emerge until Hamas, all the other rejectionists listed above as well as Syria and Iran and even Abbas recognize the legitimate rights of the Jewish people. Indeed, on 10 November 2009 the Palestinian newspaper Al Hiyat Al-Jedida carried a statement (translated by MEMRI) by Fatah Central Committee member, Azam al-Ahmad declaring that Fatah never recognized nor will ever recognize Israel. And this is the most fundamental issue in the conflict which is generally overlooked by Obama and Israeli spokesmen and women hell-bent on ending the conflict once and for all.

    A real peace process would have to include the following:

    • The granting of citizenship and equal rights to refugees in neighboring Arab countries.
    • The dismantling of UNRWA.
    • The complete cessation of all hostilities.
    • Recognizing Jordan as Palestine because Jordan and Palestine are one and the same. The people share the same language, culture, religion and history. Large numbers of Palestinians and Jordanians are blood relatives.

    Of course, no normal self-respecting Arab statesman could possibly agree to these measures because they are beneficial to Israel. Put another way, the implementation of these points would result in peace and remove the threats to Israel's existence. What would the Arabs do without an Israeli enemy in their midst? Reform Islam? Solve socio-economic problems? Tsvi November is author of "Israel in Reality: Multicultural Discord and Love in the Holy Land." (Trafford Publishing)

    Contact him tsvinov@gmail.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Debi Ghate, November 13, 2009.

    Thirty years after the hostage crisis, Iranians are bravely challenging their government. Despite the theocracy's attempt to crush these protests, Iranians have once again taken to the streets. Imagine what might happen — the potential benefit to us and to Iran — if instead of declaring that we seek "a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," President Obama had said the following on November 4th, 2009.

    "Thirty years ago today, the American Embassy in Tehran was seized. The 444 days that began on November 4, 1979 deeply affected the lives of courageous Americans who were unjustly held hostage. Rather than atone for this, Iran's theocratic regime has clenched its iron fist to retain power. Once again, we have witnessed the beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.

    "My message tonight is to those Iranians voicing their opposition to the Ayatollah, making it clear his regime does not represent them.

    "To those among you standing up in the face of threats; to those among you saying 'We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, forbid it'; to those among you deciding that it is time for freedom in Iran — we say: you have our encouragement and our respect.

    "To those among you who are wholesale rejecting the oppression of theocratic rule — we offer you our moral sanction. You see, we share your goal of ending the Iranian theocracy and of eliminating the threat it poses to our own nation. We have had the moral right to end it for decades, as have you.

    "To those in Iran desperately seeking liberty: rejecting theocratic rule is critical, but what are you fighting for? Seize this opportunity to fight for a nation founded on the radical principle of individual rights. As Americans once fought for their independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights. The time is now to fight to create a free nation upholding these ideals.

    "Now I recognize that my statements may make some Americans anxious and uncertain. But I have no doubts.

    "It is time for America to unequivocally state that she does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of theocrats. Let us not mince words: they are murderous dictators. "For decades, the Iranian regime has repeatedly declared itself our enemy, chanting 'Death to America' and openly attacking our citizens. We've known it since it took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. We've known it in the form of multiple Tehran-backed attacks on Americans since then: 1983 in Beirut, where explosives killed 241 people; 1985 onboard TWA 847, where Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters killed a Navy diver; 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where bombs killed 19; and the list goes on. America will no longer evade that this regime has orchestrated and participated in three decades of deadly assaults upon her people.

    "This is a regime that calls for jihad on the West; for the violent imposition of sharia law; for Islamic totalitarianism. It provides the leadership for the Islamist movement: educating, training, and financing a multitude of terrorist organizations, including those responsible for the September 11th attacks on our soil. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime — except that we will no longer repeat the grave errors of our past. We know what you stand for, and what threat you pose.

    "But we have much to say to you, the courageous protestors, because you too know what your government stands for, and you despise it.

    "It will not be easy. Our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. It will take courage and conviction. But we are with you as you take your first important step towards real revolution. You have rejected the religious fist that smashes you down. You have spoken. Stand firm, and we will stand with you."

    Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens — a foreign policy of principled self-interest and justice — would take this stand.

    Debi Ghate is VP of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand — best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 13, 2009.


    "Amman, Nov.11 (Petra — Jordan news agency) — Activities of the Global Forum for Moderation's sixth international conference titled: 'Jerusalem: Religion and History' kicked off here today with wide participation of notable Jordanian and Arab intellectuals, clerics, thinkers and politicians."

    Jordan's Minister of Culture called the relationship of Jordan's leadership and people with Jerusalem an historical one. The King declared Jerusalem "a red line." One of the topics was the "Hashemites' effort in building the holy places in Jerusalem." Another official reminded Arabs and Muslims of their duty of protecting "the holy city from Israeli attempts to Judaize the city and change its Arab identity." (www.imra.org.il, 11/11.)

    Expelled from Saudi Arabia by the present dynasty there, the Hashemites retained supervisory privileges over the mosque on the Temple Mount. The people of Jordan, however, do not have an historical relationship with the Mount. Early last century, there were a few Bedouin in Transjordan, when a couple of thousand followers of Emir Abdullah fled there from Saudi Arabia.

    Jerusalem was not of much important to Muslims when they controlled it. A couple of times they gave or offered to give it away. When Jordan conquered it at the end of the 1940s, it meant so little to the Hashemites, that they did not visit the Temple Mount. They let trash accumulate around it, impeding access to it. The crocodile tears they shed over Jewish control of it water their effort against Israel. The mosque needs no "defense."

    Islam does not separate religion from government. Both are expansionist. Hence, the Jordanian rulers, riding on their religious duty, slide into an imperialist role seeking to take over the Old City, the whole city, the whole country, as Jordan attempted by invasions. The regime and other Arabs fabricate Israeli plots against the mosque on the Mount. These plots have been alleged for nine decades, but never materialized, because they never existed. It does not occur to the Arab masses that their agitating leaders have been raising false alarms for almost a century, against a people that conquered its enemies in six days without harming the mosque.

    What about the city's identity? The Old City, built largely by the Israelites, has acquired Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Arab characteristics. The New City was built by modern Jewry. The governments of Israel do nothing to erase the other faith's sites, extremist hysteria by the "moderation" conference notwithstanding.

    The Arabs have resumed their efforts to take over Israel, which reached its first culmination in 1947, and the conference was concentrating on Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a capital city, modern, dynamic, growing, and changing. One of the changes is a steep rise in real estate prices and yet another is an influx of Arabs fearing being left behind in the dreaded Palestinian Authority, should it get sovereignty. Hence there are efforts by foreign Arabs to build more houses for Arabs there, legally or illegally, and some Jewish efforts, mostly private, to buy or build houses there for Jews. Despite anti-Zionist paranoia about a powerful "Zionist propaganda machine," most of the word is uninformed or misinformed about this, and condemns much of the Jews' building, which is legal, and none of the Arabs' building, much of which is illegal. People don't even realize they have a double standard.

    Fact is, illegal Muslim construction on the Temple Mount destroyed archeological sites on it, including many ancient Jewish archeological treasures. (There are very few Arab ones.) The Palestinian Authority leaders claim there never was a Jewish presence on the Mount that they are trying to eradicate it from. Self-contradiction is a characteristic of their imperialist efforts.

    The Arabs turn many occasions, whether at the UN or an academic forum or even interfaith conferences into agitation against Israel or isolation of Jews. They misuse opportunities for reconciliation or peace. They abuse vocabulary, to post labels that deny legitimate enemy claims and assert false Arab claims, such as that the conference was "moderation." People need to become sophisticated to recognize the Arab abuse of vocabulary as part of their drive for conquest.


    Syria's President Assad defined "peace process," at the "Arab Parties Conference" in Damascus.

    He said that it includes not only diplomacy, but primarily "resistance," including violence. He said that victory requires Arab unity in conjunction with allies such as Turkey and Iran (www.imra.org.il, 11/11).

    Arab statements often require a double translation for Western audiences. The first transaction, the one into English, may be difficult enough, if not fluent usage. A second translation is required, because Arabs think differently from Westerners, having a different language root, culture, and values.

    Assad's definition of "peace process" is an example. He defines it the way I have explained the Arabs view it, as combining diplomacy, war, and other means, and ending in conquest rather than genuine peace.

    Another example is his notion of Arab unity. Iran is dividing the Arabs. Iran and Syria are trying to dominate the other Arabs and bend them to their more bellicose stances. Iran's seeks religious and national domination, Syria seeks power and influence. Experts find that Assad's minority sect, Alawite, is akin to Iran's major sect, Shia. Apparently, the Syrian majority sect, Sunni, concurs.


    An Egyptian police convoy of two armored cars and 12 vans seized 200 tons of contraband cement in the mountains of Sinai, from a Gaza smugglers' warehouse. Later, the convoy was ambushed. Six troops were wounded. No further details in this news brief (www.imra.org.il, 11/11).

    Many of the smugglers outside the town of Rafiah, whose tunnels are hidden by houses, are Bedouin. For many Bedouin, smuggling (and raiding) is a traditional occupation. They can be fierce about defending their livelihood.


    Lebanon has a new regime, including Hizbullah Ministers. The regime was asked whether it would consider disarming Hizbullah, as required by the UN Security Council Resolution. The other parties agreed to disarm, but Hizbullah does not. It claims it needs its arms to defend against Israeli "aggression."

    The Prime Minister replied cryptically that he would continue his predecessor's agenda. That agenda did not include disarming Hizbullah (www.imra.org.il, 11/11).

    Since there has been no Israeli aggression and much Arab aggression, Hizbullah obviously wants to retain its forces for aggression, domestically and abroad. Being Islamist, it seeks to help impose a Muslim caliphate upon the world. It is Iran's agent in regional destabilization and conflict.


    President Obama gave an inspirational speech at the UN, but misstated or omitted major Mideast issues.

    He failed to mention jihad, the main reason for regional instability. He ignored the Arab refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of their own. He misled people by claiming that the goal now is "ending the occupation that began in 1967."

    That last statement insinuates that Israel is the source of the problem, whereas Israeli control over the Territories is a result of the problem. The problem is Arab aggression. Arabs committed aggression a number of times before Israel acquired the Territories. The PLO was founded in 1964 to destroy the Jewish state.

    What led to the 1967 war? On May 13, 1967, Egyptian President Nasser announced that two Egyptian divisions would deploy in the Sinai. The move violated international agreements, U.S. commitments, and UN guarantees. The UN removed its peacekeepers.

    The Egyptian divisions started moving toward Israel. Then Egypt announced a blockade of Israel's port, Eilat. Egyptian warplanes began flying over Israel. Syrian and Iraqi forces were ordered to prepare to invade northern Israel. On May 30, Jordan's King Hussein, supposedly a moderate, placed his Army under Egyptian command, and let Egyptian and Iraqi forces into Jordan, which, especially its having seized Judea-Samaria, borders Israel, its main population centers, and its international airport.

