HOME Featured Stories November 2010 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, 2010.



Chanukah is a time of renewal. Significantly outnumbered, the Maccabees succeeded against great odds by combining strategy, devotion to God and a willingness to sacrifice themselves in their battle against both assimilation and religious persecution. They returned to rededicate the ransacked and desecrated temple with renewed faith and hope for the future.

This photograph was taken on the fourth night of Chanukah in a hotel I visited three years ago. The table had been covered with aluminum foil to facilitate the removal of wax drippings, and it created an interesting glow that warms the background. I chose the camera angle that best emphasized this interesting background light. I didn't have a tripod, so I bumped the ISO up high enough to be able to shoot handheld and used a wide aperture to blur the background as much as possible.

The lights of Chanukah remind us to renew our faith and courage to meet even the darkest challenges of our day. Chag Sameach.

TECHNICAL DATA: Nikon D-200, 18-70 mm zoom at 70mm, f4.5 at 1/80 sec., ISO 640.  

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
http://www.cafepress.com/halevi18. He is available for public relations and editorial photography, celebrations and simchas.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, November 30, 2010.

Geert Wilders in T-A, December 5, 2010.

Geert Wilders 2/3.

Geert Wilders e/3.

Shalom chaveriem,

Let me start by saying that it is with great sadness that I share your grief over the deaths of more than 40 brave Israelis who lost their lives - many while trying to save others in the great fire near Haifa. My country, the Netherlands, is amongst other countries helping to put down this fire, which is threatening the lives and property of thousands of your compatriots. I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who perished. My thoughts are with them. Israel is an immense source of inspiration for me. When I came to your country for the first time as a teenager, I lived here for a year.

I am not ashamed to stand with Israel, but proud. I am grateful to Israel. I will always defend Israel. Your country is the cradle of Western civilization. We call it the Judeo-Christian civilization with good reason.

Israel is often being treated unfairly. The world looks at the plight of the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza, and other places, and many blame Israel. The UN claims that there are over 4.7 million Palestinian refugees, and many blame Israel. These voices say the Palestinians should be allowed to return to "Palestine." But where is Palestine? Many say Israel must solve the problems of Palestine. But is Israel guilty of the plight of the Palestinian refugees?

My answer is "No." The Arab leaders are to be blamed - and Islam is to be blamed. Let me first tell you why, and then I will tell you where Palestine can be found.

At the end of World War II, there were 50 million refugees. Today, all the refugee problems dating from before the 1950s have been solved. All, except one - the problem of the Palestinians.

Why did this problem not get solved? The reason is simple: Because the Arab countries did not allow it to get solved. And because Islam does not allow it to get solved.

In May 1948, the number of Jews in the Arab countries was estimated to be close to 1 million. Today, fewer than 8,000 Jews are left in the entire Arab world. In 1948, the Arab countries forced the Jews out and confiscated their properties. More Jews fled the Arab countries than Arabs fled Israel. Where are the Jewish refugee camps? There are none.

So, why are there refugee camps for Palestinians in areas surrounding Israel? Because the Palestinians were not welcomed in the neighboring Arab countries. There was no Arab solidarity; the refugees were forced into camps and slums, where many of their descendants still linger today.

Under international definitions the status of refugee or displaced person only applies to first generation refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are granted the same refugee status as their ancestors. Consequently, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees registered with the UN increased from 711,000 in 1950 to over 4.7 million in 2010. These refugees are being used as a demographic weapon against Israel.

Instead of blaming the inhospitable Arab regimes, many blame Israel.

My friends, the blame should be laid where it belongs: with the Arab world. The Jewish refugees built new lives for themselves. They did what millions of refugees have done in the course of history, including, in the 20th century, the Germans who had to leave Sudetenland and the lands east of the Oder and Neisse rivers, the Hungarians who fled Transsylvania, the Greeks who were ejected from the Aegean coast of Anatolia, the Hindus who fled the Punjab.

With each generation, the resentment of these refugees and their descendants slowly fades away. Time heals all wounds. Acceptance of the new situation is the norm.

Islam, however, conditions Muslims to hate Jews. It is a religious duty to do so. Israel must be destroyed because it is the homeland of the Jews.

Influential Islamic scholars, such as Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning, call Jews "enemies of Allah." Tantawi, who died last March, was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this "moderate" address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002?

He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called "martyrdom operation" against - I quote - "any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land." - end of quote.

Nizar Qabbani, one of the most revered poets in the Arab world, praised the madness of those who are blinded by an ideology of hatred. In his poem Ode to the Intifada, he wrote: "O mad people of Gaza, A thousand greetings to the mad. The age of political reason has long departed. So teach us madness."

Thát is the nature of the Islamic enemies confronting the Jews - sheer madness.

Israel, on the other hand, is a beacon of light; it is like a Hanukkah menorah whose lights have been kindled in a region that until 1948 was engulfed by darkness.

Friends, Israel is not to blame for the situation in the Middle East. The problem is Islam's rejection of Israel's right to exist. Only last month, Fatah concluded its convention in Ramallah by declaring its blatant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The problem is also our Western leaders' refusal to understand that Israel is the West's canary in the coalmine: If the Jews are denied the right to live in freedom and peace, soon we will all be denied this right. If the light of Israel is extinguished, we will all face darkness. If Israel falls, the West falls. That is why we are all Israel.

But as long as the West refuses to understand how the Palestinians are used as a weapon against Israel, it will not be able to see who is truly to blame; it will not be able to see that it is not Israel's duty to provide a Palestinian state - for the simple reason that there already is a Palestinian state and that state is Jordan.

Indeed, my friends, Jordan is Palestine. Take a look at the map of this part of the world after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. Both contemporary Israel and contemporary Jordan were part of the British Mandate of Palestine.

In 1922, the British partitioned Palestine into Cisjordan and Transjordan - the latter comprising 78 per cent of the territory of Palestine. The British handed that territory over to their ally, the Hashemite strongman Abdallah ibn Hussein. Abdallah was the son of the emir Hussein bin Ali, guardian of the Islamic holy city of Mecca. The Hashemites belong to the Quraish tribe - the tribe of Islam founder Muhammad. They are a foreign body in Palestine.

In 1946, Transjordan became an independent state under Hashemite rule. In November 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. The territory between the Jordan River and the sea was divided into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Jewish representatives accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab representatives refused. In an attempt to "drive all the Jews into the sea," they began the 1948 war - which they lost.

They took revenge, however, on the Jews in East Jerusalem and the rest of Cisjordan - the ancient provinces of Judea and Samaria - held by the Arab forces. This entire region was ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Even the names of Judea and Samaria were wiped off the map and replaced by the ridiculous term "West Bank." A river bank of over 40 kilometers wide. I come from a country full of rivers, and there the river banks are only a few dozen meters wide.

Israel, including Judea and Samaria, has been the land of the Jews since time immemorial. Judea means Land of the Jews. Never in the history of the world has there been an autonomous state in the area that was not Jewish. The Diaspora of the Jews, which began after their defeat by the Romans in AD 70, did not lead to the departure of all the Jews from their ancient homeland. Jews had been living in the Jordan Valley for centuries until the Arab invaders drove them out in 1948, when the provinces of Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which abbreviated its name to Jordan in 1950.

And until 1967, when Israel regained the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, no-one, not a single Islamic scholar or Western politician, ever demanded that there be an independent Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank.

Must Israel trade land for peace? Should it assign Judea and Samaria to another Palestinian state - a second one, next to Jordan? My friends, let me be very clear: The conflict in the Middle East is not a conflict over territory, but rather an ideological battle.

People are mistaken when they assume that giving up Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem and letting the Palestinians have it, will end the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. In 2005, Israel sacrificed the settlements in Gaza for the sake of peace. Did it get peace?

On the contrary, because the conflict is essentially ideological, the situation worsened. Because the conflict is ideological, territorial concessions are counterproductive. Ideologies cannot be defeated by concessions. They are encouraged and emboldened by it.

Ideologies must be confronted with the iron will never to give in, "never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty." That is the lesson which the world learned from Winston Churchill when he confronted the evil ideology of nazism.

This conflict here in the Middle East is not about land and borders, but about Islamic jihadism opposing Western liberty. From the moment that Israel was founded, the Arab leaders have rejected every partition plan and every initiative for a territorial settlement. The Islamic ideology simply does not accept the concept of a Jewish state. Neither Hamas nor Fatah are willing to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland. No territorial concession on Israel's part can ever change that.

Israel's ideological enemies want to wipe Israel out as a nation. They simply deny the Jewish state the right to exist and to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

For the sake of its own survival and security, Israel needs defendable borders. A country that is only 15 kilometers wide is impossible to defend. That is the strategic reason why Jews need to settle Judea and Samaria.

Therefore, the Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria are not an impediment to peace; they are an expression of the Jewish right to exist in this land. They are tiny outposts of freedom, defying ideological forces which deny not only Israel but the entire West the right to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

Let us never forget that Islam threatens not just Israel; Islam threatens the entire world. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel cannot protect Jerusalem. The future of the world depends on Jerusalem. If Jerusalem falls, Athens and Rome - and Paris, London and Washington - will be next.

Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting our common civilization. When the flag of Israel no longer flies over the walls of Jerusalem, the West will no longer be free.

However, a peaceful solution must also be found for the many Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Each year, hundreds of millions of euros and dollars are spent on the Palestinian refugees in international aid.

The financial assistance, however, did not provide the refugees a new home, a place to live and build a future for their children and grandchildren. It is obvious where this place should be. It should be Palestine, just as, after the Second World War, the obvious place for the German refugees from the East to go to, was Germany. Since Jordan is Palestine, it is the duty of the Jordanian government to welcome all Palestinian refugees who voluntarily want to settle there.

Until the late 1980s, Jordan's Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: "Those organizations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors." As late as 1981, Hussein repeated - I quote - "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan."

In March 1971, The Palestine National Council, too, stated that - I quote - "what links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond [...] formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal." - end of quote.

By the late 1970s, however, the Arab authorities began to differentiate between Jordanians and Palestinians. What was previously considered to be treason and illegality suddenly became the propaganda line.

In March 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a candid interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw. I quote:

"Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot lay claim to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In 1988, as the first Intifada raged, Jordan officially renounced any claim of sovereignty to the so-called West Bank. In recent years, the Jordanian authorities have stripped thousands of Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship. They do so for two reasons.

First, because the alien Hashemite rulers fear that the Palestinians might one day take over their own country. And second, because stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship supports the falsehood that Jordan is not a part of Palestine. And that, consequently, the Palestinians must attack Israel if they want a place of their own.

By arbitrarily reducing thousands of their citizens to statelessness, the Jordanian authorities want to force the Palestinians to turn their aspirations towards the establishment of another Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This decision is a great injustice committed by the Hashemite rulers of Jordan - this foreign clan which the British installed.

I am not naïve. I am not blind to the possibility that if Jordan were to be ruled by the Palestinians, this might lead to political radicalization in Jordan. However, a continuation of the present situation will most certainly lead to radicalization. We need a paradigm shift. If we keep thinking along the same lines as we have done so far, no peaceful solution of the Palestinian problem is possible without endangering the existence of Israel and disrupting the social and economic fabric in Judea and Samaria. Resettling millions of Palestinians in these small provinces is simply impossible and is not going to happen.

To the skeptics, I say: What is the alternative? Leaving the present situation as it is? No, my friends, the world must recognize that there has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the Kingdom of Jordan.

Allowing all Palestinians to voluntarily settle in Jordan is a better way towards peace than the current so-called two-states-approach (in reality a three-states-approach) propagated by the United Nations, the U.S. administration, and governing elites all over the world. We only want a democratic non-violent solution for the Palestinian problem. This requires that the Palestinian people should be given the right to voluntarily settle in Jordan and freely elect their own government in Amman. If the present Hashemite King is still as popular as today, he can remain in power. That is for the people of Palestine to decide in real democratic elections.

My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.

And to the Western world I say: Let us stand with Israel because the Jews have no other state, while the Palestinians already have Jordan. Let us stand with Israel because the history of our civilization began here, in this land, the homeland of the Jews. Let us stand with Israel because the Jewish state needs defendable borders to secure its own survival. Let us stand with Israel because it is the frontline in the battle for the survival of the West.

We must speak the truth. The truth that Jordan is Palestine, the truth that Samaria and Judea are part of Israel, the truth that Jerusalem may not fall, the truth that Israel is the only democracy in a dark and tyrannical region, the truth that Israel is the linchpin of the West.

Of course, I am just a foreign guest and should be modest. Israel is a democracy and I respect every decision which its people and government will make. But I am proud to be here and grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts and beliefs with you.

Because it is here that our civilization is under attack as we speak. It is here that we, men and women of the West, must show our resolve to defend ourselves. It is here that Israel has lit the light of freedom and that Europeans and Americans must help the Israelis to keep that light shining in the darkness. For Israel's sake and for the sake of all of us.

Toda raba... And shalom to all of you.

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, November 30, 2010.

The International Free Press Society sponsored a conference today in Copenhagen. Below is the speech that was given during the event by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (photo © Snaphanen).

This is from Gates of Vienna
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/ time-that-is-given-us.html


Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I stand here before you in the city of Copenhagen in the year 2010. This is widely considered to be an enlightened country in the heart of an enlightened continent.

Our basic freedoms have long been guaranteed — first by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the United Nations in 1948, and then buttressed by the Council of Europe in 1950 through the European Convention of Human Rights, which was later affirmed by the European Union. Our individual countries have additionally codified the same basic rights in their own constitutions.

These rights include the freedom of individual conscience, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to practice our religion freely, or to have no religion at all. And, perhaps most importantly of all, they include the right to voice our opinions freely and to publish them without hindrance.

Yet freedom of speech is under attack today here in Denmark, as it is in my own country Austria, and indeed all across Europe. Today, in 21st century Western Europe, our right to free speech is being shut down quietly and systematically with an effectiveness that the commissars in the old Soviet Union could only dream of.

A milestone in this ominous totalitarian trend will be reached tomorrow, 28 November 2010, when the member states of the European Union are required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the "Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia", or, more fully, the "Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law." According to the final article of the Framework Decision, "Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010."

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU's website), you will learn that "Each Member State shall take the measures necessary... to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable." Such "intentional conduct" includes "conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin."

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

Even worse, a complaint made by a member state does not have to be "dependent on a report or an accusation made by a victim of the conduct", nor does the alleged offender have to be "physically present in its territory".

In other words, if the dhimmi Austrian government objects to a cartoon published by Kurt Westergaard here in Denmark, Mr. Westergaard may be extradited by the Austrian Ministry of Justice to answer to hate speech charges in Austria. The European Arrest Warrant guarantees that the Danish government cannot legally interfere with such an extradition, and the 800-strong "European Gendarmerie Force" would be available to fetch Mr. Westergaard out of his bed and bring him to Vienna — with impunity.

As of tomorrow, the above scenario becomes a real possibility. It is not a paranoid fantasy. These legal provisions are detailed in the EU's public documents, and they will enjoy the full force of law in all EU member states as of midnight tonight.

The death throes of free speech in Europe begin tomorrow morning.

As most of you already know, nearly a year ago I was made aware that "hate speech" charges might be filed against me — I had "denigrated religious teachings" by giving one of my public lectures on Islam.

The possibility of my prosecution was not communicated to me directly, but through articles in the press.

It was not until last month that a court date was set for my case. Once again, I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing newspaper that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me this past week was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist newspaper. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I admire the provisions of the First Amendment that all Americans enjoy as their birthright. Its free speech provisions will make the imposition of sharia that much more difficult in the United States.

But here in Europe we are not so well-protected. Our constitutions and the rules imposed upon us by the EU allow certain exceptions to the right to speak freely, and those little rips in the fabric of our rights are enough to tear the entire structure to pieces.

We desperately need our own version of the First Amendment. We need leaders who are wise and courageous enough to compose and implement legal instruments that affirm the same fundamental rights that are guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution.

We do not yet have any leaders of this caliber. But they are beginning to appear on the scene, and one day they will be the real leaders of our individual European nations, replacing the internationalist totalitarian usurpers who oppress us today.

Our nations will be governed by their own people, by those who truly represent them. Their leaders will be true patriots, people like Jimmie Åkesson and Kent Ekeroth in Sweden, or Oskar Freysinger in Switzerland, or Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma in the Netherlands, or Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke in Flanders.

We are going to reclaim our continent and our nations. We will take our countries back from those thieves who sneaked them away from us while were lulled into somnolence by our wealth and our pleasant diversions.

This will not be an easy task. Our path will be strewn with obstacles and great dangers. But we must travel it nonetheless, because if we do not, European civilization — the heart of Western Civilization — will be destroyed.

What were formerly our nations will become regions with indistinct boundaries, populated mainly by people of foreign cultures and administered by corrupt totalitarian bureaucrats. The natives — the original inhabitants, our children, the descendants of those who created the greatest civilization the world has ever known — will be reduced to curators and costumed actors in a quaint theme park.

Call it "Euro World". Authentic cuisine, ethnic dancers, and fireworks at ten o'clock.

This is what we will face if we give up our cherished freedoms. If lose our freedom of speech, then we are lost forever.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien's famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: "I wish it need not have happened in my time."

Gandalf responds: "So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

It is time for us to decide what to do with the time that is given us.

If I were to speak these same words tomorrow morning, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic is Islam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn't have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be "hate speech". Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as "racism and xenophobia", and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not "hate speech", but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered "incitement to religious hatred".

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are "denigrating religious teachings".

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don't want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

I wish this need not have happened in my time. But it has.

We must make full use of the time that remains to us.

Thank you.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 30, 2010.

I cannot urge you strongly enough to view this short cartoon video about U.S. Middle East policy, building on the Wikileaks. While it isn't completely fair--not mentioning U.S. efforts against Iran in terms of sanctions, military help to Gulf Arabs, etc--it is also absolutely brilliant at getting across the main theme.

Watch it!.

And at the end, check out the expression on the face of the character on the right (who represents Arab leaders).

In all the excitement over the Wikileaks story, I want to remind people that there's another big story being ignored. You will be reading about it in the mass media in two or three months.

The Obama Administration has messed up its attempts to get Israel-Palestinian negotiations going. The whole misplaced emphasis on a freeze of construction on settlements--something this government initiated--continues to put a freeze on talks. The presentation of the proposed three-month-long freeze to Israel was done so badly that nobody is quite sure what's in it.

U.S. policy on the issue has lost its way. Looking back over what is now almost the first two years of the Obama Administration, one finds an unbroken record of bungling here. I wouldn't say that irreparable harm has been done to the region or to U.S.-Israel relations, precisely because there was no chance of great progress on the peace process any way and nothing much has actually happened despite all the rhetoric. But a huge amount of U.S. prestige, time, and resources have been squandered.

Here's a quiz for you: What is the one factor regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict that the Obama Administration has changed and which is disastrous? [See end of article for the answer.]

If you haven't read it yet, you might want to look at my analysis of this issue HERE.

Speaking about the Wikileaks story, it is amusing to see how the champions of the 1980s' conventional wisdom--that everything in the Middle East is about the Arab-Israel conflict and not about Islamism versus nationalism, and Iran-Syria versus the Arab states--are telling people to ignore that man behind the curtain.

One such person remarked that the Arab rulers didn't say nice things about Israel in the many meetings described in the leaks. That's true. But the point is that they didn't say nasty things about Israel either and, generally, spoke of it as a normal regional power.

Others have pointed out one or two instances where Arab leaders, in passing, gave lip service to the notion that the best way to fight Iran and Islamism was to have an Israel-Palestinian peace. That's true. But the point is that hardly anyone said that and when they did they passed over it briefly.

Here's the best one-sentence summary I've seen, from Lee Smith, author of The Strong Horse:

"What comes through most strongly from the Wikileaks documents, however, is that U.S. Middle East policy is premised on a web of self-justifying fictions that are flatly contradicted by the assessments of American diplomats and allies in the region."

I read one distinguished British journalist who wrote--no exaggeration--that this shouldn't distract us from seeing that the real problem is that the US government--that's the Obama administration, mind you--is dominated by a right-wing Zionist cabal (no kidding). A USA Today article said the leaks proved that an Israel-Palestinian peace settlement would help get Arab support on Iran, etc.

The admirable Jeffrey Goldberg points out that the leaks should also put an end to the exaggerated (sometimes crazed) talk of the all-powerful Israel lobby since Israel, even with agreement from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab governments, couldn't get the United States to act more toughly against Iran.

Of course, the people who hold to this false and outdated image of the Middle East don't want to admit we are right so they keep talking about details, atmospherics, etc., without pointing out the conclusions to be drawn from this material. BUT this is one more step in turning the tide and more and more people are starting to question the conventional wisdom.

Answer to Question: By pressuring Israel to end high-level sanctions on the Gaza Strip and greatly increasing its own aid, the U.S. government has in effect accepted long-term Hamas rule there, making peace even harder to achieve and strengthening the Iran-Syria axis.

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
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/11/ notes-for-today=big-story-missed

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Resource Review, November 30, 2010.

This was written by Rena Dvorkin Cohen of Safed, Israel. It appeared in the Edmonton Journal.


Re: "Photo exhibit shows conflict's toll on Gaza residents; Organizers seek to open eyes to lives torn apart by war," The Journal, Nov. 20.

I was just sent the link to The Journal article regarding the photo exhibit of Gaza residents that is now showing in Edmonton.

This item recently made today's news in Israel:

The IDF blasted three terrorist sites in Gaza (Nov. 19) in response to two rocket attacks earlier in the day. In one attack a Grad rocket was launched at Ofakim — the first missile attack on the city in almost two years.

"Air Force pilots who fired on the terror sites reported direct hits. Arab media reported that six people were injured in the strikes, but did not report their identities or the extent of their wounds.

Experts who examined the terrorist rockets launched (Nov. 19) found that they contained white phosphorous, a material that is forbidden for use as a weapon in civilian areas under international law.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman instructed Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Meiron Reuven, to file a complaint.

This is another reminder to the international community that residents of southern Israel are forced to live in constant fear of the terrorism that takes place under the auspices of Hamas in Gaza," Lieberman said.

In addition to the two rockets, Gaza terrorists fired seven mortar shells at Negev communities. The attacks failed to cause injury.

Several rockets and mortar shells fired by Gaza terrorists hit areas within Gaza. No injuries were reported."

Just recently I visited Sderot, a city on the edge of the Israeli border with Gaza, which for many years had been on the receiving end of rockets from Gaza, aimed at the children, at schools, at anything that the terrorists could find in reach.

From mid-June 2007 to mid-February 2008, 771 rockets and 857 mortar bombs were fired at Sderot and the western Negev, an average of three or four each a day.

This was one of the main reasons for what was called Operation Cast Lead. I don't see that mentioned in The Journal article. And no one shows photos from that period.

So, I thought I would send a photo of the remains of their shelling, to illustrate some of what was going on.

These are on display outside the Sderot police station for all to see.

Included are the remains of Kassams, katyushas and many other lethal rockets — none of which carried with them messages for hope for a brighter future.

And these are only some of the ones that they have on exhibit.

I also photographed a school ground in Sderot which has recently been provided with bomb shelters to protect the children in case those same wonderful terrorists decide to bomb the children at recess: Imagine how you would feel if your children were exposed to this daily for years on end. What would you do to stop the shelling?

I also recently stood on top of a hill in Samaria looking down on the Balata refugee camp in the city of Nablus/Shechem.

I had to look from there because Jews are not allowed to enter the city itself.

A sign at the entrance forbids Jews from entering. What I saw was tragic: an Arab city with an Arab refugee camp housing perhaps 30,000 people.

The Arabs are given billions of dollars from countries around the world and yet they use this money to keep their own people in horrid conditions while the world blames Israel for their treatment.

It's time more people came over to this part of the world on fact-finding trips of their own to see just what the current conditions are.

Although groups such as Palestine Solidarity Network, the Canada-Palestine Cultural Association, and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East portray one side of the problem, there really are two sides to this story.

More balanced reporting from journalists all over the world would really be most appreciated.

That's the tragedy of the situation. Few people really understand the current situation and on going war that is facing the people of Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 30, 2010.

Yesterday was kaf-tet b'november — the 29th of November. I was so busy writing about WikiLeaks that I let it pass without notice and now want to return to the significance of this date in 1947: This was the day on which the UN General Assembly voted for the partition of mandatory Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.

Please, view this beautiful video that gives a glimpse into the dramatic history of this day:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrIjzUK0FKg (With appreciation to Chana G. for sharing it.)

Perhaps you will weep, as I did, on viewing this — weep from deep inside your soul, with an understanding of how this all matters.


I cannot let this pass without noting that the resolution was not binding in international law, because it came from the General Assembly (only Security Council votes carry the weight of international law). In fact, it subverted the earlier Mandate for Palestine, passed in 1922 by the League of Nations, which was binding in international law, and conferred upon Britain responsibility for establishing a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine. (The United Nations, in its founding charter, later assumed legal responsibility for commitments of the League of Nations.)

Because the Arabs — offended by a Jewish presence in the Middle East — rioted and brought pressure to bear, the Brits reneged on their responsibility under the Mandate, threw up their hands in defeat, and turned the matter over to the UN. And then, in spite of the fact that all of Palestine had been promised to the Jews, we rejoiced to receive part. While the Arabs — who could have had their state back then! — rejected the partition because they wanted all of Palestine and would agree to leave nothing for the Jews. As soon as Israel was declared a state the following April (the 5th of Iyyar on the Hebrew calendar), the Arab League attacked.

Not that much has changed since then. The Palestinian Arabs, for all their pretense at "peace," still intend to have the whole thing and not share what had been Palestine between the river and the sea with Jews. Make no mistake about this.


And the United Nations? Yesterday was the anniversary of the 1947 vote to partition Palestine. But since 1977, it is also, according to a resolution of the General Assembly, "the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." No other people in the world is so recognized by the UN: not the Kurds, who are truly a people, or the people of Tibet, occupied by Chinese, or... you name it, no one else. For the UN, you see, the "Palestinian people" are uniquely special. In 2005, the General Assembly passed another resolution requesting "the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People...to organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights or a cultural event in cooperation with the Permanent Observer mission of Palestine to the UN."

Dearly, my friends, do I wish the democracies of the world would pick up and walk out of the UN and take their annual dues with them. This international organization has become a travesty of all that is fair and decent.


Before leaving the subject of the UN, I want to share one more video — this from Anne Bayefsky's "Eye on the UN." As Bayefsky explains:

"The Obama administration joined the UN Human Rights Council in one of its first foreign policy moves. As justification for what it labeled "principled engagement and strategic multilateralism," top administration officials pointed to the Council's new Universal Periodic Review (UPR) system. They called the UPR a "good mechanism" (Brimmer, Assistant Secretary of State) and an "important change (Koh, State Department Legal Advisor).

"On Friday, November 5, 2010, senior American representatives went to Geneva to participate in the first UPR-review by the Council of the human rights record of the United States."

Be forewarned: when you see this it may make you sick to your stomach. Sick, because of the obscenity of UN behavior, but also because of the groveling of the representatives of the US. What has America become?

Please view this to the end, to see the American response to a human rights critique of the US by the likes of Cuba, Egypt, Qatar, Iran, China, and North Korea. (Sound crazy? I kid you not.)

Share this broadly so American citizens can be informed of what is happening. Not many will know about this.


WikiLeaks. The reports — drawn as they are from 250,000 documents -- will go on and on. I'm sure I'll come back to this many times. Here, as we're on the subject of how Obama handles matters, I want to cite from the analysis by Herb Keinon — which reflects upon issues I addressed yesterday — in today's JPost. "Burying the linkage between the peace process and Iran":

"Since the earliest days of Barack Obama's presidency, there have been...major conceptual differences between how Israel and how the US administration view the Middle East.

"...While the US maintains that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum is the key to unlocking peace in the Middle East and getting other countries in the region on board to help stop the Iranian threat, Israel's position is to first deal with Iran...

'Israel's logic is that Hamas and Hezbollah — Iran's two proxies — will be much less able to gum up the works whenever diplomatic progress looms if Iran is defanged.