    Combat began on June 5 [but the war began with those earlier Arab acts of war]. Jordan invaded, but was beaten off. In self-defense, Israel removed from the control of Jordan and Egypt the Territories they had seized in 1948.

    "The non-Arab, non-Communist world acknowledged all that at the time. Successive American leaders declared that Israel should never be asked to go back to its former vulnerable borders, while the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which specifically linked any Israeli withdrawals from "territories" to achieving secure borders."

    This is what 1967 is all about: not "Israeli occupation" (Zalman Shoval, Jerusalem Post, 10/4 in Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary, 10/8.)

    Jordan and Egypt were very oppressive in the Territories. They were not criticized notably for it. Egypt didn't let the Gaza Arabs work much except as terrorists. Jordan refused to invest in Judea-Samaria nor find any religious significance to Jerusalem.


    Adalah-New York tried to bar the Hebron Fund from holding its annual U.S. fundraiser, in the Mets' Citi Stadium, Queens, New York. The Mets refused to cancel it. The event is to be on Saturday, November 21. (Reservations and info at www.hebronfund.com or at 718-677-6886.)

    The Hebron Fund helps support the Jewish community in the Israeli sector of Hebron. Judaism considers Hebron its second holiest city. It was the capital where David founded the first Jewish kingdom. According to the Bible, its chief holy site, the Cave of the Patriarchs, was purchased by Abraham from a Hittite almost 3,000 years ago, for 300 silver shekels. That sum would be $750,000 in 2009 currency. [One of my critics, "BiasedReporter," called Abraham an illegal immigrant, an absurd concept to apply back then to Bedouin.]

    Why does Adalah New York oppose the Fundraising? According to my source, David Wilder, spokesman for the Hebron Jewish community, it is because they sense the holiness of the city. [I think it is just part of the drive to oust Jews.]

    What is Adalah NY? According to its web site, it is the "'Coalition for Justice in the Middle East' They 'began organizing actions in response to the escalation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip at the end of June and the subsequent [sic] Israeli war on Lebanon in July 2006. Adalah-NY has carried out numerous street protests and educational forums focusing on Israel's assault on Gaza and war against Lebanon, the US' threatened attack on Iran, ...It is a grassroots strategic alliance of concerned organizations and individuals in New York, formed to demand an immediate, unconditional, and permanent end to U.S. and U.S.-sponsored Israeli aggression in the Middle East. In response to the continuing injustices committed by the U.S. and Israel, which constitute gross violations of international law, Adalah-NY stands with the people of the Middle East in their demands for justice, equality, democracy, and respect for human rights."

    Adalah New York is not related to Adalah in Israel, which, according to NGO Monitor, is an organization that represents "former MK Azmi Bishara, who, it may be remembered, fled Israel while still a Knesset Member, for fear of being arrested and tried for treason, for having passed intelligence information to Hizbullah during the 2nd Lebanese war." [He acted like an artillery spotter.] "Most amazingly, according to NGO Monitor, in 2006 they [Adalah in Israel] were funded in the way of almost a half a million dollars by, none other than the New Israel Fund, an extreme left wing US Jewish organization." (hebron@hebron.com, 11/12.) Bishara, like other Arab MKs, violated Israeli law by visiting enemy states, where they encouraged the enemy to attack Israel. What does that tell you about the anti-Zionist political donations by New Israel Fund? My earlier articles explained that international law was violated by Hamas and IAEA treaty by Iran. Israel did not commit aggression and the U.S. did not sponsor its self-defense.

    AdalahNY claims to demand democracy, but we have not heard of its demanding democracy of those radical theocracies, Gaza and Iran, among others. It claims to champion human rights, but not the human rights of the Israeli civilians whom Hamas bombarded, of the Gaza people whose houses and mosques it stores arms in, drawing Israeli fire, and of the Palestinian Arab journalists whom it censors. Those Hamas acts violate international law. Neither does Adalah demand human rights for Iranians protesting against apparently fraudulent elections but beaten for it, nor for Iranians publishing independent journals.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by William Murray, November 13, 2009.

    Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations stated."Whatever the details of the government's case against the owners of the mosques, as a civil rights organization we are concerned that the seizure of American houses of worship could have a chilling effect on the religious freedom of citizens of all faiths and may send a negative message to Muslims worldwide,"

    There is no adverse impact on religious freedom or our separation of church and state providing our religious organizations comply with the nation's laws and do not attempt to integrate their religion or control government. Separation of church and state is a two way street. In the case of Islam that constraint apparently is not being adhered to.

    Contact William Murry at wmurray8@comcast.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Elyakim HaEtzni, November 13, 2009.

    Snippet: A well known Israeli columnist[1] claims that when the Teitl story hit the press, the media played down the most significant factor: the suspect's American origins.

    The Ten Commandments read "Thou shalt not murder" — not "Thou shalt not murder Jews". No one, with no exceptions, is allowed to commit murder. Murder is murder, and terror — no matter who perpetrates it — is terror. Therefore, If Jack Teitl is found guilty, he can be called a terrorist — a Jewish terrorist — with impunity by everyone. That is, by everyone except the Israeli media, who are only permitted to call him an "activist", the term by which they denote Arab murderers and terrorists: e.g.a "Hamas activist", a "Jihad activist". No one has ever heard Israeli radio or television use the expression "Hamas terrorist" or "Jihad terrorist" for the same reason that no one has ever heard an announcer use the words "Barghouti, the murderer" as in the accepted media usage of "Yigal Amir, the murderer". That's our biased media for you.

    No sooner were they allowed to publicize the charges, when the same Israeli media confidently pointed out the contributing causes and motives involved: the forgiving attitude towards the original Jewish underground of 30 years ago; ideological crime, a la Yigal Amir; failure to learn the lessons of Rabin's murder; Rabbinic and other leaders' support for violent activities, and most important: the settlements (how could we leave out the settlements?) which serve as fertile breeding ground for misfits.

    However, the biased commentators skipped one contributing factor that any objective observer would not have been able to miss, the American background of the suspect: his connection with the Marine Corps, his first murder committed while a tourist, and most important: a style that brings to mind the behavioral patterns of other American fanatics, focused weirdly on one idée fixe.

    In the US, there is a grassroots passion for guns. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Owning a rifle and gun collection like the one discovered in Teitl's home wouldn't raise an eyebrow there.

    Four American presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy, and some people believe that another three, who officially died natural deaths, were murdered as well. There were 13 assassination attempts on the lives of presidents, including FDR, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, both Bushes and Clinton. Most of the attackers were characterized by a weird mixture of violent tendencies and shallow "ideology". Teitl's style, in the manner of the handbills he distributed saluting the "Holy Knights of the Lord" who sent "the black bear that killed two Sodomites" in a Tel Aviv bar, fits right in.

    The American "Unabomber", a genius who was an assistant professor of mathematics at 25, lived in solitude in a shack in Montana for 17 years during which period he sent 16 letter bombs to universities and airlines, killed 3 and wounded 23. The New York Times published his political agenda: the fight against limitations of human rights by powerful organizations that came into being due to modern technology. What fertile breeding ground would our media claim spawned him? He was only caught because his brother recognized his writing style. The FBI called him a "domestic terrorist" not a political terrorist. In the US, they didn't take advantage of insanity to reap political profits for any party.

    Timothy McVeigh, a decorated veteran of the Gulf War, blew up the Federal Government building in Oklahoma City: 168 killed (19 of them young children), 450 wounded. He was addicted to guns and owned several rifles and a handgun. What for? "In order to keep survival gear on hand for when the US is annihilated". He was also upset by the FBI's elimination of the "Davidites" in Waco, Texas. He reacted by committing that horrifying massacre. He did not express regret, and up until the day of his execution at the age of 33, claimed that he was sorry that he didn't flatten the entire building.

    President McKinley's assassin (1901) babbled anarchistic idiocies. Anti abortionist groups spawned some madmen who murdered doctors. Are we seriously going to lump them together as "ideologically-politically" motivated, or are we simply going to classify them as certifiable?

    Anyone really looking for a generic profile for the kind of person who does what Teitl is accused of, and not just another opportunity to bash the Right, will find it in his mental state and in the overseas breeding ground from which he immigrated, not at the doorstep of Rabbis and settlement leaders.


     [1]From Chaim Levinson in Haaretz: "Yaakov Teitel, who was arrested last month for suspected murder and a string of alleged murder attempts, was born in Florida in November 1972, the son of Mordehai (Mark) and Devorah (Dianne), American ultra-Orthodox Jews. His father was a dentist, who served a stint in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, and at some point was even placed in forward fighting positions. His mother worked as a medical secretary."

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Robin, a reader of the original article wrote, "Treat him like the rest of terrorists. FREE HIM."

    Elyakim Haetzni is a former member of Knesset. Contact him at ehaetzni@netvision.net.il

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Paul Lademain, November 13, 2009.

    Peace in our land, the peace of Jerusalem, our eternal capital, is one of our oldest longings, expressed in our Psalms and our prayers." Netanyahu

    We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We say: Romanticize longing, enshrine your yearning in your cultural poetry, and thou shalt forever stand frustrated, outside Jerusalem. Please do set aside your romance with yearning and immediately take what is yours: Jerusalem, or else see it taken from you by those who romanticize power and know how to use it. Those who have power and refuse to use it are powerless and most readily vanquished, but those who have power and refuse to use it for the sake of making a good appearance are fools and thereafter perceived and treated as such. Our former president, Teddy Roosevelt, knew this when he said: "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." His predecessor, President Jefferson, did not hesitate to use American naval power to vanquish the Somali pirates. Emulate them, not the peace processors of recent decades.

    Islamic culture is based on warfare and Jewish Wonderfulness can persuade only a handful of enemy warriors to abandon their dream of killing Jews. For that reason alone, we are dismayed by the bad judgment of some of Israel's worst politicians who chose to make Israel even tinier and less defensible than it already was and for no better reason than to receive air kisses and lies in exchange for Israel's land. And so they handed a piece of Israel into the hands of their known enemies. Worse still, these very same politicians turned truth inside out when they rationalized ("just give them what they want and we will have peace") that Israel's lands really ought to belong to the invading foreigners who nonetheless continued to truthfully tell them: "Thank you very much but we still intend to kill Jews and we shall take your Jerusalem for ourselves." Even though the following thought is too painful to be entertained by Jews, we who are not still think about what Israel might have become had Israel kept the Sinai and built Israel on a foundation of strength instead of the quicksand of peace-beggary. We still hope that the people of Israel will rise up to demand a strong leadership who won't wince at criticism and who will stand up to bullying and refuse to accept flattery and resist all bribery and therefore be and remain forever unwilling to piece away Israel for the sake of peace. We say: Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea the way it was once promised to be (by the British Mandate and the League of Nations.)

    Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 13, 2009.

    This article is: Root Causes of Anti-Western Islamic Terrorism (5)[*]


    1. Contrary to the "Palestine Firsters" school of thought, Islamic terrorism is raging the Middle East and the entire globe, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of US-Israel friendship, Israel's policies or Israel's existence. The 1,400 year old Islamic terrorism is not driven by despair, but by local, regional and global religious, political and territorial ambitions, terrorizing Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews. 2. Fact: 100 persons were murdered in an October 28, 2009 bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan, the third largest Muslim-majority country in the world.