"And along comes the cache of WikiLeaks documents and reveals that Obama's linkage of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Iran is nothing short of fiction — a fiction he and his key aides have been spinning since the beginning of his tenure. (Emphasis added)

"At his very first White House meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in May 2009, that famous meeting in which Obama called for a complete halt to all settlement construction, Obama was asked what he thought about Israel's position that only if the Iranian threat were solved could there be real progress on the Palestinian track.

"'Well, let me say this,' Obama said. 'There's no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That's not conducive to negotiations. And as I've said before, I recognize Israel's legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.

"'Having said that,' the president went on, 'if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis — then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.'

"And that position, that progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue — that stopping settlement construction — would somehow magically mollify the Arab world and get it to put its shoulder to the wheel regarding Iran has been a constant thread throughout the Obama regime. Here it was popularly dubbed 'Yitzhar for Bushehr.'

"What the WikiLeaks cache revealed, however, was that this argument was a fabrication. There was no need to crack the Palestinian-Israeli nut before getting the 'moderate' Arab nations in the region...on board regarding Iran, because those nations were already fully camped out on board the deck of the ship, just waiting for action against Iran.

"The following quotes from Arab leaders culled from the WikiLeaks trove do not exactly portray a picture of leaders who need any further enticements before 'getting on board...'

"• King Hamad of Bahrain was quoted in 2009 as saying, 'That program [the Iranian nuclear program] must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.'

"• Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed in 2009 urged the US, according to another cable, not to appease Teheran and said, 'Ahmadinejad is Hitler.'

"• Maj-Gen. Muhammad al-Assar, assistant to the Egyptian defense minister, was quoted in a cable in 2010 as saying that 'Egypt views Iran as a threat to the region.'

"Obama was obviously well aware of the views of these leaders, most of whom he personally met, yet he continued to propagate what he must have known to be a falsehood — that these countries would only sign on to sanctions and otherwise support efforts to neutralize Iran if there were progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track." (Emphasis added)
www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/Opinion AndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=197286

Keinon says Obama muddled matters by linking the two issues and asks why he felt compelled to do so. I asked a different question yesterday: why Obama turned a deaf ear to Muslim pleas for action on Iran. The question Keinon poses seems to be easier to answer. By conflating the two issues, he hoped to put the screws to Israel and secure that much-coveted "peace agreement."


Majid Shahriari, a top nuclear scientist in Iran, who was working on a major project, was killed yesterday when bombs attached to his car went off.

The Iranians, as might be expected, are blaming the Zionists. The Israeli government has nothing to say.

All I can say is, gee, the Iranians seem to be having a hard time lately.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, November 30, 2010.

How do we make sense of a Palestinian Authority refusing to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, not agreeing to any land swop as part of a pragmatic solution, and holding to the principle of the right of return (a Jewish Zionist expression of ever there was one) for refugees?

The answer is the core of the Middle East problem.

It is the defining essence of what is preventing any progress to a permanent peace.

It is the reason why Israel must stand firm even we appear to the world as an obstacle to peace.

The Palestinians are setting the stage for the final act. For Israel, the peace process is a set up, a trap.

Israel is being encouraged to drop its demands for recognition as a Jewish state. We are told that this should not be a pre condition, that it is viewed as somewhat racist, undemocratic, and that it gets in the way of a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It is made to appear as we are putting up obstacles to peace.

If we are not a Jewish state what are we, especially to them?

Answer — we are Palestine.

They refuse to drop the principle of the right of return. the world says let them keep it as a principle in their statute books, it will only apply to a very limited number of returning refugees into Israel, the rest will go to the new Palestinian state.

This is a most dangerous principle that must not pass.


Because if Israel agrees to accept any refugees it will concede the point that this Israel is really Palestine.

Why would anyone who considers themselves as Palestinian Arabs want to enter this land if they did not see it as Palestine?

Would any of them have suffered the statelessness of decades to move to Israel? No. In their eyes they are returning to Palestine. From within Israel, they together with those who consider themselves here as Palestinians would demand that their leadership work to resolve the divided people, to work towards a reunification of Palestine.

Anyone who demands that Israel surrenders the principle that it is not a Jewish state and accepts Palestinian refugees has set up Israel, and weakened us, for the next round in the battle of our survival.

Our concessions will be turned against us. Whatever has applied to the creation of a new Palestinian state will equally apply here, in Israel.

If you accept that the territories are, in reality, a Palestinian state, if you accept that East Jerusalem is theirs, if you accept the return of Palestinian refugees into Israel, then you admit that all the land is Palestine, including Israel. You may argue to the contrary but you would have lost your case by surrendering your legitimacy.

Once you accept that Palestinian refugees have the legitimate right to settle in our land under a right of return you have granted that this is their land.

Once you have handed them East Jerusalem as their capital nothing can prevent them from claiming the rest of Jerusalem is equally located in Palestine.

This is not a nightmare scenario. This is political reality.

No amount of appeasement to the Palestinians in the name of peace, no amount of concessions to separate the two peoples, will avoid the inevitable next round.

There are those that argue that we must separate ourselves to maintain a stronger, more demographic and democratic base. This will not prevent the ongoing delegitimization of Israel. On the contrary, the very fact that we have surrendered, whatever we will give them will legitimize their narrative in future demands.

We are witnessing the intransigence of the Palestinian leadership on land, East Jerusalem in particular, refugees, non-recognition of a Jewish state, of the denial of Jewish historical or religious claims.

We are at war for our survival and we are too willingly prepared to surrender our position on the altar of peace.

For the Palestinians, the acceptance and establishment of a new Palestinian state will be an important bridgehead from which to launch the next stage in their campaign for the reunification of Palestine.

Knowing this is coming, why should we surrender the bridgehead?

The argument is given that we must retreat to a stronger position where we will have greater collective strength only applies if we have withdrawn, and not left our ammunition behind to be used by our enemy.

If we try to retrench but have given our enemy the weapons in which to attack us we are doomed.

By agreeing to their terms with nothing in return we have surrendered the high ground.

We may plead that we did so to be nice to them, that we withdrew so that they will leave us in peace. These arguments won't hold in the coming battle.

We will have surrendered land, they will continue to claim, because it belonged to them. Now they want the rest, the land on which we continue to sit because, that too, belongs to them.

At that time what weapons could we possibly use then in our continuing fight for our survival?

We will have given up on our legitimate claim of being a Jewish state, just as easily as we failed to make the legitimate argument of our rights to the land.

We would have accepted Palestinian refugees into our land, thereby opening ourselves up to the claim that we admitted this to be Palestine by that deed.

Get ready for the final attack. We will be hit by the same forces that are attacking us now, but they will be stronger because, to them, we would have been making their case for them.

They will be armed by the weapons we will have given them.

We will have shown them our weakness by not holding firm to our values. They will see that we were not ready to defend our rights and our heritage.

The reuniting of Palestine will be their battle cry. It will be the final battle of our survival.

They will be joined in the battle by Israeli Arabs some of whom already call themselves Palestinians; they include those who sit in the Knesset, our legislative chamber.

They will celebrate the establishment of a new Palestinian entity but not for the reasons it will be celebrated in Israel.

Israelis may dream that this, at last, will give them peace and tranquility. The Arabs who are today demanding justice for the Palestinians, will they cease their campaigns and turn themselves to improving the condition of their fellow Arabs in Israel? Or will they look at this as just one victory on the road to total victory — the reunification of Palestine.

Certainly we have heard from representatives, such as Haneen Zoabi, an Arab member of Israel's Knesset, that they will never recognise Israel as their country that only Palestine in this land will be their redemption. This call will only become louder as the next stage of the delegitimization of Israel takes center stage.

It will be a battle when all our gestures and concessions will work against us for the very fact that we surrendered our land, our history, our heritage, our identity, on the altar of peace will be meaningless and will have weakened us to the point that we will have no further legitimate argument left in our arsenal when the final battle comes.

In truth, the peace process is nothing more than a modern day Auschwitz process.

The Jewish state of Israel, under demonization, delegitimization, threats, and attacks has been persuaded that there is no other choice but to join the peace process, that this is the only way to peace.

The Jews of Europe under demonization, delegitimization, threats, and attacks were persuaded that they had no other choice but to join the train that will take them to a camp away from the oppression.

Israel is told to refrain from claiming to be a Jewish state. it is having its heritage and history stolen from it.

The Jews of Europe had to wear a yellow Star of David to identify them as Jews. They also had their homes and their valuable possessions stolen from them.

Just as the Jews of Europe were reviled and isolated in ghettoes so is Israel becoming reviled and isolated — the Jew among nations. Israel is becoming the new ghetto. We even build a separation wall to protect ourselves. This is the first time in Jewish history that Jews have voluntarily put themselves inside our own ghetto. We do so out of a need to survive.

Just as the Jews of Europe were driven into the cattle cars on their way to the camp so is Israel driven to the peace process that is leading them into the camp.

At the camp, the Jews of Europe were stripped of their final possessions, their identity replaced by a number stamped on their arms.

Today Israel is being stripped of its identity to become an unidentifiable people.

The train is pulling into the camp, the camp being the establishment of a new Palestinian entity.

We are told that the camp belongs to them and we can have the showers.

We are already in the camp and trapped. Trapped by our own failures and admissions. We were driven there by the United Nations, guarded by the international community, delegitimisers, and public opinion. We were confined inside the cattle cars of international resolutions.

We had surrendered our passports and our valuables too easily. We had echoed their mantras as they marched us to the train.

Now we are in the camp, trapped by our gullibility and our acceptance of their demands.

At that time, when we have surrendered the camp to them, it will be easy for them to herd us into the showers for we will be defenseless.

During the Holocaust, Jews gave their money, their valuables, to the enemy to try and stay alive. They begged. They bribed. They pleaded. When you are persecuted there is no place for pride.

Some Jews hid their identity, choosing to blend in with the enemy, as they watched their people struggling to survive.

The Palestinian Nazis are following the principles of the Third Reich. Here are some of the latest decrees, instituted by the' moderate' leadership:

'Anyone selling land to a Jew will be shot!'

'Conquered land must be Judenrein!'

'There is no such thing as Jewish history!'

'Any reference to Jewish possession must be struck from the records!'

'The Jews must not be allowed to survive as a race. We will accept nothing less than their final surrender!'

Is this not preparation for the final solution of the Jewish problem — Palestinian style?

We will know that you have been suckered into the Auschwitz process. It will be when we begin to hear about the reunification of Palestine. Then it will be too late.

It is what they are discussing in their Wansee meetings.

We did not listen then. We are not listening now.

Barry Shaw made aliyah from Manchester, England, He writes the "View from Here" columns from Israel. To sign up to receive his emails, contact him at netre@matav.net.il. This articles is archived at
http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2010/11/ palestine-final-solution-of-jewish.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 30, 2010.

This was written by Janine Zacharia, Washington Post staff writer. It appeared in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/11/29/AR2010112906979.html Correspondent Thomas Erdbrink and special correspondent Samuel Sockol contributed to this report. Erdbrink reported from Tehran and Sockol from Jerusalem.


TEL AVIV - Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed hope Monday that U.S. diplomatic cables revealing that several Arab states share his country's concern about Iran's nuclear weapons program could build momentum for tougher international action against the effort.

"More and more states, governments and leaders in the Middle East and the wider region and the world believe this is the fundamental threat," Netanyahu said, referring to disclosures in cables released by the Web site WikiLeaks. According to the cables, some leaders, including Saudi King Abdullah, have advocated using military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

"There's a gap between what they say privately and publicly," Netanyahu said at an annual gathering of the Tel Aviv Journalists' Association. Regional leaders read publicly from one "script" that says the "greatest threat is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Netanyahu said. "But in reality, leaders understand that this narrative is bankrupt. There is a new understanding."

Israeli analysts responded as enthusiastically as Netanyahu.

The leaked documents show that "the entire world, not just Israel, is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program," wrote Sever Plocker, a commentator for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

The leak, he said, "strengthens the main message" of the United States and Israel that "Iran poses the greatest clear and present danger to the stability of the world, and the world has to act to remove this malignant tumor."

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the cables show that other countries reached the same conclusion about Iran that the United States did when it moved to impose sanctions: "that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state."

'The right proportion'

Some Israeli experts suggested that the WikiLeaks storm would distract the Obama administration from negotiations with Israel on a new settlement freeze that the United States hopes will reinvigorate peace talks with the Palestinians.

Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and an adviser to Netanyahu on Israeli-U.S. relations, said the notion that the United States could not take tougher action on Iran without first moving forward on the Israeli-Palestinian front was undermined by the WikiLeaks disclosures.

"It puts matters in the right proportion," Shoval said.

At a news conference in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the cables as "an intelligence game, a propaganda war" orchestrated by the United States, and he predicted they would have no effect.

"Iran is a friend of the region, and all nations are brothers," he said. "This will have no impact on regional relations."

Iran has repeatedly denied that it is pursuing nuclear weapons. But Ahmadinejad acknowledged for the first time Monday that Iran's uranium enrichment program - which the country says is for civilian energy purposes - had been the target of international sabotage, an apparent reference to the Stuxnet computer worm.

Israel and the United States are seen as the most likely sources for such cyberwarfare, but officials in both countries have declined to comment on the matter.

Ahmadinejad said Iran's enemies "had been successful in making problems for a limited number of our centrifuges, with software they had installed in electronic devices." The problem has been resolved and cannot be repeated, he said.

Also Monday, a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist was killed and a second was seriously wounded in bomb attacks in the Iranian capital. Iranian authorities blamed agents of Israel and the United States for the killings, saying they want to cause chaos in the country.

"It's not our practice to confirm or deny allegations of this sort," said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu.

While U.S. Republican lawmakers and Netanyahu have pressed the Obama administration to make more direct threats of military force against the Islamic republic, the United States and its partners have tried to stymie Iran's nuclear program through U.N. and unilateral sanctions.

After months of negotiations on the structure of a new round of talks, the United States and other major powers appear to have agreed to meet with Iran on its nuclear program next week in Geneva, sources said.

Silence in Arab world

Although Netanyahu spoke at length about the WikiLeaks release, the Arab world was largely silent on the matter.

Reporting on the cables in Arabic-language newspapers, Web sites or news TV channels was largely limited to straight, brief reports without many details or commentary.

The silence from Saudi Arabia was predictable, as Saudi King Abdullah was convalescing in a New York hospital after an operation for a blood clot and a slipped disk.

Abdullah, according to an April 2008 cable, repeatedly pressed the United States to "cut off the head of the snake" by launching military strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

"The Iranian issue will embarrass many of the politicians in the Arab region," Mustafa Hamarneh, director of the University of Jordan's Center for Strategic Studies, told the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera.

But in Turkey, Akif Beki, a former spokesman for the Turkish prime minister, told TV 24, "I'm not sure the Iranians are surprised by the Saudis' stance. It is not a secret for anyone in the region the way the Saudis feel about Iran."

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 30, 2010.

Happy Chanukah!

May the spirit of the Maccabees yet again return to Israel and help us defeat and remove our enemies from Jewish land.

The War Against Jews
Rupert Murdoch, October 20, 2010

...We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews.

For the first decades after Israel's founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Well before the Berlin Wall came down, that approach had clearly failed.

Then came phase two: Terrorism.

Terrorists targeted Israelis - both home and abroad - from the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government - and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.

Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere including the media, multinational and organisations NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah. (Unfortunately, many of Murdoch's publications are also involved in the "Media war" against Israel)

The result is the curious situation we have today whereby Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran, a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel's destruction, pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke...

Back in 1937, a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky urged Britain to open up an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe. Only a Jewish homeland, he said, could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. In prophetic words, he described the problem this way: "It is not the anti-Semitism of men," he said. "It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer."

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different. But these threats are real. These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are, as part of an ongoing war against the Jews.

US Security Guarantees are Worthless!

By bowing to Ankara's demand to omit Iran and Syria (and consequently the threat of their ballistic missiles) from the NATO agreement to establish a missile shield facility in Turkey, President Barak Obama has rendered worthless any US security guarantees offered Israel. This is especially evident in view of Obama's quiet consent to placing the facility under a Turkish (Islamic government) general. So what exactly the missile shield meant to guard against, if not Iran? (Why is the US administration so conciliatory to non-Jewish fake friends?)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

My father's family was gathered and killed by local Ukrainians during the first days of German occupation of his town in the south of Ukrainian. Germans did not know who the Jews were at the time - local people did! After 3 years of hiding, 10 years old at the time, he knew the Christian holidays better than local Ukrainians as the hunt for Jews was their favourite past-time during the holidays! It was happening everywhere - Ukraine, Byelorussia, Poland, Baltic republics etc. (Yes I know, there were good Christians and some of them were also killed by Nazis!) Nowadays, most people are complacent and silent about anti-Israel international bashing campaign, as they were in 30's and 40's. Many have reverted to the old sadistic anti-Semitic game!

Do not Forget Hamas and Fatah Terrorists

Just two weeks after Mohammed Namnam was killed in a combined Israel-US-Egyptian targeted assassination, an Israeli airborne missile struck again in Gaza City on Nov. 17, and killed two more commanders of the Al Qaeda-linked Army of Islam.

Relentless Enemy

Palestinian Terrorist Amin Al-Hindi was one of the senior planners of the murders of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. This week's Fifth Sitting of the Fatah Revolutionary Council headed by Mahmoud Abbas was named in his honor. Has a New Player Arrived?

Chinese warplanes took part in Turkey's recent air maneuver after breaking their journey to refuel in Iran. Questions should be asked about the role China is willing to play in the military-intelligence alliance binding Syria, Iran and Turkey and the membership of Turkey in NATO.

"Two States" is just a Step - They Want it All!

A majority of Arabs, 60 percent, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza favor direct negotiations with Israel for "two states" of the Palestinian Authority and Israel, but it also reveals that two-thirds agree that "over time, Palestinian must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state", by the use of violence, if necessary.

Why is it Always "Too early" until it is too Late?

The United States said it is too early to consider a military response to North Korea's attack on a South Korean island, while President Barack Obama was "outraged" by the deadly assault. (Who cares about fake outrage. The same lies will be used when Arabs attack Israel!) PS - Washington spurns Tokyo's demand for reprisal against North Korea.

Threat to Israel is Imminent Now!

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak have made a big deal about the security benefits they say Barak Obama is offering for a second, 90-day moratorium on settlement construction. However the delivery date of the second lot of 20 F-35 stealth warplanes is 2020 - ten years from now! So how will that help Israel stand up to current security threats from Iran, Hizballah, Syria and Hamas? The Obama letter of commitment is meanwhile delayed. (Can Israel trust the US? Obama administration officials have already denied a pledged package of major incentives.)

It is Never Enough - Israel is Targeted for Destruction

Lebanese officials and Hizbullah leaders say Israel's withdrawal from Ghajar is not enough. Hizbullah called the Ghajar pullout an Israeli 'trick' to keep its 60,000 rockets targeting Israel.

Quote of the Week:

"If the Arab League is seeking challenges, there are many in the Arab world - hundreds killed each week in terror attacks, poverty and despair which shout to the heavens." - Avigdor Lieberman, Foreign Minister of Israel - But it is easier to divert attention of the Arab population, blaming Israel for everything.

Denigrating Israel using "Cat and Mouth" Game

As Israel waits for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying there is no such letter... Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama who, she said, in the end did not give his approval.

"Inhumane" Treatment of the Enemies?

The IDF Spokesman's Office reports that in 2009 some 180,000 civilians from PA controlled territories were treated in Israeli hospitals.

No International Outcry!

A PA sponsored construction project, a new marketplace between the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the nearby Jewish city of Kiryat Arba, could cut Jewish access to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron. The Tomb is one of Judaism's most holy sites, however the PA claims the site as a mosque.

UN's anti-Israel Bigotry on Record!

The United Nations Human Rights Council this month adopted nine resolutions against Israel. (Obama's UN Officials opposed nothing and kept silence!)

The Council, engaged in a "universal periodic review" of human rights protection in Lebanon, was examining a report by that country which expressed its objections to "the establishment of the Zionist entity on Palestinian territory". (The Council does not care about systematic killings of Christians in Lebanon and their mass departure from the country)

Every United Nations member state was asked to submit a report to the Council on its national human rights record, which was then reviewed by U.N. members who engage in a short dialogue with the state representatives.

After Lebanon submitted its report objecting to the creation of the State of Israel, Israel's representative responded,

"My delegation would like to state on record our strong objection to the inappropriate and abusive language used to reference the State of Israel. Unfortunately, the existence of a dominant terrorist organization, Hizbullah, as well as political tensions and struggles between different vital groups." Israel's presentation then was rudely interrupted by the Council president, the delegate from Thailand, who broke in to summarily recognize the delegation of Lebanon. "If there were no Israeli occupation there would have been no resistance and resistance of peoples against foreign occupation is a legitimate right. Thank you," the Lebanese delegate stated firmly, to a hall, which broke into applause.

The Council president followed up, "I appreciate the concern expressed by the Lebanese delegation." (Such undiplomatic behaviour is never allowed toward any other country!)

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 30, 2010.
This is called "'Taliban mentor' cleric allowed to speak at House of Lords" and was written by Robyn Rosen.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/41731/ taliban-mentor-cleric-allowed-speak-house-lords

A senior Muslim cleric who is known as the "Taliban's ideological mentor" has been allowed to enter the UK and address the House of Lords.

Fazlur Rehman, the head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party, came to the UK on Wednesday, at the invitation of the High Commission of Pakistan, and was due to address the House of Lords on Thursday.

Earlier this week, the chairman of human rights group Ansar Burney Trust International and Pakistan's former federal minister for human rights, Ansar Burney, asked Home Secretary Theresa May to block Maulana Rehman's entry due to his "religious extremist ideological threat".

Mr Burney said Maulana Rehman's "unquestionable pro-Taliban ideologies and vowed support for the Taliban may potentially carry a great deal of threat to the British society."

Think tank International Crises Group has claimed Muslim seminaries run by his party are used as Taliban recruitment centres and identified Maulana Rehman as the Taliban's "ideological mentor".

He added that if Maulana Rehman is not banned, he will seek judicial review to challenge the permission.

Earlier this year, Ms May banned controversial Muslim preacher Zakir Naik from entering the UK on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good.

A spokeswoman from the Home Office said they would not comment on individual cases.

A spokesman at London-based counter terrorism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, said:

"It is very worrying that Rehman has been able to get into the country. We call on the Government to have more scrutiny for individuals such as him.

"His party is well known for being antisemitic and pro-Taliban."

Mohammed Abbasi, a spokesman for the Association of British Muslims, said: "Fazlur Rehman has been stirring up political fanaticism and anti-Western sentiment in Pakistan for years.

The government must know full well that he is extremely likely to spread similar hatred and support for the Taliban during his stay in the UK.

"It is extraordinary that he should be welcomed here despite his track record of openly supporting the Taliban.

"Entrance to the United Kingdom is a privilege which should not be granted to extremists who promote hatred and stir up tension.

Rather than rolling out the red carpet for them, where possible figures like Mullah Fazlur Rehman should face legal action."

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 30, 2010.

As Wikileaks once again exposes the secret back channel Emails and documents which speak to what Diplomats from America and other countries really say to each other, my thoughts drifted to Israel.

It is no secret that the U.S. Arabist State Department has been a dedicated enemy of the Jewish State from its birth - and before. We don't need Wikileaks to bring us up to speed on those diplomats who serve Arab/Muslim needs and their vicious hatred of Jews and the Jewish Nation/State.

But, things got worse, much worse when President Barack Hussein Obama took power and displayed a Muslim bias from his first day in office. When he took Iran under his wing, refusing to engage in any meaningful actions as Iran increase its efforts to build a nuclear capability and its own atom bombs, I began to see other possibilities, as follows"

Since neither Obama nor the State Department, the Jew-killing nations of Europe, the UN wanted Israel to survive what might be their ultimate plans. Put another way, what might these nations be willing to accept to solve their ultimate Jewish Problem? Would they exchange back-channel communications, thinking that their plans and thoughts would always be hidden from public, world-wide view in diplomatic secret exchanges?

Bear with me as I allow my imagination to co-mingle with what had already been done to the Jews and the proclivity of the world's Nations to collude with the oil-bearing Arabs and Muslims who are consumed with their Koranic-driven hatred for Jews and the G-d who contracted with Abraham, 'et al'.

I believe that the Nations would like to see Israel decimated by an Iranian Nuclear Weapon. Of course, they would never admit this publically. This would solve their insidious hatred the Muslims have for Israel, the Jewish Nation/State.

Moreover, it would fulfill the ever-present plans of the pro-Muslim/Arab U.S. State Department to curry favor with the Arab Muslims. No need to speak about the well-established hatred in Christian Europe, including the ever-present spoiler, Russia.

So, what would happen if Iran was able to Nuke Israel under Obama's watch, inclusive of the rest?

Obama could go into his well-rehearsed patter about how this was terrible, intolerable and something must be done to Iran to save Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and all the Gulf Oil states (especially the oil!). Then he would lecture about saving Europe and the American bases now in range of Iran's WMD missiles, mostly developed under Obama's watch of benign neglect and secret encouragement.

Now the Nations and the American fleet could unleash their full collective power to destroy Iran's Nuclear Capability, with the applause of all the other Muslim nations who desperately fear a Nuclear-Capable Iran. IF Iran reached that lofty status, Ahamadinejad would become the hegemon in control of the entire Middle East, Far East, Europe, Russia - etc.

In the meantime, Obama, NATO, the EU, UN could mount an occupation mission, called a "rescue mission" to sweep into bombed and beleaguered Israel. Their stated purpose would be to save the Jews who were left and bring body bags for those who were not - to bury them where their radio-active bodies would not contaminate the rest of the world.

The fact that Obama, the Arabist State Department, colluding with the Islamic oil states and the Europeans, with Russia, all would be swept out of sight. Something like the Holocaust, as it was being processed, was kept out of the News until it could no longer be hidden as General Dwight D. Eisenhower toured the death camps with their piles of emaciated corpses of Jews piled high.

Even the anti-Semitic New York Times and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to then admit they knew about the ongoing Genocide of the Jewish people of Europe all throughout WW2 when those back-channel cables surfaced.

Perhaps my imagination or my replay of past history as prologue to current events has gone too far for your sensibilities or your comfort zone, BUT...! Those secret cables and back-channel exposés of what is being planned for the Jewish State are very specific and damning.

In closing, as I finished drafting my thoughts, I received a phone call from Israel, from an optimist relayed to me that many newspapers had already picked up the story of the perfidious plans of the Nations.

However, some of the front page stories in the English language Jerusalem Post, displayed a range of headlines and articles that were actually quite favorable to the Jewish State. In general, they damned the evil plans of Ahmadinejad's Nuclear goals. The main headline above the front page fold: "WIKILEAKS reveals Saudi Arabia exhorted US to attack Iran and 'cut off the head of the snake'"; "Leaks vindicate, don't damage Israel"; "Yadlin said Israel cannot be surprised by Iran like US on 9/11"; "Dagan urged support for Iranian minorities to overthrow regime"; "Mossad head: Nothing will be achieved by peace process with PA"; "Iranian Red Crescent smuggled weapons to Lebanon".

Inside on P. 10: (on June 2, 2009: "Barak: Window for 'military solution' in Iran about to close: Only 6 to 18 months left for action, defense minister said in meetings at end of May 2009"; Nov. 2009: "[Amos] Gilad [Mossad] "Gilad: A nuclear Iran would be 'intolerable'"; July 2007: "Dagan [Meir Dagan, Mossad Chief]: "Without IDF, Fatah would fall to Hamas in West Bank inside a month".

The New York Times had more in-depth articles.

All-in-all, Wikileaks revealed data and conclusions that may point to more positive outcomes than have appeared imminent until today. Or, perhaps more realistically, these headline stories are only the few more positive ones whereas the rest are dire.

While these sensational leaks are disturbing in the ease with which computers can be plundered, not only by Wikileaks but by Russia, China, Iran...any and all enemies and adversaries or even business competitors, nevertheless it is shameful to learn about our own democratic Governments' plots against our best allies.

Iran continues - unabated - to develop its Nuclear vengeance against America who they call "The Great Satan" and Israel, who they call "The Little Satan".

Obama continues to fiddle while Islam burns the world!  

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 Paul Lademain, November 29, 2010.