    3. Fact: According to the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, 2,809 Pakistanis were murdered by Islamic terrorists in 2008, 2,120 in 2007, 933 in 2006, 511 in 2005, 619 in 2004 and 164 in 2003.

    4. Fact: According to the Institute for Conflict Management, 24,879 Indians were murdered (mostly) by Islamic terrorists during 1994-2005, 1,492 in 2006, 1,413 in 2007 and 1,391 in 2008.

    5. Fact: According to France's domestic intelligence service (DST): Jihadists from Afghanistan, Algeria, and Pakistan returned to (generally pro-Palestinian) France, trained and indoctrinated in handling arms and explosives. They constitute a grave threat for France (NYT, April 8, 2008).

    6. Fact: (generally pro-Palestinian) Britain has become a focus of Islamic terrorism. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who opposed the war in Iraq and supports Palestinian demands, was inaugurated in June 2007 and was greeted by three (Muslim terrorists-engineered) car bombs in July 2007. According to MI5 British Security Service (The Guardian, August 20, 2008), "the most pressing current threat is from Islamist extremist groups who justify the use of violence 'in defense of Islam'... They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices... Nor are they 'mad and bad..."

    7. Fact: Sunni Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorize Shiite regimes, while Iran-supported Shiites terrorize Sunni regimes in the Gulf region, as well as in Egypt and Jordan, in order to facilitate Iranian domination of the Gulf.

    8. Fact: Yemen has become a center of Sunni and Shiite terrorism, logistically and operationally, agitating Yemen and the entire region.

    Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century, in order to settle their domestic and inter-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with non-Muslims, irrespective of the Palestinian issue, Israel's policies and Israel's existence?!

    [*] For further data on the root causes of anti-Western Islamic terrorism please see:

    Part 4: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/ reports.asp?reportId=220981
    Part 3: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/ reports.asp?reportId=183818
    Part 2: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/ reports.asp?reportId=179511
    Part 1: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/ reports.asp?reportId=178303

    Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il This article is #229.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Sheridan Neimark, November 12, 2009.

    The whipping up of unrest around the Temple Mount is part of an insidious campaign to cast Jewish people as modern interlopers

    This was written by Jeremy Sharon and it appeared November 1, 2009 in The Guardian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/01/ israel-jerusalem-history-jews


    The Temple Mount, or al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims, must rank as one of the most sensitive religious sites in the world. The sporadic riots of the past month at the site are therefore particularly alarming, as such incidents have the potential to ignite much wider unrest.

    For that reason, it would seem to be in everyone's interest to reduce as far as possible tensions and friction at the Temple Mount to an absolute minimum. But the statements and actions of a number of Muslim clerics based in Israel, Palestinian politicians and even foreign governments have only inflamed and exacerbated an already explosive situation.

    Of even greater concern is the underlying sentiment behind the recent riots, protests, declarations and denunciations. Whether or not "Jewish extremists" went up to the Temple Mount (and they did not) and irrespective of whether or not they planned to, the violent and vitriolic response to these rumours is indicative of a fundamental lack of tolerance for the religious beliefs of the Jewish people.

    And the incitement has been widespread, coming from both political and religious sectors. The Islamic Movement in Israel, in particular, has made strenuous efforts to inform its flock that Jewish groups were planning to "desecrate", "storm" or otherwise "endanger" the al-Aqsa mosque and arranged buses for worshippers to come and "protect" the site.

    Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch and one of the principal provocateurs, declared to a crowd, "We'll liberate al-Aqsa with blood and fire" and stated that Israel was seeking to build a synagogue on the al-Aqsa mosque. Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad told a meeting of foreign ambassadors that the riots were due to "an assault by extremist religious settlers on the Temple Mount compound". The Syrian foreign ministry decided to stir the pot too, stating "[Damascus] believes the Israeli security forces' invasion of al-Aqsa was part of Israel's scheme to Judaise Jerusalem and destroy the mosque."

    Not one shred of evidence has been presented to back up any of these accusations, the reason being that there simply is none.

    Such baseless incitement over one of the most sensitive places of worship in the world is incredibly irresponsible. The destabilising effect of this agitation undermines whatever small amount of trust there may be between Israeli and Palestinian interlocutors. Additionally, it further inflames wider Arab and Muslim opinion, which is similarly deleterious to the project of tolerance and coexistence in the region. Inventing wild myths about Jewish designs on Muslim holy places can only harm any prospects for the normalisation of ties between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbours.

    Aside from the agitation is the disturbing notion that Jews seeking to visit, or even pray at, their holiest place of worship (the Temple Mount and not merely the Western Wall) should be seen as provocation, desecration or in any other way unacceptable. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are an indelible part of the Jewish national consciousness. The very term for the movement to re-establish the Jewish national home, Zionism, derives from a synonym for Jerusalem, Zion. Every day, three times a day, Jews all over the world turn towards Jerusalem and pray for it to be restored to its former glory; they have done so for nearly 2,000 years. That Jews are actually banned by the Israeli government from praying on the Temple Mount is a quite astounding concession to the demands of the Islamic waqf that administers it.

    But preventing Jews from praying at the Temple Mount is not the only goal. A far more insidious campaign is afoot, one that rewrites history by arguing that there never was any Jewish temple at the site, thereby seeking to delegitimise any connection that Israel and the Jewish people may have to it, and by extension, the land as a whole. In a region in thrall to an epidemic of conspiracy theories, the irrefutable archaeological and historical evidence attesting to the Second Temple alone is sadly deemed insufficient.

    The failure to acknowledge the connection the Jewish people have to Jerusalem is symptomatic of a problem which goes to the heart of the political conflict; that the Palestinian body politic has never reconciled itself to the fact that the Jewish people have deep-rooted historical ties to the land and are not simply foreign invaders who wandered in a few decades ago.

    However politically expedient, Palestinian and Muslim leaders must desist from the incitement against Israel and the delegitimisation of the Jewish people's connection to the land, if there is ever to be any political accommodation between the two sides. If the Palestinian public never appreciates the depth of feeling Jews have for their holy places and their historical homeland, then the state of Israel, within any borders, will forever be illegitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians and will remain a target for eventual removal. Such an attitude poses a tremendous obstacle to the future prospects of peace between the two peoples.

    Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 12, 2009.

    ...to understanding what is going on. Not happy about what I'm seeing. But also certain that what I'm seeing is not the whole story, and that until we know that story judgment is impossible.

    From Washington, PM Netanyahu flew to Paris, where he met with President Sarkozy. News reports today have it that Netanyahu delivered a message to Syrian president Bashar Assad that he would be willing to resume negotiations with Syria at any time and any place, without preconditions. Assad is supposed to be in Paris to meet with Sarkozy today and presumably will get this message.

    Huh? you may be asking. What?

    Assad is the one who has been putting out feelers regarding seeking "peace" in recent days, but has explained that achieving peace doesn't come only via negotiations, it also involves "resistance."

    Syria was the destination point for the horrendous collection of weapons confiscated on the arms ship Francop. Just as Syria has fostered the smuggling of weapons across its border to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in violations of the embargo on arms to Hezbollah. And Assad has declared how solid is his nation's relationship with Iran.

    Does Netanyahu really see it as constructive to have peace negotiations with Syria now? Does he think there may be the opportunity to reach an honest agreement that is beneficial to us?


    I may be one of the last hold-outs on the right. It's possible that Netanyahu has flipped. It's possible he has sold out. (I know I'm likely to hear from people who tell me it's obvious he has.) But I'm going to say what I said the other day: I don't know. I am nervous as hell, but will not yet judge because my information is insufficient.

    I remain ever mindful of the broader context — including the need for support with regard to Iran — that must be factored into the equation. It's a big step from selling Israel out to playing a game in order to position Israel better at a very threatening time. That game is dangerous, but Netanyahu may be proceeding with appropriate intent. May. We have not yet heard about anything that he has actually conceded or caved on. No concessions he has made. It's all worried speculation. And a lot of secrecy.

    Consider this: Assad's unequivocal demand is to have the Golan Heights returned to Syria. Matter of national pride and all that. He always says there will be no peace with Israel without that.

    Netanyahu knows this very well. He knows that this is a pre-condition that Assad insists upon, whether formally or not. Yet he says he is willing to enter negotiations with Syria if there are no pre-conditions. Does he expect at the get-go that his offer will be rejected by Assad? Is he planning a "pretend" negotiation that will lead nowhere?

    Or...is he prepared to relinquish the Golan under the "right" circumstances?

    According to the newspaper al-Arabiya, Netanyahu said in Paris that he would relinquish the Golan in return for peace. The prime minister's office absolutely denies this.


    The Golan is legally part of Israel proper, governed under Israeli civil law. That makes its status different legally from that of Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu cannot simply sign away the Golan — the process would be stringent.

    I will not review here in detail all of the many reasons why we should never, ever give up the Golan. But if this issue becomes serious, you can bet I'll come back to it.


    Let us, for the moment, return to our other headache, the Palestinians:

    A senior official in Fatah announced today that the PA Central Elections Committee is going to recommend that the elections (for president and the legislature), scheduled for January 24, be postponed because it would not be possible for Palestinians in Gaza to vote.

    Gee, what a surprise.


    Understand please that Abbas has not resigned. He simply declared with great drama that he was weary and would not run in the next elections. So... if the elections are postponed until who-knows-when, for the interim he is still PA president.

    And factor this in, as well: According to the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat in London (as cited in IMRA), the Fatah Central Committee has declared itself firmly in favor of Abbas as the candidate for the presidency. (Abbas has been pumping for this sort of endorsement.)

    What is more, according to this paper, in the event that Abbas does decide not to run when the election is finally held, there is no support within the Central Committee for the candidacy of Marwan Barghouti, who is a member of the Central Committee now, but serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison. (The assumption is made, repeatedly, that he'll get out in the course of a trade, and thus be able to function politically within the PA.)

    This is interesting, as Barghouti is frequently touted as a possible successor to Abbas and the man best able to make things happen. There are even left-wing Israelis who have — ludicrously — pumped for this.


    Lastly we have this: According to the Palestinian news agency Maan, Hamas leader Dr Aziz Ad-Dweik has announced that by the end of this month Hamas will sign the reconciliation agreement brokered by Egypt. Egypt has penciled into the margins of the agreement some reservations voiced by Hamas — what, specifically, was not explained, but we know that attending to Hamas reservations can only lead to greater radicalism. At any rate, Hamas now feels its concerns have been attended to.

    Declared Dweik, "By the end of the month you'll hear what will delight your hearts."

    The PA already signed the Egyptian proposal, but will have to sign, or initial, the new, adjusted agreement. No problem is anticipated on this score (but who knows). The signing would signal the beginning of the process of establishing a unity coalition.

    Then there would be a whole new drama to attend to, with a different dynamic in place.