In "Citizens have the power to change reality" by Hodaya Karish-Hazoni in Makor Rishon

"Nadia Matar is known as being the head of the right-wing "Women in Green" organization. Yehudit Katsover, the wife of the former head of the Kiriat Arba Council, Zvi Katsover, too, has an impressive record of accomplishments. Already in '79 she was one of the mothers who settled with their children in Beit Hadassah in Hebron and lived there for months under harsh conditions, with the aim of persuading the government to permit Jews to live in the City of the Patriarchs."

We are the Secular Christians for Zion. Not right. Not left. Just 4 justice 4 Israel.

We don't think of Nadia Matar as "right-wing. We think she is a right-minded gal. And she understands that possession of the land is nine points of the law. (What does that mean? See the legal underpinning of this legal maxim, below.) She also understands that legal title to the Jewish Homeland resides with the Jews of Israel who are necessarily entitled to the land under international law expressed by the San Remo Resolution and the ensuing treaties confirming this Resolution and this is so even if Israel's misinformed, disinformed, misguided, frightened, cowed, conciliatory, love-hungry Jewish leadership said or says otherwise. So, even if Israel's Jewish leaders approved a two-state solution, the solution was reached decades ago when the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland were established during the Twenties. Jordan is the result of the so-called two-state solution and this is so even if Jordan sends its pretty "queen" to sprinkle rose petals on the US media. Israel's boundaries were enlarged when Israel won its many wars against the arab invaders.

Trading the Sinai for promises of peace was proof of Israel's naivete and lack of resolution.

Israel need not and must not bow and scrape and tug its forelock, and especially not to Hillary and her Saudi-boughten predecessors. The Saudis can well afford to fight their own battles, they should not expect Israel to defend them. This is no excuse for the US to arm t he Saudis. Because the Saudis are cold and patient users. Janusians. Never forget that.

We think the so-called"lefties" aren't "left" --- just nuts.

Trading land for a pat on the po-po and cocktail invitations is simply crazy, which explains why the Arab invaders continue attacking all Jews ... because they imagine they're all as irresolute and as malleable as his holy-face Peres. The Matars prove them wrong.

Here's the law: Possession means holding property in one's power or the exercise of dominion over property. By having possession one exercises control over something to the exclusion of all others.

The saying "possession is nine points of the law" is an old common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property. Even if a person is the rightful owner of the property but has no possession over it, the person who is in possession will be in a better position should the property ever be subject to challenge. This is especially true with adverse possession. However mere possession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. This adage "possession is nine tenths of the law" is not a law but a logical rule of force that has been recognized across ages.

In re Garza, 984 S.W.2d 344, 347 (Tex. App. 1998), Texas court has held that "Despite the old saying that "possession is 9/10ths of the law," mere possession and whatever right to the property that comes with mere possession does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 12-13 (1962); R. BOYER, SURVEY OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 679-80 (1981). In other words, there is a hierarchy of ownership, as reflected both in the common law and § 1.07(35)(a) of the Penal Code. One in possession of chattel has a greater right to it than one who lacks both possession and title. Yet, one who has title maintains a greater right over the chattel than 1) one who simply has possession and 2) one who has neither possession nor claim of ownership. Id. Indeed, it can be said that the title owner has the greatest rights to the property. With that greatest right comes the power to negate the authority of those with lesser right. Similarly, those who stand in the lesser position lack the power to override or negate the rights of the title owner."

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, November 29, 2010.

What is the appropriate role for a pro-Israel lobby in the Diaspora?


Do you know who your American Jewish leaders are?

In last week's blog, we discussed the massive Saudi arms deal and Israel's failure to protest it. AIPAC, (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), America's chief pro-Israel lobby, slavishly followed Israel's lead and it, too, did nothing.

The reason is that both have been, in Shmuel Katz's words, "cowed by experience." Most observers regard AIPAC's no-show as an after-effect of its 1981 battle to keep AWACS radar planes out of the hands of the Saudis. AIPAC acts like a boxer who left too much of himself in the ring during a title fight and hasn't quite been the same since.

But there's another reason AIPAC can't work up the moxie to battle Israel's enemies. Israel doesn't do it either. If Israel's government shrugs off a Saudi arms deal, why should AIPAC second-guess it? It begs the question: What is the appropriate role for a pro-Israel lobby in the Diaspora? Should it set its own course or follow unquestioningly one set by Israel?

Shmuel, who had a very definite opinion on the subject, was guided by the principle that American Jews have every right to pressure the American government on issues important to the Jewish state. At the same time, Shmuel opposed the idea that Diaspora Jewry should try to undermine Israeli policy from abroad.

In a Letter-to-the-Editor to The Jerusalem Post (May 13, 1986), Shmuel wrote:

I have told American Jews — including supporters of my views — that, if they want to interfere in Israeli politics, the only honourable way of doing so is to come and live in Israel and get the vote.

In that same letter, a response to a distortion of his views by Abraham Foxman, (Foxman would, soon after, become head of the Anti-Defamation League — a sorry replacement for the thoroughly admirable Nathan Perlmutter), Shmuel wrote:

Sir, — I am astounded at the gross misrepresentation in the article by Abraham Foxman, "To speak or not to speak" (April 28) of the work I have been doing in the United States for some years. He claims that I have been urging American Jews to press the Israeli government to change its policies. This is almost diametrically opposite to the message I have been conveying.

On my first visit to the U.S. as an independent commentator (in April 1971), I summarized my purpose at a meeting with academics in Boston: "It is not in order to criticize the government of Israel that I come to you, but to demand of you that you effectuate your right as American citizens and say to President Nixon and Secretary of State Rogers: 'Hold it! For the good of the United States too, lay off, and don't demand of Israel concessions that will jeopardize her security, because her security is also one of the conditions for the security of the United States.'

Because it became apparent that the pattern of Israel-U.S. relations was largely one of pressure by Washington on the Israeli government to do things against its better judgment, I decided that the most important service I could render would be to persuade Americans — non-Jews as well as Jews — to use their legitimate influence with their government to stop twisting Israel's arm. This is the appeal I have made in just about every public speech in the U.S. and indeed to every group of American visitors to Israel that I have had the opportunity of addressing.

In fact, Shmuel viewed it as an obligation of American supporters of Israel to take action when America pursued policies dangerous to the Jewish state. In "Surrendering to Pressure" (The Jerusalem Post, April 11, 1986), Shmuel urged action, even if it meant taking a harder line than Israel's own government.

Weakness of character in the Israeli government increases the responsibility of the American Jewish community to be supportive of Israel. Administration pressures can be countered. There is a tremendous body of support for Israel in the American political world. It stems from the perception that the U.S. and Israel share not only common values, but also common interests....

Surely the role of the U.S. Jewish leaders is clearly indicated. They should undoubtedly join in the opposition to the deal — but they must go further. They must take direct issue with the administration on the subject of the bullying of Israel. They must assert their refusal to have their intelligence insulted, and to have their hands tied, by the derisory notion that Jerusalem is happy with the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

This demands a change in their policy — of pretending once Israel has given in, that "If Israel agrees, who are we to interfere?" If they recognize an obligation to stand up for the security of Israel, they should protest not only against the arms deal but also against Washington's policy of "twisting Israel's arm" to acquiesce in measures inimical to its security.

Such a bold move will also add heart to Israel's political friends; and give direction to an all-too-often bewildered Jewish community.

Strong, confident, courageous, aggressive — it's a far cry from the approach taken by major American Jewish organizations today. If America's largest pro-Israel lobby can't muster more than a worried Web page when $60 billion worth of the most advanced military hardware is proposed for a country whose king says Israel shouldn't exist and whose Mideast Peace Plan means peace of the dead for Israel, then we have a problem.

It would go a long way towards fixing the problem were American Jewish organizations like AIPAC to adopt Shmuel's position. While Shmuel's approach may seem like a balancing act, in fact it offers Israel's supporters a wide, graceful path on which to take a range of independent actions in defense of the Jewish state without veering off the two cliffs — either becoming mindless automatons in 'sleep' mode because they haven't received a signal from Israel, or subversive foreigners, crossing the red line into pressuring Israel's duly elected government simply because it has staked out policies with which they don't agree.

Clearly, an independent approach isn't without its challenges, not least of which are the political and psychological difficulties of taking a stronger stance than Israel on matters affecting her security. When this writer was a child, Shmuel would frequently visit his parents' home during his trips to the U.S. He would have a running argument with this writer's mother, Rael Jean Isaac, urging that more must be done in the U.S.

"I would say that it was tough to be more Catholic than the Pope," she would respond. "I would contend that until Israel's government adopted a policy assertive of Jewish rights, it was an uphill battle here to persuade the Jewish community and the political elite, however supportive of Israel they might like to be. Shmuel did not want to hear this, insisting that our efforts in showing that a strong Israel was in U.S. interests were quite independent of what went on in Israel. In the end Shmuel would pound the table, and that would end our chicken and egg discussion — at least until his next visit."

More Jewish leaders — recognize any?

In addition to the above problem, there is the issue of who these leaders are. Our so-called representatives are not chosen for any particular devotion to Zionism. Most are selected by a board. The poor quality of Jewish leadership only gets worse in other countries. British journalist Melanie Phillips recently visited Canada where she "was struck by the beleaguered state of many Canadian Jews."

"They were battling the usual mad barrage against Israel... But perhaps the most troubling aspect was that they appeared not to possess the verbal ammunition with which to respond," she writes. Phillips points out that Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a much firmer grasp of the motives of the anti-Israel mob than do most Canadian Jews. Clearly, Canada's Jewish leadership is doing a less than adequate job.

Mick Davis, self-appointed Jewish leader

And in Britain last week, Mick Davis, an "ideal type" of Diaspora leader in that he is unelected and uninformed, caused a storm of controversy when he said a number of odious things in a speech to an audience at the London Jewish Cultural Center, including that Israel could be heading toward apartheid.

It seems world Jewry overall is saddled with flaccid leadership. To put in its place a Jewish leadership worthy of the name will be a formidable challenge. Shmuel is no longer with us to pound the tables. So we must pound our own, until we find the strength to separate these unelected "representatives" from their chairs.

Uphill battle, indeed. But we must do what we can.

Next week I will set forth what from Shmuel's perspective would be a strong American-Jewish platform for Israel.

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com This article is archived at
http://shmuelkatz.com/wordpress/?p=436 &Source=email

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 29, 2010.

The vast majority of local and international news outlets have so far refrained from reporting at all on Fatah's hard-line declarations.

This is a Jerusalem Post editorial called "Fair Press For Peace" and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/ Article.aspx?id=197156


The vast majority of local and international news outlets have so far refrained from reporting at all on Fatah's hard-line declarations.

The Fifth Fatah Revolutionary Council did not have an auspicious beginning. Participants kicked off discussion by giving special honor to Amin al-Hindi, one of the masterminds of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of 11 Israeli athletes, who died earlier this year. What followed was sheer intransigence on the part of the 120-member Palestinian "congress," which represents "moderate" Palestinian opinions — as opposed to the radical Islamic Hamas, which openly calls for using violence to bring about Israel's demise.

After two days of meetings in Ramallah this weekend, Fatah, which makes up the backbone of the Palestinian Authority leadership, issued a resounding "no" to compromise, further dimming even the faintest hopes for a negotiated peace with Israel.

The Fatah council derogatorily rejected recognition of "the so-called Jewish state" or any "racist state based on religion." It reasserted the "right of return" which, if implemented, would facilitate the end of a Jewish majority within the pre-1967 Green Line by allowing about four million Palestinian refugees and their offspring to settle in Israel proper.

Land swaps as part of a peace agreement were ruled out as well. Large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim and other cities located just over the Green Line, consisting of no more than five percent of the West Bank, where about 80% around 320,000 Jews live, must be uprooted and settlers must be expelled, it decided.

"Illegal settler gangs can't be put on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights," declared the council.

Israeli and US understandings, starting in December 2000 with the "Clinton parameters" and continuing with former US president George Bush's declaration that any permanent peace deal would have to reflect the West Bank's demographic realities, were effectively dismissed.

In what sounded more like a battle cry than a declaration, Fatah essentially articulated its intent to do everything short of relaunching an armed struggle to undermine the existence of the Jewish state.

THE FATAH council's articulation of such an extremist position has far-reaching ramifications for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. That's why Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh's report on the council's decisions appeared at the top of this newspaper's front page on Sunday.

By bizarre contrast, the vast majority of local and international news outlets have so far refrained from reporting at all on Fatah's hard-line declarations. While news media usually respond quickly and amply to steps taken by Israel that are perceived as potentially detrimental to the peace process, the silent treatment of the Fatah decisions reflects a media norm, in which Palestinian incitement and intransigence is often downplayed or completely ignored.

Just last Monday, for instance, this paper was the first to report on the PA Ministry of Information's outlandish "study" claiming that the Western Wall, known to Muslims as Al- Buraq Wall, constitutes Wakf property and that "the Zionist occupation falsely and unjustly claims that it owns this wall." Some other news outlets reported this several days later; others not at all.

Similarly, a survey commissioned by the Israel Project, indicating highly antagonistic Palestinian attitudes toward Israel, barely received media attention when it was released earlier this month.

Two-thirds of Palestinians living on the West Bank and Gaza agreed that "over time, Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state." Sixty percent said that "the real goal should be to start with two states but then move it to all being one Palestinian state." Fifty-six percent agreed that "we will have to resort to armed struggle again."

When news reporters and editors fail to give the proper space to revelations of Palestinian extremism and intransigence, they help perpetuate prejudices against Israel. Not only is skewed journalism a betrayal of the profession and those who rely on it, in this case it hurts the peace process by untenably misrepresenting the imperative for compromise by the Palestinian leadership and their public, thereby dooming hopes for negotiated progress.

Palestinians must come to terms with the legitimacy of Jewish rights to sovereignty in this sliver of land if they are to internalize the need for compromise and thus walk the path to peace. That process of recognition requires the disseminating of an honest narrative by the Palestinian leadership.

And that, in turn, requires the international community to, first, understand accurately the nature of current Palestinian hostility to the notion of a legitimate Israel and, second, to impress on the leadership the need for change.

The extent of the challenge was made perfectly clear over the weekend by Fatah's Revolutionary Council. Too bad that most of the world has not heard about it.

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 Bill Warner, November 29, 2010.