    There are all sorts of heavy implications, regarding the "peace process," establishment of a state, and the training by the US of PA security forces (a big concern). I will visit each of these issues as the situation unfolds.

    I am particularly interested in seeing how those supporting a Palestinian state will respond to a Fatah-Hamas coalition (should it evolve), and what sorts of pretzels they'll turn themselves into as they seek to justify it. I hope that the Hamas reservations are sufficiently blatant in their radical perspective so that it will be impossible to claim that Hamas has "moderated."


    Thank Heaven for Shabbat, especially after this upside-down week. Next posting will be early next week.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 12, 2009.

    When the PC apologists for Islam tell us that Nidal Malik Hasan worked alone, perhaps they could add that from his earliest days as a child he was educated as a Muslim obligated to serve Islam, Koranic (Sharia) Law, and therefore, had many teachers and provocateurs to violence.

    Muslim "Shahids" (martyrs) may be alone when they are the shooters or wearing an explosive vest but, they are linked to all others who assisted in building a mind-set to kill — to plan killing and assisting other Muslims to kill. They are never alone as their apologists would have us believe.

    What's worse is that within every Muslim are the teachings deeply embedded in their psyche that can surface — even in the seemingly most moderate Muslim. When called upon to be loyal to Islamic "Jihadism" (holy war for Islam) calls from Mullahs, Ayatollahs and other Terrorists, they will do whatever they are called upon to do.

    Humane conscience is stripped away and they will kill either as directed or on their own initiative, following submissively what years of brainwashing have taught them to do when the time is right!

    IF being willing to kill "infidels" (non-believers in Islam) in the name of Allah then, it could be said: "All Muslims are or could be excused as being mentally disturbed." Which means that any non (Muslim) believer, be they Christians, Jews, Buddhists or 'others' are fair game to kill by any means available.

    Strict Islamic Sharia law comes first and, any obligation to their host country is merely for show and is discarded when they attack.

    This article below is an item entitled "CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK to attack Fort Bragg". It appeared yesterday in WorldNetDaily


    Iman Zaid Shakir

    A Council on American-Islamic Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book exposing Washington-based CAIR's inner workings.

    Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: "Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad."

    Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.

    "Islam doesn't permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people," Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, "If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that's something else."

    The 82nd Airborne Division's elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw's district. Shaw is CAIR's new chairman.

    The recording of the lecture, which Shakir gave earlier this decade to a Muslim audience in the San Francisco Bay area, was obtained by the authors of the bestselling "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."

    The bombshell revelation comes in the wake of the worst military massacre at a domestic U.S. military base in American history, and the worst Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

    Last week, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly gunned down in cold blood more than 50 of his fellow soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan from Fort Hood, Texas. Eyewitnesses say before opening fire, Hasan jumped up on a desk and screamed, "Allahu akbar!" like the 9/11 hijackers. The suspect fatally shot 13, including a security guard. The death toll is actually 14 when a slain unborn child is counted.

    Imam Shakir also gives his blessing to the use of bombs as a weapon of jihad, as long as the explosives hit "select" targets and are not indiscriminate in their destruction. Civilians can be a legitimate target, he says, if "there's a benefit in that," according to "Muslim Mafia," co-authored by former federal agent P. David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration."

    Even "old elderly men" and "women who are conscripted" — including Israeli and American women in uniform — are eligible enemy combatants in jihad. "This is Shariah," Shakir asserts in a CD recording of one of his lectures in 2001, which the authors obtained from a radical mosque bookstore in Brooklyn, N.Y.

    Shakir, a black convert, has been portrayed as a moderate in the mainstream media, including the New York Times, which recently ran a positive profile of him. His pro-jihad statements revealed in "Muslim Mafia" have not been previously reported. CAIR has sued and obtained a temporary restraining order to censor the book's documentary evidence detailing CAIR's support of terrorism and obstruction of FBI investigations.

    Longtime CAIR advisory board member and chief fundraiser Siraj Wahhaj echoes his friend Shakir's interpretation of jihad.

    "If we go to war, brothers and sisters — and one day we will, believe me — that's why you're commanded [to fight in] jihad," the imam has told his flock in Brooklyn. "When Allah demands us to fight, we're not stopping and nobody's stopping us."

    World Trade Center bombing

    CAIR has invited Shakir back to speak at its events even after the FBI questioned him about a copy of one of his incendiary pamphlets found in the apartment of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing. The pro-jihad pamphlet lauded the "armed struggle" that brought about the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are dying in record numbers from Taliban and al-Qaida ambushes.

    Shakir, who recently confided to the New York Times that he'd like to see the U.S. "become a Muslim country" ruled by Islamic law, is a regular speaker at CAIR as well as Islamic Society of North America events. (Federal prosecutors say CAIR and ISNA are fronts for the terrorist group Hamas and its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and the sister organizations were recently listed as unindicted terrorist co-conspirators in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history.) Recently, Shakir helped host workshops and delivered keynote speeches at banquets held at CAIR chapters in Chicago, Orlando and San Diego, among others.

    "Imam Zaid's speeches are very practical and bring the best out of his listeners," said former CAIR official Ibrahim Moiz, a close personal friend who invited Shakir to speak to Muslims in Maryland, according to "Muslim Mafia."

    The cleric has not tempered his jihadist views.

    "I don't regret anything I've done or said," Shakir has insisted.

    Shakir holds little, if any, respect for law enforcement, particularly the FBI, according to "Muslim Mafia." He constantly belittles the bureau in speeches to Muslims, even warning them that the FBI frames Muslims for terrorism — terrorist acts that he contends the FBI secretly commits.

    "The World Trade Center bombing of course was aided and abetted by our good friends at the FBI," the imam has claimed, in just one of the many wild-eyed conspiracy theories he peddles.

    'State within a state'

    The American Muslim cleric also preaches treason against the United States, according to the book, which hit No. 5 on Amazon.com's non-fiction best-seller list the day after it was released last month. It currently ranks No. 1 in books on terrorism and Islam.

    Shakir advises the Muslim community in America to wage a cultural jihad now, and a violent jihad later — once the proper "infrastructure" is in place.

    He says Muslims should respect American democracy insofar as it can be exploited to help the Brotherhood one day assume power here.

    And the only thing that could stop the Islamization of America, he notes, is if its people rose up and denied the subversive movement the unbridled freedom it's heretofore enjoyed.

    However, if Americans were to do that, Muslims would then be obligated, he says, to exercise their supposedly "divine legal right" to rise up and wage violent jihad, reveals the book "Muslim Mafia."

    "What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims," sermonized Shakir, who continues to be a marquee speaker at CAIR functions.

    For now, he said, following the radical Muslim Brotherhood playbook, Muslims must continue to "create a state within a state."

    IMPORTANT NOTE: The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is suing "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris over the evidentiary documents they obtained during Chris' six-month undercover penetration of the organization, which both the FBI and Justice Department have branded as a terror co-conspirator. As a result of revelations in "Muslim Mafia," the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus is calling for new, wide-ranging federal probes of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. WND has stepped up to the plate, procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country and is paying for the Gaubatzes' defense — but we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now. Go here. Thank you.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, November 12, 2009.

    This was written by Rabbi Tzvi Nightingale


    Looking through some photographs I found inside a drawer
    I was taken by a photograph of you
    There were one or two I know that you would have liked a little more
    But they didn't show your spirit quite as true
    — Jackson Browne

    My father has three birthdays. Yes, three. His biological birthday is May 10, 1924. When he came to Canada after the war, he was too old to qualify as an orphan, so he had to rearrange his age a bit and make himself younger. 5/10/24 became 10/5/27 and he was now born on October 5, 1927. (Please don't tell the Canadian government about this. I would hate to see him deported at this stage of his life.) Oddly, our family has been celebrating this completely fictitious birthday ever since.

    My father was finally liberated from Dachau on April 29, 1945.

    But it is his third birthday that he speaks about with the most emotion; the one that carries the most meaning for him. He spent years in various forced labor and death camps after his town of Staszow, Poland was liquidated by the Nazis in 1942. He was finally liberated on April 29, 1945 from Dachau concentration camp in Germany. My father has never been one to speak at length about his experiences as a survivor of the Holocaust, but he does talk about this one particular day. Among other things, I have heard him praise the American army for quickly delousing the inmates soon after they freed the camp. Being free from the Nazi hell and from the lice that infested his body for so long gave him a new lease on life.

    The day after Yom Kippur I went to my office and did what I do after every Yom Kippur — not much. Not only am I tired from the fasting and teaching, but truth be told, I find the next day to be a bit of a downer. After intensely thinking about life, God, goals and being a better person, and trying to inspire 150 people who come to our Aish center for services, I am just not up to the everyday mundane grind that comes rushing back. So trying to recapture some of the seriousness and meaning of Yom Kippur, I found myself on YouTube and typed in "Dachau" in the search box. The top of the list was a film called Dachau Concentration Camp Liberation.

    It was not a sophisticated piece, by any means. It consisted of photos slowly being panned to the background music from Schindler's List. There were photos of soldiers approaching the camp and arresting surrendering Nazis, a bird's eye view of the camp and photos of the main entrance and a gate with the infamous Arbeit Macht Frei.

    A picture appeared of an American soldier walking on a wall perpendicular to a building, and I wondered, If my father were to see this short film, would he remember some of the structures and buildings? I briefly thought of showing him the film but knew I would not follow through due to his extreme sensitivity whenever the subject of the Holocaust comes up. In all the years I have known my dad, I have only heard snippets here and there.

    At 1:50 into the film a photo appeared that made me hit the pause button. It was a relatively clear photo, a close up of sorts, of three inmates behind barbed wire, all smiling and waving — presumably at their saviors. The short man on the left has an overcoat, obviously given to him by one of the soldiers. The man on the right with the moustache is taller and appears to be saluting. They are wearing the familiar striped concentration camp garb.

    And the man in the middle looks like my father.

    Could this really be my father?

    I began to stare intensely and analyze every detail of the physical features to see if they match my dad's. The widow's peak hairline, the shape of the face, the somewhat larger ear, the gap between his front teeth — all were consistent with his look. Could it be? Could this really be him? I kept asking myself. But the trait that made me think it was him the most was the shape of his waving hand. I have always noticed this about my father, how his index finger curls and seems slightly raised higher than his middle fingers and how his thumb comes to almost meet them. Today, thanks to his arthritis, his hand is almost frozen in that position, and this was the shape of the hand of the man in this photo.

    I immediately emailed the link to my three brothers in Toronto with the subject line, "Something very weird" and told them to pause the film and tell me what they think. By next morning, they agreed that this could indeed be our father in the photo.

    Then things got a little complicated. We were faced with the dilemma of showing this photo to my father. Will it bring back too many painful memories? Should we subject him to an image of himself from so long ago of the most horrible time in his life? What effect would possibly seeing himself in Nazi prisoner garb have on his psyche?

    My oldest brother, Reuben, has always been closest to my father ever since he went to work for him in his meat packing plant at the age of 15. My dad gave him the most noxious job there to discourage him from working at Grace Meats, but packing tripe did not turn Reuben away. They have been very tight ever since. Reuben felt that we should think this through and "sit on it" for a while. "He has not seen the photo for all these years, another day or so will not change things."

    Sid, the next oldest brother and the peacemaker in our family, agreed. Murray and I wanted to show it to him but for the time being we deferred to the elder siblings. But the following day Murray came up with a Solomonic solution: Let's show the picture to my dad's one surviving sibling, Henya, who was with him in the camps earlier in the war and would be able to recognize if this indeed was him.

    Murray called me that morning on his way to Auntie Henya. I told him to call me on my cell as soon as he spoke with her. Murray called me at 12:30 pm. "She was unequivocal — it's him. And not only that, but the man standing next to him with the overcoat was his childhood friend, Herschel D."

    With that Murray then called my dad and asked if he wished to see a photo of himself on the day of his liberation from Dachau. He did. Murray went up to his condo and showed him the picture. With tears in his eyes my father declared, "Yeah, that's me."

    On April 29, 1945 a handful of photos of the liberation of Dachau were taken by Robert Spring, an X-Ray technician serving with the 59th Evacuation Hospital of the U.S. Army Medical Corps. There were 32,000 inmates on that day and most of the photos taken by soldiers were of men too skeletal to discern their identities, too grainy to see any specific faces, or group shots taken from far away. But Mr. Spring decided to take one photo of a random group of nameless survivors whom he would never see again.To the Nazis, the man in the photo was prisoner number 147 963 and for 64 years and five months it was a photo of a nameless prisoner experiencing freedom for the first time in many years.

    On the day after Yom Kippur in the year 5770, Tuesday September 29, 2009, it was discovered that the smiling inmate in Nazi prisoner garb was not just prisoner 147 963, and he was not a random nameless survivor that a heroic soldier happened to capture on camera. He was born Icek Nachtigal, Yitzchak Dovid ben Reuvain, and he goes by the name of Irving Nightingale. He was born on May 10, 1924 but he will tell you that his real birthday is April 29, 1945.

    And he is my father.

    My father and mother today with their 14 grandchildren

    Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 12, 2009.


    Palestinian Arab journalists planned a conference on professional ethics, to be held in Gaza. Upon their arrival at the meeting place, they found that Hamas had ordered the meeting canceled.

    The Palestinian Center for Human Rights denounced this unconstitutional deprivation of the right to assembly (www.imra.org.il, 11/11).

    I remember Arafat acting just like the Iranian clerical regime, on coming to power. He closed independent or dissident newspapers and murdered or beat enough of the staff to make the survivors toe his line. He kidnapped some U.S. reporters, including one from the NY Times. The NY Times did not report that until considerably later, word got out.


    Israel will be holding a water technology exhibition November 17-19 in Tel Aviv. The presentations aim at helping other countries utilize water more efficiently, reduce environmental pollution, and increase use of alternative energy.

    Exhibitors will offer solutions to other countries' and continents' specific problems. "One example is the Israeli-Jordanian Project for Production of Bio-Diesel from Agricultural Waste. The Project, which enables production of alternative energy without harming the production of food is initiated by Israeli and Jordanian companies and will be presented for the first time at the conference." (www.imra.org.il, 11/11. For more information, www.watec-israel.com.)

    Israel has been teaching other countries, especially Egypt, how to farm the desert. Unfortunately, I learned when studying the issue years ago, some Arab countries let much of their water leak before reaching end users. Saudi Arabia has been drawing down its aquifer source, which does not get replenished. I visited some area in the U.S. where the aquifer had been drawn down so much, that buildings collapsed and the road was dozens of feet below its former level. The Jewish National Fund has been building cisterns, but Israel still is over-using water.

    This is in partial answer to an Internet critic, "BiasedReporter," who accepts an Egyptian's unverified accusation that Israel is planning wars to wrest water away from Arabs. To see my article on that accusation, go here:
    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Jordanian-predicts-Israel- will-start-Mideast-wars-over-water

    Some Arab states already are at loggerheads with other states over water allocation.


    Israel just let a large shipment of educational materials into Gaza. It exempts humanitarian materials from its embargo (www.imra.org.il, 11/11).

    Critics of Israel allege great suffering in Gaza. They do not cite any. They do not take into account the extensive tunnel smuggling. They blame Israel for the suffering and not Hamas' insistence on making war.

    I question the ethics of letting humanitarian materials through. The Islamist enemy, with popular support, is waging a terrorist war for eventual expulsion of the Jews or their murder. Providing such materials facilitates that war. If total war is being waged against one, then one may take stiffer counter-measures. What do the Islamists do with educational materials? Just educate? You know they indoctrinate in bigotry and violence. They indoctrinate for coming wars. They have summer camps for that purpose. Children's TV programs, same purpose. Hamas boasts that they are preparing their future soldiers mentally.


    Peace Now leader, Noam Shelef, and my source, Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA, are debating whether Israeli politicians may defy their electoral mandates.

    It started when Yossii Beilin encouraged politicians, "If you are in power with the responsibility for the future of the People on your shoulders and if you are convinced that it is the correct path don't hesitate. Don't knowingly make the wrong decision only because you found yourself saying something in the heat of the election campaign. In any case in the next elections you will face the judgment of the public..."

    Dr. Lerner criticized Beilin's proposal as encouraging fraud and as offering a remedy too late. That is, voters might reject a party after it would have ceded Territories, but it would be too late to retrieve the Territories without war.

    The controversy was on! Peace Now suggested that Israeli politicians would be brave to defy the platform on which voters had selected their parties. The defiance would be to withdraw Israeli forces and residents from areas that voters do not want abandoned.

    In a personally sarcastic way, Peace Now stated that Dr. Lerner writes objectively, but his ideological bias sometimes appears. It claimed that IMRA polling is manipulative. [IMRA polling asks more precise questions, when vague polls are manipulative. I have read the polls and their explanations.] It challenged Dr. Lerner to respond, to demonstrate intellectual honesty, which it doubted he has. Dr. Lerner did respond.

    The proposed politicians' defiance was put as if a carte blanche policy. Thus, politicians could issue campaign pledges with intent to deceive. Dr. Lerner suggested that such a policy would be a fraud [intellectually dishonest], subversive of democracy.

    Peace Now opposes a referendum on the issue. Peace Now challenged Dr. Lerner that if withdrawal is put to a referendum, he should propose a referendum for building in the Territories.

    The problem with a referendum is that unscrupulous politicians could defy that, too. Dr. Lerner cites PM Sharon's doing that with a national referendum on Gaza and a Likud referendum on it. The result was war.

    There is a difference between the two issues, that does not make them comparable, as Peace Now implies. Withdrawal is difficult to reverse, but drastically affects national security. A building freeze can be thawed without troops having to fight their way past an army. Incidentally, the building in, and presence of, Jewish settlements did not stop PM Sharon from a withdrawal. On the other hand, settlement expansion would put pressure on the Arabs to come to terms.

    In recognition of the great difference between the relative permanence of withdrawal and the temporary nature of building, Oslo forbad changing the legal status of the Territories but did not forbid settlement building. (Documentation below.)

    Dr. Lerner is trying to defend his democratic rights. Peace Now knows that the people do not support its ideology [despite the Left's citing polls favoring withdrawals and building suspension, though most polls, when they put the question accurately, find opinion against withdrawals and building freezes]. Unable to win at the ballot box, Peace Now wants to leave it up to more amenable politicians and not have the people ratify or veto by referendum.

    "The question is not the merits of withdrawal or the fruits of withdrawal. The question is if the citizens of Israel should have the right to express their view and have it honored.

    Dr. Lerner concluded, "As for the charge that I hide my agenda behind an appeal to democratic principles. I resent the attempt to avoid my point by somehow stripping me of my right to argue for my democratic rights. (www.imra.org.il, 11/11).

    Peace Now injected personal nastiness into the debate. It is uncalled for. It reflects on them. However idealistic people consider themselves, when they get personally nasty, and when they try to force their policy upon the people, they also call into question just how idealistic their ideology is.

    As for intellectual integrity, Peace Now repeatedly has put forth greatly exaggerated figures about the extent of Arab-owned land in Jewish communities in the Territories. It also hunts up Arabs with false claims to land in those communities.

    Elected officials should have some flexibility, if circumstances change. Peace Now does not claim that circumstances changed.

    Documentation: Article XXXI Paragraph 7 of the Interim Agreement: "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." The meaning of "status" means "legal status". A violation of the agreement would take place if Israel annexed part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip or the PA declared an independent state in the area before the negotiations were concluded. Israeli settlement activity is no more a violation of the Agreement than Palestinian construction."

    "This is not just an Israeli interpretation. 'the Oslo agreement was not clear in the need to stop the settlement machine.'" "That's straight from 'The political agenda of the national liberation movement Palestinian 'Fatah' Submitted to the Sixth Conference of the Movement ' June 28, 2009 Draft." www.fatehconf.ps/pdfs/fatehpolitical.pdf


    The news here is that Haaretz, Israel's far-Left daily, has published a stern rebuke of Jewish antisemitism (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/11, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127159.html The Jew Flu: The strange illness of Jewish anti-Semitism By Uzi Silber, in 5 pages).

    Haaretz surprises us, because usually it condemns Israel for much of its self-defense and has correspondents who encourage terrorism against fellow Jews. Like my earlier analysis of Jewish antisemitism, the newspaper's rebuke categorizes it as an emotional disease, typifies it in some of the same ways as my series on irrational anti-Zionism, has double standards, supports the side that believes in hatred and murder. The newspaper accords with my finding that Noam Chomsky (whom one of my critics cited as his authority against Israel) is afflicted with the psychosis.

    I think that Martin Buber's case is more complicated. He opposed Jewish government, because he thinks that governments have too much power. I can understand some fevered Jewish minds agreeing, after hundreds of years during which the Jewish people had no power. If Buber were rational about it, he would not want to subordinate their people to a government by gentiles indoctrinated to hate them. But as the newspaper explains, the psychosis is accompanied by disloyalty to one's people.

    This disloyalty is something that some of the comments I receive demonstrate is not understood by gentile anti-Zionists. They stereotype all Jews as alike, and assume that all Jews support Israel. False assumption.

    Can we expect more, striking developments by Haaretz? Here's the article:


    The 1930s Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson asked "Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?"

    This is Jew Flu — the virus of Jewish Anti-Semitism, and its Jewish Anti- and Post-Zionist mutations, afflicting a small but inordinately loud minority of Hebrews.

    Its modern symptoms are a rejection of Israel's identity as a Jewish state and a dismissal of its right to defend itself militarily, while embracing the goals of its nihilistic Arab enemies. Those infected with the virus wildly inflate Israeli sins real or imagined, while excusing or rationalizing Palestinian anti-semitism and outrages against Jews.

    Those afflicted with Jew Flu often view the notion of Peoplehood as an artifice, which implies a rejection of Jewish national self-determination and acceptance of the 90-year-old Palestinian Arab contention that Jews are not a nation but merely members of a religion, and as such don't merit a national home of their own.