A common complaint against Islam is that the "good" Muslims don't condemn the Muslims who are terrorists.

Lately, an old declaration by a fiqh council has been popping up. [A fiqh council is made of Islamic jurists who are experts in Sharia law and it applications.] Dozens of imams and Islamic groups condemn terrorism by signing a fatwa [judgment]. It sounds great, but how does it look under closer examination? Take this sentence:

"Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives."

What could be possibly wrong with this strict condemnation? The possible splinter in the banister is what specific words mean. Take "extremism" for example. The average Kafir (non-believer) thinks of terror. Terror is extreme, by definition, but what we are actually talking about is religious extremism, in particular, Islam. What is extreme Islam? Surely Islamic terrorism is extreme Islam.

Before we can examine "extreme Islam", we must define Islam. Islam is the political/religious doctrine found the Koran and the Sunna (Mohammed's perfect life-example.) The Sunna is found in the Sira (Mohammed's biography) and the Hadith (the Traditions, small Mohammed stories). The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith compose the Trilogy. The Trilogy defines Islam. If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam. If it is in the Trilogy it is normal Islam.

What is the content of the Trilogy? Murder, plots against the enemies of Islam, assassinations, mass executions, sneak attacks, torture, Jew-hatred, theft, kidnappings, open warfare, and more. Since they are in the Trilogy, these actions are normal, not extreme. September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was not extremism.

So far as terror goes, terror is as Islamic as a call-to-prayer.

Koran 8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!"

Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed: I have been given five things, which were not given to any one else before me: 1. Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month's journey.

The fiqh council's fatwa includes a quote from the Koran:

Koran 5:32 whoever killed a human being, unjustly, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind.

The problem is that this quote from the Islamic scholars is taqiyya (sacred deception). Look at what they left out:

Koran 5:32 That was why We laid it down for the Jews that whoever killed a human being, unjustly, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind

That advice was for the Jews--the Jews, not the Muslims. Let's examine the next two verses that advise the Muslims:

Koran 5:33 Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them. For you must know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Koran 5:35 Believers, have fear of Allah and seek the right path to Him. Fight valiantly for His cause, so that you may triumph.

When Muslims kill a Kafir, it is regarded as a sacred act, jihad.

Now look at the word, "innocent". Mohammed sent out his jihadists on seven raids before they were successful on their eighth attempt to destroy the Kafirs' caravan. It is significant that they used deception to accomplish this task. The jihadists disguised themselves as "religious" pilgrims to approach the caravan drivers. They murdered one, captured those who did not escape and stole their merchandise.

What was the guilt of the caravan drivers? They were Meccan Kafirs. That was their only guilt. We might say that they were innocent, but they were part of a group that denied the fact that Mohammed was the prophet of the only god, Allah. That is guilt enough to be murdered. No one who denies that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah is innocent.

If you know the doctrine of Islam, the entire fatwa condemning terrorism is pure deception. Why be surprised? Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive if it would advance the Islamic cause, and the fiqh council follows the Sunna of Mohammed to the letter.

The reason that this deception works is the average Kafir politician, reporter, pastor, priest or rabbi is deliberately and willfully ignorant. It is not that Islam is so skillful; but that Kafir leaders are such ignorant, politically correct cowards who refuse to educate themselves to the detriment of their own religious faith and their own country.

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com and visit their website at http://www.politicalislam.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitt, November 29, 2010.

Israeli official asks: What sort of peace are you offering us; Revolutionary Council urges PA to foil J'lem-Golan Heights referendum law.

The Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The council also urged the Palestinian Authority leadership to work toward foiling a new Israeli law requiring a referendum before any withdrawal from Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that has not been passed by two thirds of the Knesset.

The Palestinians are opposed to any understandings between Israel and the US that could harm their interests, the council said.

"The council affirms its rejection of the so-called Jewish state or any other formula that could achieve this goal," said a statement issued by the council.

"The council also renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion in accordance with international law and human rights conventions."

The council made its statement as Israel awaits a document from the US which would set out an incentives package in exchange for a 90-day freeze on new settlement construction based on the terms of the 10- month moratorium on such activity which expired on September 26.

The Palestinians have insisted that Israel must halt all settlement activity before direct negotiations can be resumed.

An Israeli government official on Saturday night called on the Palestinians to resume direct negotiations without any preconditions.

"Let us meet and talk," he said.

The official said he was disappointed by the council's statement with respect to a Jewish state.

"I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us? "It is clear that their refusal to recognize the Jewish state's legitimacy is the true obstacle to peace and reconciliation," the official added.

In its statement Saturday, the Fatah council said it was categorically opposed to proposals for a land swap between Israel and the Palestinians under the pretext that "illegal settler gangs can't be put on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights."

Israel has long assumed that any final status agreement would include land swaps.

The Fatah leaders said they supported PA President Mahmoud Abbas's policies, especially with regard to the peace process with Israel.

"The council salutes President Mahmoud Abbas for adhering to the basic rights, first and foremost the right of return for Palestinian refugees," the statement said. "Also, the council salutes President Abbas for standing up against pressure aimed at resuming the peace talks without achieving the demands of the Palestinians."

The council dismissed plans to supply Israel with weapons in return for reviving the stalled peace talks. It added that the Palestinians would not accept any understandings between Israel and the US which could "harm Palestinian rights and prolong occupation."

The reported US package of incentives to Israel does not serve the cause of peace, the Fatah council cautioned: "Such gifts to the occupier will only make the occupier more stubborn and radical."

Referring to the new Israeli law regarding Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the council said it was in violation of international law and urged the PA leadership to make efforts through the UN and the Security Council to thwart it.

Abbas told Fatah leaders during the three-day gathering that the Palestinians want a just and comprehensive peace, but would not compromise on their rights.

He also ruled out the possibility of returning to the negotiating table without a full cessation of construction in settlements and east Jerusalem.

In its sessions, the council also reiterated its opposition to the idea of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders. A PA official said there was no change its position on this issue.

"The PA leadership dismisses the idea of a state with temporary borders, the official said.

"We insist that the issue of borders and security be the first to be discussed when the negotiations resume."

The official's statements follow statements by several Israeli politicians who recently came out in favor of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders in an effort to prevent a diplomatic vacuum and give the Palestinians the responsibility that a state would provide.

Kadima leadership candidate Shaul Mofaz unveiled a plan a year ago in which Israel would annex settlement blocs while withdrawing from 60 percent of the West Bank, comprising Areas A and B, where 99.2 of the Palestinians live, and additional land to create a contiguous Palestinian state. Intensive negotiations would then begin on final borders.

Mofaz said that he has met with senior Palestinian, American and European officials who have privately endorsed his plan.

President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have also expressed support for the idea of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders.

Journalist Yair Lapid, who is expected to run for the next Knesset, wrote in his Yediot Aharonot column last week that Israel should forget about trying to achieve peace and instead focus on creating a Palestinian state as soon as possible.

"The time has come to separate the question of establishing a Palestinian state from the question of peace," Lapid wrote.

"Israel must work toward the establishment of a Palestinian state not because it would bring peace, but rather because it would be much easier to manage the conflict vis-a-vis such a state."

He predicted that the establishment of a Palestinian state would "take the world off our backs, curb the process of turning us into a pariah state, enable us to maintain our security with fewer restraints, lift the burden of controlling three million people, and enable us to manage the discussion on our final borders and the future of the settlements."

The Newsletter from the East Bay Israel Action Committee (IACEB) comes frm Sanne DeWitt. Contact her at skdewitt@concast.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2010.

Obama and company have been insisting, with enormous perversity, that "peace" between Israel and the PA was necessary in order to make the "moderate" Arab states happy, and that until these states were satisfied, they would not cooperate with the West. Thus, went the president's rationale, the onus was on us to make that "peace," as much depended upon it. If Israel got burned in the process, well, it would be for the greater good.

I have been maintaining that just the opposite was the case — that, in point of fact, those Arab states were sorely irked by the US because of its weak stance. And I was hardly the only one to have been saying this: we heard it from analysts such as Jonathan Spyer and Barry Rubin, both of BESA.


And now — enter www.Wikileaks.org — we see the reality beneath the US hype. WikiLeaks is a website self-identified as a "media organization" whose goal "is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth."

This "media organization" has the potential to do great damage in those instances in which diplomacy legitimately must be conducted outside the glare of public attention. I do not pretend to be altogether comfortable with its goals or its methods.

But in the instance at hand, WikiLeaks has released a huge cache of information that has the potential to be very enlightening and helpful indeed.

What has now been released by WikiLeaks are some 250,000 US State Department diplomatic cables — the largest diplomatic leak in history -- that were made available first to five newspapers: The Guardian (London), The New York Times, Der Spiegel (Germany), Le Monde (France), and El Pais (Spain). They began releasing excerpts last night.


In the days leading up to the posting of the leaks, the US was busy informing allies that secret matters were about to become public, and that they [the allies] might be embarrassed. But it is the US itself that should be most embarrassed by what has been leaked.

In a nutshell, Saudi Arabia in particular, as well as other Arab states — notably Gulf states such as Bahrain and the UAE, and Jordan and Egypt — have been expressing alarm about Iran and secretly lobbying the US to get tough.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who is crown prince of the United Arab Emirates and deputy commander of its armed forces, is on record as having referred to Iran as an "existential threat" and suggesting that the US send in ground forces to "take out" Iranian nuclear targets, should air strikes alone proved inadequate. He is cited as saying that, "Iran [is] a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities....Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and Africa."

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, king of Saudi Arabia, is quoted as having told Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, "You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters." He then declared, when addressing someone else, "May God prevent us from falling victim to their [Iranian] evil. We have had correct relations over the years, but the bottom line is that they cannot be trusted."

While the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, in reporting on a meeting King Abdullah had with U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in back in April 2008, explained, "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake."

The picture is clear.


A number of things follow from this exposure. It certainly vindicates our stand on Iran. Too often Israeli leaders have been accused of being too "alarmist" with regard to Iran, and using this issue to deflect from lack of progress on the "peace process."

At a press conference in Tel Aviv today, Netanyahu said:

"The greatest threat to peace is the Iranian regime's arming race, and what is most important is that many leaders and governments in the Middle East realize this threat. There is a gap between what is said publicly and what is said behind closed doors.

"Leaders realize there is a new threat and a new understanding. I don't remember [that] there was such understanding in the Middle East [previously]. I hope leaders will have the courage to tell their people what they said about Iran [privately]."

Our prime minister said that if these leaks will have the effect of inhibiting honest diplomatic talk in private (out of fear of later exposure), then there will be a real problem. "But if the leaders make the statements publicly there will be a significant change. When leaders are willing to tell their people the truth it promotes peace."


Unfortunately, already Arab states — with Jordan leading the way — are beginning to deny they ever called for tough action against Iran. The motivating factor here, plain and simple, is fear. If Iran dominates in the area, it is unwise to be on the wrong side of the Iranian regime. How different it would be if the US were demonstrating deterrence power.


At least in theory (I am mindful of the difference between theory and what actually happens), these leaks should take some of the pressure off of us with regard to the "necessity" for us to strike a deal with the Palestinian Arabs to make Arabs states more cooperative or to bring peace to the whole region. At any rate, it will be harder for members of the Obama administration to continue to make the claims they have been making.


Obama's motivation, as he ignored Arab pleas to take on Iran, is somewhat of a puzzlement. So often his actions and policies are interpreted in terms of his tilting towards Muslim nations. But here he has been disregarding the urgent pleas of those very Muslim nations with which he should be the most closely allied. We might talk about his belief (expressed in various contexts) that the US is merely one nation in the world community of nations — 245 in the world, 194 in the UN — from which he draws the corollary that the US should not flex its muscles. Or it may simply be that Obama hasn't the fortitude, the inner strength or courage, to stand against an enemy. (Being tough with allies is something else.)

Will this public embarrassment motivate him to additional toughness with Iran before it's too late? The 64 million dollar question.


Ahmadinejad has admitted publicly for the first time that the exceedingly complex Stuxnet cyberworm has done damage to Iran's computers.

Iran's enemies, he declared to reporters, "succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts. They did a bad thing. Fortunately our experts discovered that and today they are not able (to do that) anymore."

But Iran's problems are not over, with regard to this.

In addition, according to a businessman who travels to Iran frequently and was cited by WikiLeaks, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has terminal cancer. His departure would be expected to shift the dynamic of power inside of Iran.

As to WikiLeaks revelations, Ahmadinejad says they are"psychological warfare," part of a "satanic plot" to cause trouble between Iran and Arab states.


Yet another fascinating piece of information released by WikiLeaks: Before Operation Cast Lead — Israel's military operation into Gaza at the end of 2008 and into January 2009 — Defense Minister Barak had approached both the Palestinian Authority and Egypt about taking over Gaza if Israel should defeat Hamas there. Both declined. Egypt's reluctance to assume responsibility for Gaza does not surprise me. But the PA? Its leaders refer frequently to the illegal coup by means of which Hamas wrested control of Gaza, and to the need to re-establish PA control there. The US assessment was that the PA was weak (is everyone paying attention here?).

I will suggest something else: Perhaps the PA wishes to remain weak, and to utilize the tension with Hamas as a reason for not concluding a peace accord.


And the news on the "peace" front?

Yesterday I picked up my hard-copy of the JPost and read the headline — "Fatah declares: No to Israel as Jewish state."

"Oh!" I thought to myself (I am not making this up), "I accidentally picked up an old edition of the paper." Then I checked the date and saw that it was the current edition.

This is news? Bold headline news? Perhaps it was fancied to be such because this time it was Fatah saying it, and not the PA or the PLO. As if there is truly a difference. Perhaps it's news because there is nothing else to say. For me it's rather ho hum.

What Fatah actually said was no to Israel as a Jewish state, no to interim borders, no to land swaps (i.e., Israel maintaining communities beyond the Green Line and giving the PLO land inside the Green Line).

Now, as we read a bit further, we find that the Fatah Revolutionary Council statement said that it "renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion..." This is the same Fatah that looks to Mahmoud Abbas as its leader, Mahmoud Abbas who has declared he would have no Jews in his Palestinian state. It's a joke.

An Israeli government official responded with: "I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us?"

A rhetorical question.