    Is Jew Flu a bona-fide illness? Michael Welner, a psychiatrist at New York University, suggests that Jewish Anti-Semitism is akin to a personality disorder, enabling a person to "derive some psychological benefit from this pathological thinking."

    What causes Jew Flu? Harvard psychiatrist Kenneth Levin argues for twin culprits: so-called 'Stockholm Syndrome', where "population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous", as well as "the psychodynamics of abused children who blame themselves for their situation and believe they could mollify their tormenters if they were 'good'."

    Julie Ancis, a psychology professor at Georgia State University says that it isn't "uncommon for a minority group with a history of oppression and persecution to possess internalized self-hatred regarding their cultural/religious identity."

    I'm no therapist, but that won't restrain me from proposing my own theory for the ultimate cause of Jew Flu. More on that later.

    Since the defamations of Jew Flu victims are propagated across the Internet and are extensively documented and challenged in many fine books and articles, repeating them here would be redundant.

    Suffice it to say that Noam Chomsky, Daniel Boyarin, Joel Kovel, Avrum Burg, Ilan Pappe, Steve Quester, Jacqueline Rose, Tony Judt, Naomi Klein, Michael Neumann, Ben Ehrenreich, (the apparently "outed") Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and their ilk, spout pronouncements eerily similar to the propaganda routinely ejaculated by representatives of Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah.

    At the same time, a hearty "shout out" is due those who have made it their business to forcefully rebut the Jewish defamers, including Andrea Levin, Edward Alexander, Alan Dershowitz, David Solway and others. Those interested in a quick and free primer on Jew Flu should download Alvin Rosenfeld's UJA-sponsored brief, "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism".


    Jew Flu, of course, isn't new: It has lurked in our midst for millennia. Jews collaborated with Greeks, Romans and Inquisitors; Bolshevik self loathers displayed savagery towards their brethren; their prophet Karl Marx was described by author Rafael Patai as the "most influential of Jewish self haters", who thought "Israelite faith" most repugnant, and whose rabid anti-Semitism was attributed by the historian Simon Dubnow to "the natural hatred of the renegade for the camp he deserted."

    Incredibly, certain young Jews in Weimar Germany, members of a certain Association of National-German Jews were sufficiently maddened by Jew Flu to attempt to "identify and ingratiate (themselves) with the Nazi Party".

    Jew Flu developed its anti-Zionist strain in the decades preceding the creation of Israel: renowned philosopher Martin Buber of Hebrew University and others actually justified the Palestinian Arab pogroms of 1921, 1929 and the late 30s, urging that desperate Jewish holocaust refugees be permitted to enter Palestine only with Arab permission.

    In 1944, and with the destruction of European Jewry proceeding apace, Lessing Rosenwald, the President of the American Council for Judaism equated the ideal of Jewish Statehood with the concept of a racial state "the Hitlerian concept".

    Following remission during the post-Holocaust years, Jewry experienced a relapse of Jew Flu in the aftermath of the '67 Six Day War. In the U.S., young Jewish radicals of the New Left branded Israel a fascist, colonial power while praising Arab countries as progressive and revolutionary — unsurprising since many were Soviet client states.

    They remained largely silent as Soviet tanks crushed the 1968 Prague Spring — presumably a 'progressive' development.

    New Left sentiments found expression in Israel even during the aftermath of the traumatic Yom Kippur War; at a Tel Aviv reception in late 1973, my mother found herself amid a chatty crowd of cocktailing cultural figures casually dismissive of their own country's right to exist.

    The infection among Israel's cultural elites intensified through the Lebanon War and the two Intifadas that sandwiched the delusional Oslo era. As author Aharon Meged lamented in 1994, there existed "an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel's intelligentsia, and its print and electronic media, with people committed to our annihilation."

    Epitomizing this "moral identification" were the certain prominent Jewish journalists who, according to Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, crucially failed the so-called 'lynch test', by exhibiting an inability to ever criticize Palestinian terror, even following the widely-televised gruesome execution of two Jews by a Palestinian mob in Ramallah In 2000.


    It was at this time that Jew Flu claimed a childhood friend of mine. We?d come of age together in the early '80s, like-minded Zionists, he more "Kahanish" in temperament. Immigrating to Israel the day after graduation, he'd serve in theIDF, settle in Jerusalem, marry, spawn a brood, and settle into the life of an Israeli academic, where anti Zionist stances are common and open identification as an Israeli patriot is tantamount to career suicide.

    Infection struck during the Oslo years: before the millennium was out, the youthful Kahanist yeshiva boy had morphed into a militant Jewish Anti Zionist, mindlessly spouting hackneyed and malicious anti-Israel canards on leftwing and Arab websites, and regularly consorting with a posse of Arab academics in Ramallah.

    This episode recalled a scene from "Radio Days", the Woody Allen movie in which an uncle fasting on Yom Kippur indignantly watches the Jewish communists next door brazenly barbecuing. In Holiday suit he marches out the front door to scold the Reds on their evil ways, only to return shortly after chewing on a chicken drumstick, indignantly decrying religion as the opiate of the masses.

    Those like my friend afflicted with Jew Flu deny their infection, contending that criticism of Israel isn't Anti-Semitism or even Anti-Israel.

    Helpfully, Natan Sharansky formulated his so-called 3D litmus test to clearly distinguish mere Israel critics from Jew Flu victims, and has allowed me to diagnose my old friend.

    As it turns out, the afflicted regularly engage in at least one of the following: — Demonization (comparing Israeli actions to Nazism and referring to Arab refugee camps as Auschwitz); — Double Standards (singling out Israel for human rights abuses while ignoring the blatant human rights violators such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestinian Authority, North Korea, Cuba, China, Myanmar etc); and Delegitimization (denying Israel the fundamental right to exist as a Jewish state)

    During March 2002, Jihadist suicide murderers were exploding on Israeli buses every other day, massacring and maiming hundreds of Jews in a cascade of latter-day pogroms; savage images of Haim Nahman Bialik's monumental poem, "City of Slaughter" blazed across the broken land.

    125 Jews were massacred and hundreds were wounded by Palestinian suicide murderers that month. Yet unsurprisingly my stricken friend declined comment.

    My friend seems to amuse his Arab colleagues: Appearing at a conference some years ago at Cairo's American University, an Egyptian fellow panelist quipped to the audience that our mutual friend was "more pro-Palestinian than me — I am more pro-Israel than him."

    Incidentally, this college has since instituted a ban on Israeli academics.

    At this point allow me to complicate things: It's easy to assume that those struck with Jew Flu would be contemptuous of Jewish religious observance. They often hold Marxist views, which would imply an atheist outlook.

    Yet what one should one make of my friend who performs Kiddush on Friday nights, fasts on Yom Kippur and uses two sets of dishes in his kosher kitchen? Would such Jewish customs be performed by an anti-Semite?

    Knesset speaker Avrum Burg is a lifelong modern orthodox Jew, a skull capped davener whose Jew Flu was latent for years but burst out into the open when he took to smearing Israel in Nazi-like browns.

    Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin are pleasant, prominent and yarmulked professors of Jewish history who don tefilin daily, daven on Shabbat and holidays and are easily mistaken in appearance for West Bank settlers.

    Yet Daniel is comfortable vilifying Israel regularly as a violent outlaw state. And Jonathan admitted to me some years ago during an especially sweaty Simchat Torah "hakafa" on the Lower East Side that his views are identical if not even more radical than Daniel's (if that was possible.)

    Actually, it is interesting that the views of such radical yet observant Jews resemble the tenets of Catholic Liberation Theology. But could such a trio be accused of outright anti-Semitism?

    The Burgs and Boyarins of this world have long revered another devout Jew, the departed Yishayahu Leibowitz, a renowned scholar, recipient of the Israel Prize, and editor of the Hebrew Encyclopedia, a Jerusalemite who habitually referred to drafted Israeli soldiers who happened to be defending his charmed way of life as "Judeo-Nazis".

    Was Leibowitz an anti-Semite?

    Submitting their pronouncements to the Sharansky test demonstrates that even tefilin wearing, kosher food eating Kiddush reciters can speak and write like an Anti Semite


    But back to the elusive cause of Jew Flu: what makes one Jew vulnerable and not another? Wouldn't a far larger proportion of Jews fall prey to Jew Flu if, say, Stockholm syndrome was the culprit? Is there a prime mover, some physiological or neurological smoking gun pointing to a root cause?

    There may be. David Brooks recently reported in the New York Times on research by a Haifa University team led by Reem Yahya who studied the brains scans of Arabs and Jews while showing them images of hands and feet in painful situations.

    Brooks reports that "the two cultures perceived pain differently. The Arabs perceived higher levels of pain over all while the Jews were more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than their own (italics my own.)"

    This phenomenon was epitomized by Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Bolshevik and Jew Flu victim. "I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering," declared Rosa the Red. "Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles? I feel closer to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations of Putumayo or the Negroes in Africa... I have no separate corner in my heart for the ghetto."

    And then there's the modest story Ahmad the cabbie related to me last week as we drove through Eilat-like Palm Springs: Ahmad's brother in Nablus was employed for many years by an Israeli Jewish building contractor. When the outbreak of Intifada in 2000 permanently barred Ahmad's brother from work in Israel, his Jewish boss continued to pay the brother's salary for five years.

    The intriguing research out of Haifa suggests that Jews may very well be inherently altruistic. But while exhibiting more sensitivity to another group's pain is one thing, embracing the goals of people openly committed to one's destruction is a form of madness.

    So here's my ultimate theory for the cause of this nefarious virus: Jew Flu is a condition in which being "more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than (one's) own metastasizes into a malignant emotional and moral identification with people committed to (one's) annihilation."

    Like any other virus, Jew Flu is contagious but containable. Yet ultimately incurable


    An Italian judge convicted U.S. CIA agents of kidnapping a Muslim terrorist, in cooperation with Italian agents. He wanted to convict those Italians, but the evidence against them was classified. The captive had been sent to Egypt for questioning. There, he says, he was tortured. [I suppose that is true.]

    The NY Times of 11/11 approved of that verdict. The Wall St. Journal did not.

    The NY Times emphasized the captives being sent abroad to evade U.S. Constitutional protection from mistreatment.

    The Wall St. Journal emphasized that it really wasn't kidnapping, but a joint anti-terrorist effort. Foreign security officials will be wary of cooperating with the U.S. against terrorism.

    I think that both newspapers made valid points but missed the other's point.

    An end run around our Constitution, and in order to permit torture, is indeed a "national disgrace," as the Times headline put it and the Journal should have.

    The judge's prosecution of foreign agents working with his own country's security agents in order to combat international terrorism that afflicts both countries is unfair and dangerous, as the Journal found, and should have been called an Italian "national disgrace" by the Times.

    The answer is to apprehend but not torture.


    Jimmy Carter wrote an anti-Israel, pro-Arab letter on U.S. diplomacy. He was responding in the NY Times to a column by Thomas Friedman, which declares it futile now for the U.S. to strive for a diplomatic solution to the Arab-Israel conflict.