And speaking of PA president Mahmoud Abbas... He has just officially designated the Alashekeen Band as a Palestinian national band.

This group performs on PA-TV. See here, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch, a video of their September performance, in which they praise "the revolution" and jihad via dance and the song: "Bracelets replaced with weapons, pull the trigger":
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=475&fld_id =475&doc_id=3179

Our "peace partners."

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, November 29, 2010.

U.S. spied on Israel's Washington embassy, claims ex-envoy Wire-tapping began at some point after 1996 and took a number of years for embassy officials to discover, says Itamar Rabinovich.

This was written by Yossi Melman and it appeared today in Haaretz.


The United States broke an Israeli code and tapped the secure phone line in the Israeli Embassy in Washington without Jerusalem's knowledge.

That revelation about Israeli-American relations did not come from WikiLeaks, but rather from former ambassador to Washington Itamar Rabinovich, in a radio interview yesterday.

Rabinovich did not say exactly when the code was broken and when Israel found out about it, but it was understood from his remarks that the tap started after his 1993-1996 tenure in the U.S. capital and was discovered only years later.

The former envoy said that every staffer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington is warned about possible leaks of conversations held in the building and on ordinary phone lines, but also on the secure phone line.

After the Americans broke the code, Israel's deepest policy secrets were apparently exposed.

"Every 'juicy' telegram was in danger of being leaked," Rabinovich told Army Radio's Razi Barkai. "We sent very few of them. Sometimes I came to Israel to deliver reports orally. The Americans were certainly tapping the regular phone lines, and it became clear that in later years they were also listening to the secure line."

Wiretapping, code-breaking and intercepting of messages is the province of the National Security Agency. It is no secret that despite intelligence cooperation and an understanding between the two countries that they will not spy on each other, both Israel and the United States have been involved in such actions.

For example, Israel has had involvements with agents like Jonathan Pollard, and stolen sensitive information and technological secrets for its security industries.

No spies caught

As far as is known, American spies have not been caught by Israel's intelligence services, although there have been instances when U.S. intelligence operatives contacted Israeli citizens and explored the possibility of recruiting them.

The Americans have also used their military attaches to gather information.

Israel believes that over the years, U.S. intelligence services have been listening - or at least attempting to listen - to conversations between key people in Israel and staff at its missions around the world.

For that reason, diplomats going abroad are instructed by the Shin Bet security service to treat every conversation as if it is being tapped and to make sure not to reveal secret information.

However, the assumption was still that the secure phone line could not being tapped.

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Project, November 29, 2010.

  • Netanyahu: Time for Arab world to speak openly about Iran threat
  • Iranian missiles could strike European capitals
  • Iran also backing Terrorist Groups in Yemen

Washington, Nov 27 — Publication of some 250,000 classified diplomatic cables by the Wikileaks website has exposed the fact that Arab states see Iran and its nuclear weapons program and not Israel as the real threat to Middle East stability and their own security.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the documents reinforced what Israel has been saying for years about the Iranian nuclear program.

"More and more countries, governments and leaders in the Middle East and the wider world understand that this is the fundamental threat," Netanyahu said at a news conference in Tel Aviv. "I hope the leaders will have the courage to say to their nations publicly what they've said about Iran."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded that the leaks were deliberately released as part of a psychological warfare campaign against his country.

But an analysis from Reuters puts the truth in stark terms: "The revelation confirm the depth of suspicion and hatred of the Shi'ites among Sunni Arab leaders, especially in Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni power and which regards Iran as an existential threat."

"Iran should take note of the distress that its nuclear program is causing in the region — this is not something that should be ignored," said Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center.

In one key document King Hamad of Bahrain "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate the Iranian nuclear program, by whatever means necessary. "That program must be stopped," he said. "The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it," he said.

"The cables reveal how Iran's ascent has unified Israel and many longtime Arab adversaries — notably the Saudis — in a common cause," The New York Times said. "The United States had put together a largely silent front of Arab states whose positions on sanctions and a potential attack looked much like Israel's."

Among the important revelations in the documents, as published by The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel are the following:

  • Saudi King Abdullah repeatedly urged the United States to destroy the Iranian program. "He told you [Americans] to "cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the U.S. general David Petraeus in April 2008. Abdullah told a US diplomat: "The bottom line is that they (the Iranians) cannot be trusted."

  • Officials from Jordan also called for the Iranian program to be stopped by any means necessary while leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil," and an "existential threat."

  • Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea that could let it strike at Western European capitals and Moscow.

  • Crown Prince bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi said in one cable: "Any culture that is patient and focused enough to spend years working on a single carpet is capable of waiting years and even decades to achieve even greater goals." His greatest worry, he said, "is not how much we know about Iran, but how much we don't."

  • Kuwait's military intelligence chief told Petraeus Iran was supporting Shi'ite groups in the Gulf and extremists in Yemen.

  • The United States failed to stop Syria from supplying arms to Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, who have amassed tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel. One week after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad promised a top State Department official that he would not send new arms to Hezbollah, the United States it had information that Syria was providing increasingly sophisticated weapons to the group.

  • Iran smuggled weapons to Hezballah in ambulances and medical vehicles in violation of international conventions. Hamas also used such vehicles for military and arms-smuggling operations.

  • Iran withheld from the International AtomicEnergy Agency the original design documents for a secret nuclear reactor.

Here are some sources for the raw materials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/240364

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40405218/ns/ world_news-the_new_york_times/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/209599


Contact The Israel Project by email at press@theisraelproject.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 29, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield and it appeared on the Sultan Knish website and is archived at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html


Mistletoe. Egg nog. And now Muslim terrorism. Last year's Christmas bomber was an African Muslim who stuffed his underwear full of plastic explosive and tried to detonate it on Flight 253. This year it's another African Muslim who tried to get an early start on Christmas terror by trying to car bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony.

Last year's Christmas terrorist hailed from Nigeria. This year's mad Muslim bomber comes from Somalia. And they bring with them tidings of a new season. A season in which holiday shopping now comes with massacre plots mixed in with the radio jingles and cheer.

If gift wrapping and church going are Christmas traditions, carrying out massacres during other people's holiday celebrations is a Muslim tradition.

In Israel, holidays are a time for extra special caution. The Passover massacre in which dozens of senior citizens attending a holiday meal were murdered, the Yom Kippur War in which Muslim armies invaded Israel on the holiest day of its year or the Purim bombing outside a Tel Aviv mall using a nail bomb, are just some of the obvious examples of Muslim religious tolerance at work.

It's not limited to Jews or Christians either. In 2008, a number of bombs went off in Delhi just before Diwali. And back in 1991, Muslims planned to massacre thousands of Hindus during Diwali. Had they succeeded, the death toll might have been bigger than 9/11.

Nearly two decades ago, North America was put on alert that importing Muslim immigrants, also meant bringing along their genocidal tendencies. Like renting rooms to tenants whose dogs have a little rabies problem, importing Islam, also means bringing in the same people who have been murdering Christians, Jews, Hindus and countless others around the world, ever since Mohamed's namesake first preached that he had a unique revelation and an exclusive license to kill, rob, rape and subjugate in the name of Allah.

While the news stories will insist that Mohamed Osman Mohamud (twice the Mohammed for twice the mayhem) was "lured" into a life of terror, he was just doing what Muslims since the time of Mohammed have naturally done. "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you", the Koran proclaims to the devout Muslim. For Mohamedx2, the "unbelievers" were grouping together at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland. And his goal was simple enough, "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave dead or injured."

While we may go on denying it, for Muslims this is a religious war. And what better target for terror, than an infidel's religious event?

The clergy at interfaith conferences may yammer on about how we're all the children of god, but Muslims know better. They are the slaves of Allah and we are heretics and idol worshipers. It's their duty to fight us, until we submit and accept Muslim rule. The more we resist, the more they're obligated to kill us until we give in and there's a mosque on every corner and the Koran replaces the Constitution. It's a religious duty for a Muslim to make the Way of Allah triumphant all across the globe. To Muslims, this is a sacred duty and a way of life, that is not a detail, but the heart of the Koran.

Unlike Christians and Jews, the Islamic holy texts are not a complicated structure that takes place across a swath of history-- but an enormously simple one dominated by a relatively brief period and a single categorical imperative, to expand, dominate and rule. For the Muslim, life is complicated, but Islam is simple. And even the most secular and westernized Muslim will sooner or later feel an imperative to escape from the complications of modern life, into the pure simplicity of Islam. The media charges that such escapees misunderstand Islam, but in actuality they understand it quite well. It is a reversion to the barbaric, an Islamic narrative that sweeps aside the complexities of civilization and personal choice for something more elemental.

Goggling when university grads, doctors and other high end professionals suddenly embrace their "Inner Mohammed" and go on killing sprees is foolish. Modernity for the Muslim is a sham inflicted by colonialism and globalism on his own country and multiculturalism when he's abroad in the West. It is not the natural product of his own advancements, and no matter how often he's told that his people invented everything from telescopes to planes, it's always a poor fit.

Civilization is not something the Muslim invented, but something that was forced on him in defiance of his law, his culture and his traditions. And if he does everything in his power to bring it down in ashes, to burn, loot and rape his way across the continent, and every continent that was foolish enough to allow him entry in the hopes that he would be a good citizen and a worthwhile member of society, then its governments have more of the blame than he does.

The United States has taken in large numbers of Somalis. A poor idea even if they had not been coming over from a disaster area of a country, whose own version of the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union made even the Afghan version look mild by comparison. A country where the motto is "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God", where the law is Sharia law and the beheadings and floggings come fast and furious. Our newfound Somali citizens have since then done their parts to make America a more dangerous and more Muslim place.

In Minneapolis, Somali Muslim cabdrivers tried to deny service to infidels carrying duty free liquor. They've intimidated and shaken down companies who are afraid of being condemned as Anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. This August a baker's dozen of Somali immigrants were arrested for funneling money, weapons and fighters back home. Last year it was another eight. And the hits keep on coming out of Minnesota's "Little Mogadishu".

But Oregon has its own "Little Mogadishu". Before the influx of Somali Muslims, the American experience with Mogadishu was limited to the Battle of Mogadishu in which American military personnel were brutally murdered in the streets of that godforsaken urban slum masquerading as a city. Today there are Little Mogadishus everywhere. Sweden's Little Mogadishu suffers from riots and arson. And the usual terrorist recruitment. And their American Swedish cousins over in Minnesota are burdened with their own Little Mogadishu. Oregon's "Little Mogadishu" in Cedar Riverside has come of age, producing not just social problems, but a plot of Muslim mass murder.

Not that this is a bad thing of course. For a while it was a running joke, that the best way to upgrade your country was to attack America, lose and then wait to get rebuilt. That's the way it is in the Little Mogadishus too. The liberal solution to Muslim terrorist is to treat it as a social problem, throw some community centers, job opportunities and social services at it. And if some of that money filters back to the terrorists. If the social services centers become stealth mosques and the graduates of OSU choose bomb throwing over pigskin tossing, that just means not enough money has been sunk into making them feel at home. Meanwhile the Little Mogadishus keep growing, until they're not so little anymore.

Over in Oregon, Mohamed Osman Mohamud has made his own contribution to American culture. And the media assures us that this was one of those once in a million events. Nothing to see here, folks. We'll find out soon enough that he had personal problems. Maybe his rap career didn't work out. The girl he liked wouldn't go out with him and agree to be his third wife. And the camel's milk wasn't flowing like honey anymore. Not that it really matters. Everyone has stressors. And if we are to keep Muslims stress free, for fear that they'll start flipping through a Koran and shooting up the joint, then even the most ardent devotee of the Lady overlooking Liberty Island must ask himself if the price of Muslim immigration is really worth it.

Multiculturalism is one thing. But that's not what we have here. It's not living side by side with chicken noodle soup and tandoori restaurants. Or stacking churches, synagogues, ashrams and Shinto shrines on every block. Because while the political and cultural elite of the West may subscribe to multiculturalism, its Muslim imports subscribe to only one law. The law of Islam. They may lapse at times. They may get through a university education, attend nightclubs and strip clubs, listen to the same music all the other kids their age do-- but there's still a ticking time bomb inside their heads. And that bomb is the same one that appears as the lit fuse on the turban of the cartoon Mohammad. The cartoon that Muslims were willing to kill over. The bomb is Islam. And when it's lit, the result is mass murder.

It is an uncomfortable thing to think about. We who pride ourselves on our tolerance and slap ourselves on the back for our open-mindedness do not like to think that our civilization is an illusion, a parquet floor built over the roaring fire of barbarism underneath. But it was not so long ago, in the space of years, that our ancestors would have thought no more of killing people because they were different, than we would think of swatting a fly. The difference between us and the inhabitants of the Little Mogadishus is that we have changed. They have not. We have changed because we had time to change. Because we are the products of a culture that has changed. They are the products of a culture that has consciously resisted change. And much as we may befriend them, the thought of killing us can never be entirely wrong to them. After enough time spent together, we might rank above flies to them, but well below full-fledged and fellow humans. And when they need answers, they turn to a book whose verses promise salvation to our killers.

It is important to think of these things, because our lives and the survival of our civilization are at stake. We have begun to learn what it is like to live with terror. But we have not learned all of it by far. Terror haunted Christmas tree lighting celebrations are the beginning, but not the end of it. This is not a bridge we can cross with some multicultural cuisine and a PBS special. It requires that we understand what we have done. We have imported people from a culture and religion that has never accepted the most basic premise of our way of life. Coexistence. And so we cannot coexistence with them. And they cannot coexist with us. After a few years or decades of baffled attempts to adjust to a foreign way of life, they will either wall themselves off or make war on us. Or both at the same time. They cannot be our neighbors, only our enemies.

The sooner we realize that, the fewer bombing stories at Christmas we'll have to read about.

er is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Saperstein, November 28, 2010.

Gush Katif Viewpoint 169
November 28, 2010

I called Paula Stern. "Have you seen the mural with your stones at our Legacy Center?" I asked.

"I'm embarrassed to tell you, but I still haven't been to Nitzan to see it. I've seen pictures of the mural but not the mural itself."

"It's time to come, Paula," I urged. "I know you feel very emotional about the stones but it's time to see what was done with them."