    I think that Mr. Carter puts it manipulatively. He said, "Mr. Friedman is advocating what some Israelis want and no Palestinian wants: a perpetuation of the status quo..." Carter insinuates that the Arabs want a solution, which they have proved they do not, as by refusing to negotiate, refusing all previous offers, violating their peace agreements that were to lead to a solution, and making demands that would doom Israel. Carter also shades his statement so that it insinuates sentiment against Israel. What does "some Israelis" mean?

    Carter claims that most Palestinian Arabs want peace. The polls and their indoctrination indicated they want to take Israel away from the Jews.

    Carter refers to the Saudi plan that hints at general Arab recognition of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. However, Abbas said he never would, regardless of any peace agreement. The Saudi plan is a snare, not to be taken seriously. It's the old Arab trick of offering something intangible for something tangible. For the enemy, nothing materializes, it dematerializes.

    Then Carter claims that "most thinking Israelis — including Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, all conservatives — have recognized that a continuation of the status quo will be a catastrophe for Israel..." because of the Arab demographic threat. Those particular Israelis were known for blunders, corruption, and leftist policy, particularly poor at thinking things through. The demographic threat was exaggerated by Arafat and parroted unthinkingly, especially by Olmert, but Arab birth rates declined.

    The status quo is not satisfactory, but what Carter proposes, depriving Israel of secure borders and the core of its homeland would be more unsatisfactory. But Carter falls back on discredited buzz words, "diplomatic and economic recognition of Israel within its secure borders, side-by-side with Palestinians in a viable and contiguous state." Giving Palestinian Arab terrorists a state, the heights of the Judean and Samarian mountains, and the Jordan Valley tank barrier from the east, and putting their army alongside Israeli cities, and giving them the sovereign right to bring in arms and armies, does not leave Israel viable. A corridor through Israel to make the Arab state contiguous, may bisect Israel.

    Another reader reacted to Friedman's column by suggesting that the U.S. bring the parties to terms by withdrawing diplomatic support from Abbas, threatening Hamas with military strikes for aiding international terrorism, and threatening to cut off Israel's annual subsidy.

    Can you imagine what judge Goldstone would think of U.S. bombing of Gaza, where Hamas gets away with deploying its troops and arms around civilians, so when some civilians get killed, the world blames not Hamas but the U.S.? In any case, why should the U.S. support Abbas, a terrorist, himself?

    I think that Israel should give up U.S. subsidy. It does Israel more harm than good. It is used as a club against the Israeli military industry and the letter suggests it be used to extort concessions from Israel.

    The reader's mistakenly assumes that the problem is tractable but the participants are not. Actually, Israel would negotiate, but the Arabs' religious motive keeps them from making peace. Were any Arab to make peace, he probably would be assassinated and repudiated. Arafat used to fear this.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Sheridan Neimark, November 11, 2009.

    This was written by Eldad Beck and it appeared today in Ynet News
    http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3802819,00.html Beck is a correspondent of Yedioth Aharonot in Germany. His latest book is Behind the Border, which is based on his visits to different Arabic countries: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.


    BERLIN — The international festival marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall offers a renewed push to the well-oiled Palestinian propaganda machine against the security fence. This campaign has been enjoying wide support worldwide.

    The security fence has become a new version of the Berlin Wall in the simplistic perception of many Europeans a long time ago. This has created a rather broad consensus calling for and acting for the sake of bringing down the "Israeli wall" in the name of principles such as international fraternity and human liberty.

    In the face of this global assault, we must make something that is seemingly obvious (yet many prefer to ignore) clear: Apart from certain visual similarities, there is no connection between the Berlin Wall and the security fence.

    The Berlin Wall separated members of the same nation who aspired, to some extent or another, to reunite in a joint political framework. Meanwhile, the security fence marks, to some extent or another, a future border between two nations that do not wish to coexist in one state, but rather, to split their shared land into two separate states.

    It is surprising that precisely those who for a long time fought for the Palestinian right for their own state now demand to dismantle the security fence. After all, this fence pushed the Palestinians closer to geographical and political division that would constitute a basis for a separate political entity.

    Charges regarding the "apartheid fence" reveal the true motives of the Palestinians and their supporters, who are uninterested in dividing the country and co-existing alongside Israel; rather, they are interested in taking over the entire land.

    Wall of ostracism

    There is another wall in the Middle East which objectors to the security fence refuse to see, not to mention fight against, even though it is this wall that perpetuates the conflict between Jews and Arabs: The wall of boycotts and isolation imposed by most of the Muslim world against Israel since its establishment.

    Despite the peace treaties and despite far-reaching concessions offered by Israel in order to advance on the path of peace, the wall of ostracism has remained in place almost unchanged. Moreover, in recent years, in the wake of the slight openness that accompanied the Oslo years, the wall has become larger.

    Over the years, the dismantlement of this wall of hostility has become — in the eyes of the West as well — a reward Israel may enjoy only if and when it complies with all Arab demands. However, perhaps things should be examined in a wholly different light: Only the toppling of the wall of isolation surrounding Israel would enable the promotion of the peace process. Only this step would facilitate reconciliation between Israelis and Arabs and among Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

    As long as this wall exists, the sides would not be able to get to know each other and it would be impossible to counter the bias that fans the flames of this conflict. The "Middle Eastern Wall" had been established much before the security fence and it bears absolute responsibility for the security fence's existence.

    Anyone who claims that he genuinely wishes to advance peace must enlist to the cause of toppling the wall of Israel's isolation as a pre-condition to any serious reconciliation process — because this wall is the true successor of the Berlin Wall.

    Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 11, 2009.

    November 11 is the day that WWI stopped, 91 years ago. In the US, this day — which was once Armistice Day — is now celebrated as Veterans Day, to honor soldiers who served in all American wars. In light of what is going on at this time, honoring the fighting men who give of themselves to protect freedom could not be more appropriate.

    American with a gun


    But here we sit, and there is the sense of going round, of spinning with the rumors and the game-playing. Not being able to tell quite what is the truth of our situation or where we'll end up.

    One piece of information I received today — off the record — may be encouraging. And while I cannot share the information, I can certainly pass on my tentative sense that it's not all bad.


    However, there is absolutely nothing optimistic about the declaration by Fatah Central Committee member Mohammad Dahlan that the PA may seek a resolution by the Security Council that would recognize the borders of a Palestinian state. I shared here just days ago the comment by former law professor Ruth Lapidot that there is no agency that recognizes nations, so whether the Palestinians could pull this off at all is debatable.

    But at the end of the day, we must hope that Obama, committed to the negotiation process, would veto this as inappropriate.

    Abbas — in a talk he gave at his Mukata headquarters in Ramallah in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of Arafat's death — echoed Dahlan's theme:

    "A Palestinian state is a truth recognized by the world, and we are now leading a battle to have its border recognized."

    Sounds like this is the tactic they've settled on for now.


    But even this is complicated. Khaled Abu Toameh, in a piece today, reported that Al-Quds al-Arabi in London is saying that some members of Fatah are criticizing Fayyad's plan for a state in two years, because they had not been consulted in advance. So their power struggle might at some level undercut plans to advance their state. (Nothing new in that.)


    Returning to Abbas and his talk at the Mukata: Assuring the crowd that the Palestinian people will not give up, he declared that "our revolution is the most difficult and the longest revolution in history."

    He didn't explain why the "revolution" continues, when the people could have had a state in 2000, and again in 2008. His mentor, Arafat, turned down the first offer, and he, the second.

    Instead, he delivered the inevitable accusations:

    "Israel is violating international law. Israel is behaving like a country above law. The international community must force Israel to stop its violations and end its occupation of the Palestinian territories, including east Jerusalem.

    "We gave peace a precious chance, but we see that Israel is continuing to steal land and 'Judaize' Jerusalem. This is in addition to excavation under al-Aksa mosque."

    "Judaizing Jerusalem" One of my favorite of the accusations coming from the PA. Is this not an oxymoron, as Jerusalem IS Jewish?

    But with the oxymoron, came the libel — that blatant and ubiquitous lie — regarding excavations under the mosque. They never quit.


    Could this, just possibly, be enough to move Obama with regard to his position on Iran?

    According to official Iranian media sources, last night, at a meeting of the Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ahmadinejad placed a challenge before Obama. It's time, he said, for the American president to make good on his promise of "Change."

    "The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand. No change is made unless great choices are made.

    "We would welcome the changes, and wait for big and correct decisions to be made... We will clasp any hand that is extended sincerely toward us, but changes should be made in practice."

    Put plainly, Ahmadinejad was saying, "Obama, old buddy, it's us or Israel, you can't have both."

    Now, it's something of an understatement to say that Obama has bent over backwards overlooking and justifying unacceptable behavior from Muslim nations. But this sort of audacious challenge might be too much for even him.


    The Security Council held a closed-door debate yesterday about implementation of resolution 1701, which brought our 2006 war in Lebanon to a close. In the course of the discussion, according to one participant, the US accused Iran of violating a UN arms embargo by secretly sending weapons to Syria via the arms ship the Francop.

    US deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the council that the concealed arms shipment, "clearly manifested from Iran to Syria" — in violation of a March 2007 arms embargo — provides "unambiguous evidence of the destabilizing proliferation of arms in the region."

    Israel has released documents — such as a customs form from the Iranian Armed Forces — and photos to substantiate the fact that the origin of the arms cache was Iran and that its destination was Syria.

    What I want to know is, now that the closed door session is over and the accusation has been made — what? Where do we see follow-through, penalties, restriction on Iranian activities, or plans for increased sanctions?

    Where do we even see a public statement on this by the US?


    I recommend Daniel Pipe's comments on the events at Fort Hood. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. Identifying himself as "a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation," which "perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law," he rejects other explanations of Hasan's actions as "weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic."

    What makes his piece stand out is that he lists a number of other jihadist attacks and the lame explanations that were offered with regard to them. For example: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed" (killing with an SUV in northern California).

    Pipes concludes:

    "If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it's also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army's 'unforgivable political correctness' will officially ascribe Hasan's assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned.

    "And thus will the army blind itself and not prepare for its next jihadi attack."
    http://www.radicalislam.org/news/ sudden-jihad-or-inordinate-stress-ft-hood


    "The Good News Corner"

    "Wing of Love" is a wild life park situated in Kibbutz Kfar Menahem in central Israel. But it's a very special park, with a unique mission. Fourteen to 18 year olds with police records live on the premises, and work there, on court order. In the main, they assist with the rehabilitation of protected species of fowl and assist with park maintenance. The goal is for the boys to bond with the animals and each other, in an atmosphere of hope.

    Michele Klein, spokeswoman of the park, explained the park's philosophy to ISRAEL21c:

    "The boys are under our wing — one wing — because they are also supposed to develop their own wing...they are participating in the process that will allow them to fly the rest of the way on two wings. And this place is meant to be a garden of love for people and animals..."

    Volunteers from a variety of fields — from air force cadets to persons in hi-tech — work with the boys, providing them with contacts they would not otherwise have.


    When there is heart disease, blood vessels around the heart either become clogged or die. Now Israeli researchers — Dr. Britta Hardy and Prof. Alexander Battler of Tel Aviv University — have developed a protein that can be injected straight into the muscles of the body to stimulate regrowth of tiny blood vessels in just weeks.

    "The biotechnology behind our human-based protein therapy is very complicated, but the goal is simple and the solution is straightforward," says Hardy. "We intend to inject our drug locally to heal any oxygen-starved tissue."

    Where damaged vessels around the heart are concerned, the hope is to reduce the need for by-pass surgery. But this work was begun in an effort to prevent limb amputation.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Marc Prowisor, November 11, 2009.

    Thunder and Lightning, or in Hebrew — Rahm and Barak, can either bring rains of blessing or a damaging storm.

    Rahm Emanuel spoke to the General Assembly of Jewish leaders regarding Israel and US involvement in achieving peace between Israel and the Arab occupants of Judea and Samaria. He spoke of his family's connection to Israel, President Obama's dedication to peace in the region and how what started in 1967, must end.

    What exactly started in 1967? Israel was victorious over the Jordanian Army after we were attacked, and ended the JORDANIAN occupation of the region, this is what started back in 1967. Jewish communities were reborn from the ashes, once again Jews were allowed to live in places they were once evicted from, and places where they were massacred. What started? Mr. Emanuel? Jews returned to their biblical heartland, you know this as you were brought up with a religious education. The Chief of Staff spoke of how his Father took the name "Emanuel" in honor of his Uncle who died fighting for Israel, will he show the same courage when the Arabs once again deny the existence of a "Jewish" state?

    I could not help but notice the lack of heart Mr. Emanuel had while speaking, his lack of conviction, his detachment from the truth and real situation on the ground in Israel. How easy it is to speak to an assembly full of "yes men", whose lives are not endangered by the political duels going own. Mr. Emanuel mentioned how the "Two State Solution" enjoys bi-partisan support among US Jewry. I ask myself, whose sons and daughters are serving in the armed forces of Israel and putting themselves on the front lines, defending a people and country with their lives.

    Rahm, mentioned not to let "settlements" stand in the way of peace, who is he to decide what is good for Israel, who will clean up the mess he makes, definitely not his sons. Yes, he is the President's Chief of Staff, a very powerful politician and possibly the mastermind of the current US strategy to endear itself to the Arabs and Muslims of the world. If he believes that the dismantling of the Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria will solve the Israeli-Arab problem, then he probably feels that Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a common criminal and not a terrorist.

    It hurts to hear the cheers of the audience as Rahm mentions the issue of "ending" the communities of Judea and Samaria, most of those at this convention have never been out to any of these places and regard the populous as extremist lunatics, how unfortunate that they don't even realize who these people really are and how their "Heroes" in the IDF are made up of these people, that these places are theirs also. Such is ignorance. I challenge them to come out here to visit and see what is really going on and meet the people of Judea and Samaria, but to come out with an open mind, sans the poison that they are being fed by the opponents of a strong Jewish nation.

    I also extend this invitation to Mr. Emanuel to come out and meet us, not through the eyes of the government, but through your heart and mind. Maybe for your son's Bar Mitzvah, after he reads the Torah at the Kotel (in the capital of Israel today), take him also to Hevron to see where his forefathers are buried, then to Shilo which served as the first capital of Israel, home to the Mishkan (Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant) for 369 years (even older than the United States).

    You spoke how important your history is to you, here is a chance to show your family and supporters that you mean what you say.

    Mr. Emanuel, you are a source of pride to the American Jewish Community, your patriotism, your dedication and your loyalty. I would like to bless you that you also become a source of pride to all of your people, all over the world using the same characteristics.

    Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Daily Alert, November 11, 2009.

    This is by Tarek Fatah, and it appeared yesterday in Tawa Citizen (Canada)
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somnia/2204684/story.html. Tarek Fatah is author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.


    Army Maj Nidal Malik Hasan in store (Getty)

    As dozens of talking heads descended on CNN and FOX TV to give their opinions on the Fort Hood massacre last week, no one seemed to notice the significance of the attire that suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan was wearing the morning of the killings. It was captured on a store surveillance video as Maj. Hasan bought a coffee.

    CNN's Arab commentator incorrectly reported that the major was wearing "Muslim garb" commonly worn in Jordan, and that it reflected his devoutness as a Muslim. However, to Pakistanis and Afghans watching the clip around the world, his clothing reflected something far more significant and sinister.

    Maj. Hasan was wearing the "shalwar-kameez," the traditional attire worn by Pashtuns on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Had Maj. Hasan been of Pakistani or Afghan ancestry, it would have meant very little, but for an Arab-American to wear this attire was significant.

    In the Middle East, over five million Pakistanis and Afghans work and live among the local Arab population. The shalwar-kameez is common on the streets of Dubai and Jeddah, but no Arab male would ever want to be seen wearing this garb. I have lived a decade in the Arab world and not once did I see an Arab wearing the shalwar-kameez.

    Having said that there is one particular group of Arabs who did embrace the garb of the Pashtuns. They were the "Afghan Arabs" who went to Afghanistan to wage jihad alongside al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

    The question that needs to be asked is this: Where did Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American-born Arab, get hold of a shalwar-kameez? Did Hasan visit the Pakistan-Afghan region, or was he in touch with the Arab Afghans in the U.S. and Canada who wear the Pashtun attire as a sign of solidarity with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri?

    All of this talk about the killer's clothing would be inconsequential, had it not been for what else has been reported about the good major.

    Col. Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with Maj. Hasan at the military base in Texas, alleges the suspected mass murderer had angry confrontations with other officers over his views that Muslims should "rise up and attack Americans" in retaliation for the U.S. war in Iraq.

    Col. Lee was quoted in the London Telegraph saying, Maj. Hasan was "happy" when in June, a Muslim convert was arrested in the killing of a U.S. soldier in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas. Other army officers claimed Maj. Hasan had said "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves" and go to Times Square in New York.

    Lt.-Gen. Robert Cone, the commander of the base, told NBC News that, according to eyewitnesses, Maj. Hasan had shouted the Islamic battle cry "Allahu Akbar!" (God is great) before opening fire.

    In addition, U.S. federal law enforcement officials say someone with the same name as Maj. Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.

    However, none of this is relevant for Islamic groups. In statements after the mass murder, they tried to manipulate the media narrative by suggesting it was they who were the victims of this tragedy. Instead of denouncing the rise of Islamism and jihadi doctrines among Muslim youth, Islamist organizations once more came out with banal denunciations of "violence."

    Muslim groups condemned this "cowardly attack" without mentioning Maj. Hasan by name. And there were the usual provisos that "Islam in no way accepts such violence and terror," and that "Islam is a peaceful religion with great reverence for human life."

    But such statements must include a denunciation of the doctrine of "armed jihad," which is without doubt the force that gives religious validation to such acts of terror and encourages so many young Muslims toward suicide attacks on non-Muslims.

    Unless and until Islamic organizations, imams of mosques and their allies who have penetrated every institution that matters in our public life, say explicitly that there is no room for jihad at a time of the modern nation state, and that the doctrine of holy war is defunct, outdated and needs to be shelved, the rest of North America will not take us Muslims seriously.

    If the mosques do not stop spreading the virus of victimhood there will be more Muslim men willing to waste their lives for a jihad that God never asked them to fight.

    We have a window of opportunity. Let us acknowledge what Muslim youth living among us are being fed. If a Muslim man, educated and trained at the expense of the American taxpayer to be a doctor and rise to the rank of major, could still feel a victim, and could launch an attempted suicide attack against America, then those who cry Islamophobia every day also share some blame in this atrocity.

    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 Richard H. Shulman, November 11, 2009.


    This is from a sermon delivered by Egyptian cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri, which aired on Al-Nas TV on August 10, 2009. To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2268.htm

    "I'd like to tell you a very nice story. Once there was a Muslim who lived next to a Jew. The Muslim saw in the Jew a measure of good-heartedness — however small — and he wanted to find any way to make him convert to Islam. So he went to him and asked: 'Don't you feel the need for Islam? Why don't you become a Muslim?' The Jew said: 'The only thing preventing me from becoming a Muslim is that I love drinking alcohol. I would have become a Muslim ages ago, but the only thing stopping me is that I am an alcoholic.'"

    "The Muslim devised a plan. He said: 'No problem — become a Muslim, and continue to drink.' The Muslim didn't mean this, of course, but he said to him: 'Become a Muslim, and continue to drink.' The Jew said: 'Fine.' He said: 'I proclaim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.' The Muslim said to him: 'Now you have become a Muslim. If you drink alcohol, we will carry out the punishment for drinking alcohol on you, and if you renounce Islam, we will kill you.' So the man remained a Muslim and never drank alcohol again. This was a nice trick by this good Muslim." (www.imra.org.il, 11/9.)

    The sermon implied that Jews cannot be decent people. Judaism holds that people can be decent without being Jewish. This planet of scarcity except of people and of increasingly deadly weaponry needs tolerance.


    Having tilted away from Europe and Israel and toward Iran and the Arabs, Turkey may find itself irking the Arabs who worry about Iranian imperial ambition. Welcome to the world of national balancing acts!

    Russia has been helping Iran build a nuclear plant and hampering stiff sanctions against Iran for moving its nuclear development in a military direction. Russia also, however, has been delaying delivery of a defense system for the plant.

    As a result, Iran threatens its relationship with Russia and Russia threatens to support stiffer sanctions against Iran. Russia is in a balancing act (www.imra.org.il, 11/9).

    If governments would recognize and renounce evil, they would escape such problems. Unfortunately, idealism is diminishing though not hypocritical pretense at having it.

    Russia may be holding off support for Iran only temporarily, seeking concessions from the West for doing so. It also is concerned about offending foreign Muslims lest they support domestic Muslims rebels. I think that jihad has regained its fervor, so that Russia cannot appease it away.


    A new connection was forged between Israel and American Indians.

    Anne Richardson is the Chief of the Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. "...she has worked for the past ten years ministering reconciliation to tribal nations in America and established Restoring Nations International Ministries in 2007, teaching reconciliation, redemption and healing of land to indigenous people. This year, the Department of Labor gave her the 'Chiefs Award,' its highest, for her leadership and advocacy for the rights of Native Americans."

    "In 2006, Chief Anne Richardson renewed the covenant with the Queen of England. In 2005 she presented President Bush with a 'Proclamation of Forgiveness'. She also presented him with a 'Never Again' pin asking him to always stand to ensure a holocaust would never again take place in America or in Israel."

    Now Chief Anne Richardson is coming to Israel, to present "...Minister Landau with a Native American headdress and a Declaration of Alliance signed by the Chief and her Tribal Council as a symbol of their covenant with Israel. The Chief will be bringing a message of support and solidarity to the State and people of Israel, while Minister Landau will be conveying the warm support of Israel with a message of hope and continuity."

    "'We love Israel and want to show your people the solidarity that we as Native