Wednesday evening Paula arrived, accompanied by her mother. Ayala Azran, a Neve Dekalim artist who created the mural using Paula's stones, and Chagit Yaron, a director of the Legacy Center, were on hand to greet the visitors.

After the expulsion from Gush Katif, Paula received permission from the army to visit each community. She searched for the location of each Beit Knesset, the community synagogue. Though each was a pile of rubble she collected stones and on the back of each noted the name of the community. "I knew they were not mine and had to be returned to the people of Gush Katif."

Two years later the stones were brought to our Legacy Center in the Nitzan refugee camp to be turned into a mural. Pictures of each synagogue are in the center of the mural with the stones placed next to each picture. Tiles, rocks and shells from Gush Katif are used to depict the sky, sun, palms, sand and sea that made Gush Katif so extraordinary.

The meeting of Paula and Ayala brought some closure to the two people who, until then, were unknown to one another. On Wednesday night their part in the mural, a determined search and an artistic endeavor, came together.

The sense of expulsion is with us again. Families from Neve Dekalim have moved to their new homes in Nitzan B "up the hill". We who are still living in the refugee camp watch as the bungalows are emptied, disassembled and placed on flatbed trucks to be removed. The space now emptied turns into a field of weeds. The synagogues are emptying out as well. Soon they too will disappear.

I hope there will be a Paula who will come by and collect some shards of glass and stones, a reminder of this period in our lives when we lived in a second state of expulsion. Here is where we cried each night. Here we learned to rebuild our shattered lives. Here is where our children will once again have no home, no school, no playground to show their own children where they once lived.

Thank you, Paula, for retrieving those stones from Gush Katif. You showed unusual courage and daring to return to that scene of utter destruction to collect a few remnants of a once thriving community. For Gush Katif people who visit the Legacy Center there is a sense of longing and exquisite pleasure as they touch the stones from their beloved synagogues.

Our synagogue was always the center of our lives. The prayers, the Torah scrolls in the ark, the study of holy texts in the Beit Midrash enveloped us in a cocoon of perfection as we came closer and closer to the Almighty.

May we live to build our synagogues once again.

Please visit our Legacy Center in Nitzan. For an appointment, call Chagit Yaron: 054-6672846.

A happy Hannuka to all our friends and supporters.

################################### OPERATION DIGNITY needs your help more than ever. The people of Gush Katif living in Nitzan and other sites come to Operation Dignity for aid during these difficult times. Help us help them.

Shekel checks or US$ checks under $250 should be sent to

Operation Dignity
POB 445
Nitzan 79287 Israel

Dollar checks earmarked for Operation Dignity should be sent to

Operation Dignity, 13 Hagoel Street, Efrat 90435, Israel


Operation Dignity, 980 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, USA

See our website — www.operationdignity.com — for further details,

Rachel Saperstein and her husband, Moshe, were among the thousands of Jews kicked out of their homes in Gush Katif, in the Gaza strip, and forced into temporary quarters so dismal, their still-temporary paper-based trailers in Nitzan, seemed a step up. Contact them at ruchimo@.netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Porter, November 28, 2010.

K.Marx was maybe the first Jewish scientist-antisemite. His motives were immoral and well-known. His followers are of his kind in all respect I believe. As marx' theory was refuted by reality and Chomski's theories are alredy doubtful, not to tell the S. Zand's "theory". I'm sure that these antisemites create the wrong science in principle, let's have some patience. From the two ideas: "Jews are the chosen people" and "Jews are the loathsome illness of the humanity" these people chose the first sentence for themselves an the second — for Jewish masses.

Jews must get used to resist their enemies permanently as the law of life.And Palestinians will get used to know that their enemies are not 'kikes" they used to despise.This "convergensy can bring some peace in a century(may be).

Contact Porter by email at porter46@list.ru

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 28, 2010.

A friend of mine is a development director for a Jewish university in Israel, in other words, she raises funds for that university.

For some odd reason, the marketing materials constantly mention the number of Arab students at that university. It is apparently important to make that point, whether because of the location or the fact that each classroom has the flag of Israel.

Trying to sell "Jewish-Muslim co-existence" to prospective donors seems to miss the point. Why not highlight the absorption of Ethiopians whose parents did not even have running water or sewage, paved roads or electricity? Or how about Russian immigrants from the former Soviet Union, leading scientists and musicians, experts in their respective fields, with advanced degrees and areas of specialty with no applicability in Israel who became street sweepers at the beginning of the assimilation process?

There are causes worth being highlighted and promoted. A person who has arrived into the 21st Century from the deserts of Africa, walks into an elevator and two hours later is still inside, awed by the doors opening and closing. Or focus on a person whose achievements are numerous, and yet in order to put food on the table, does the most menial jobs without complaint.

Why promote the Arab constituency? Is it not playing right into their narrative and game plan?

There are Arab students in every Israeli university. Why should that surprise anyone? There are more than a million Arabs out of a population of seven million in Israel. Israel, contrary to prevailing belief, is not Apartheid South Africa.

Thus, my friend's effort to highlight that fact should be obvious is, to me, sending the wrong message. It looks "politically correct," goes out of the way to make an unnecessary point and falls prey into the hands of those maligning Israel with misleading Jewish propaganda.

There is one Arab student in particular who heads the international BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), directly from the comforts of Tel Aviv University where he is working on his doctorate.

There is another Jewish professor in particular who heads the Political Science Department at Ben Gurion University ("BGU") of the Negev. He, too, calls to boycott, divest and sanction Israel.

During a recent lecture here in Los Angeles, I asked the doctoral candidate why he studies at the Apartheid institution he acts to abolish. There are after all other universities, Arab ones, both in Israel and elsewhere (Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran ...) where he might feel more comfortable and receive full scholarship plus room and board.

Barguti, the student, is smart. It is much more effective to fight from within, access which adds credibility, while getting the very best education at the same time.

Prof. Neve Gordon of BGU uses Academia as his shield and protector. After publishing an OpEd piece in the Los Angeles Times, hundreds of his colleagues from throughout Israel came out to defend him in the spirit of Academic Freedom. Even the President of his university, a Jewish doctor in her own right, came to Los Angeles and explained that her "hands are tied."

All the while, Israel feels compelled to highlight the fact that Arabs are an integral part of every institution — from politics (Arabs members of the Knesset) to the judiciary (Arab Supreme Court Justice and judges and lawyers at every level of the system), from academia to the medical profession.

Educated, well-spoken, full of hatred — Israeli citizens who view themselves as a minority that is entitled to disengage. No longer are they Israeli-Arabs, i.e. citizens with equal rights despite having a different religion; they are now Palestinians with national aspirations (that call for the abolishment of the Jewish State and de facto do not recognize her right to exist).

They call themselves the "1948 Arabs," reminding us that Israel was Palestine, the land is theirs, the houses Israel demolished were theirs, Jerusalem is their capital and any construction anywhere in Judea and Samaria (including Jerusalem) is nothing short of settlement on their rightful land occupied by the Jews. The notion of 1948 Arabs now gives rise to a right of return to the one state — Palestine. There is no place for Israel.

I am awed at the efforts made to highlight equality, opportunity and the status quo of the Israeli Arabs. They call to abolish the state, actively participate in terror acts they view as "civil disobedience" (imagine the level of terror they will inflict when they decide to engage in the next armed struggle, the Third Intifada) and do not recognize the very trunk from which they stem.

Are they really blind to reality? I contend that they are not. Quite the contrary: If asked if they would want to live as a minority in Israel or under Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian control, the answer is always the same: Remain in Israel.

When they need medical attention, they invariably go to Jewish hospitals. This year thus far, 180,000 Palestinians went to Israel for medical treatment, including tens of thousands from Gaza.

Where is it better to study: At Haifa, Tel Aviv, Beer Sheva, Ariel or Jerusalem or elsewhere? Look at the number of Arab students at each of these universities and the answer becomes obvious.

Arabs feel at home in Israel, because the Jewish state is their home. They are no different from any other citizen, yet they are actively engaged in fighting the state.

I knew two Israeli doctors from the Soroka hospital in the Negev. The hospital is associated with BGU. The two doctors spent two years in Los Angeles, so we ended up spending many hours together.

They have three children, two girls and a boy, and when I asked if they would treat when on duty as Emergency Room Attending a terrorist who blew himself up when one of their kids was lying on the next operating room bed, the answer was without any hesitation "yes."

I took it as a sign of true dedication to their profession and the oath they took. What is so unusual is that they are not the exception but the rule. Throughout the bloody Intifadas and the armed battles that ensued over the years, Israeli doctors were treating the enemy alongside the soldiers and civilians they injured. Every person receives the same level of treatment.

For Jewish people this is reasonable and expected. For people of the Middle East this is stupidity at its best. Come in, you will be treated as royalty. You tried to murder me a minute ago? Never mind that. You will return after I heal you strapped with explosives? We will survive that too. You would want your children to become martyrs (shaids), we would still treat them as we did before.

The Hebrew University's Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, the Soroka Hospital in the Negev, the Carmel Hospital in Haifa, and on through each and every medical center in Israel, are proud of their Arab doctors, nurses and support staff. They are an integral part of a profession that saves lives, an industry that has excelled more than anywhere else in the world.

Only in Israel can such contradictions exist.

To Israelis, there is never a moral dilemma: "A terrorist fires at IDF soldiers, is shot and wounded. Is an IDF medic to be called to treat him? A building is about to collapse in the heart of Ramallah. Does the IDF enter? Does it jeopardize its soldiers' lives, or does it call the International Red Cross and risk losing precious time?

"To Israel, the answer to these questions is clear. According to Division Medical Officer, Lt. Col. Michael Kassirer, 'The treatment of the Palestinian population is first and foremost a moral and professional obligation for every one of us. Do we treat them? There is no question about it.'"

As long as Israel continues to treat a terrorist and his victims equally, terror will reign. I do not doubt the sincerity of the two doctors — they would undoubtedly treat a terrorist and their critically wounded son or daughter side by side; they have done similarly in the past.

As long as my fund-raising friend continues to highlight the Arab population as a selling point, there will be an ever growing sense of entitlement: "We deserve more!" More importantly, it shows a weakness of political correctness, an experiment long shown to bring our downfall.

Equal treatment and equal access are privileges that must not be taken for granted. The Palestinians know that whatever they do, all doors will remain open, welcoming them with a royal treatment.

One day this must all come to an end, then, the Palestinians will have to make up their minds: What is it they prefer? Do they want peace and co-existence the Jewish-Israeli way, or do they want life under Muslim rule.

I know the answer. They do too. But in the meantime, they play both ends and dance at both weddings.

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 28, 2010.

The rot in world leadership has progressed from sheer weakness to the stench of a putrefying corpse. As the thugs of Iran and North Korea build an arsenal of weapons that can level cities, our various so-called leaders of the world's nations sprinkle a perfume of lies over themselves to mask their odor of "dead men walking".

As Caroline Glick says in the prescient article below: "Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the leader of the free world is making things worse."

Rogue dictators are killing their own people and also others but, America's leaders are reaching out to these vicious criminals instead of assassinating them. America's so-called leaders who artfully avoid ridding the world of these monsters should themselves be brought to trial for aiding the world's vicious enemies, resulting in the deaths of thousands.

Why should the innocents die while world leaders lie, telling us they are doing everything they can when, in fact, they do next to nothing as they hide behind lies? Must we all die while our leaders dine in splendor with other politicians of their ilk and their overpaid aides?

We watch in horror as America and Israel have become targets as their leaders virtually invite attacks by Islam because they bow down to Terror.

This article below was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post and the Jewish World Review. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her at caroline@carolineglick.com.


Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the leader of the free world is making things worse.

On the Korean peninsula, North Korea just upended eight years of State Department obfuscation by showing a team of US nuclear scientists its collection of thousands of state of the art centrifuges installed in their Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

And just to top off the show, as Stephen Bosworth, US President Barack Obama's point man on North Korea was busily arguing that this revelation is not a crisis, the North fired an unprovoked artillery barrage at South Korea, demonstrating that actually, it is a crisis. But the Obama administration remains unmoved. On Tuesday Defense Secretary Robert Gates thanked his South Korean counterpart Kim Tae-young for showing "restraint." Thursday, Kim resigned in disgrace for that restraint.

The US has spoken strongly of not allowing North Korea's aggression to go unanswered. But in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt North Korea back to feckless multilateral disarmament talks that will go nowhere because China supports North Korean armament. Contrary to what Obama and his advisors claim, China does not share the US's interest in denuclearizing North Korea.

Consequently, Beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal.

Then there is Iran. The now inarguable fact that Pyongyang is developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but certain that the hyperactive proliferators in Pyongyang are involved in Iran's uranium based nuclear weapons program. Obviously the North Koreans don't care that the UN Security Council placed sanctions on Iran. And their presumptive role in Iran's nuclear weapons program exposes the idiocy of the concept that these sanctions can block Iran's path to a nuclear arsenal.

Every day as the regimes in Pyongyang and Teheran escalate their aggression and confrontational stances it becomes more and more clear that the only way to neutralize the threats they pose to international security is to overthrow them. At least in the case of Iran, it is also clear that the prospects for regime change have never been better.

Iran's regime is in trouble. Since the fraudulent presidential elections 18 months ago the regime has moved ferociously against its domestic foes. But dissent has only grown. And as popular resentment towards the regime has grown, the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme dictator Ali Khamenei and their Revolutionary Guards have become terrified of their own people. They have imprisoned rappers and outlawed Western music. They have purged their schoolbooks of Persian history. Everything that smacks of anything non-Islamic is viewed as a threat.

Members of the regime are so frightened by the public that this week several members of parliament tried to begin impeachment proceedings against Ahmadinejad. Apparently they hope that ousting him will be sufficient to end the public's call for revolutionary change.

But Khamenei is standing by his man. And the impeachment proceedings have ended as quickly as they began.

The policy implications of all of this are clear. The US should destroy Iran's nuclear installations and help the Iranian people overthrow the regime. But the Obama administration will have none of it.

Earlier this month Gates said "If it's a military solution, as far as I'm concerned, it will bring together a divided nation."

So in his view, the Iranian people who risk death to defy the regime every day, the Iranian people who revile Ahmadinejad as "the chimpanzee," and call for Khamenei's death from their rooftops every evening will rally around the chimp and the dictator if the US or Israel attacks Iran's nuclear installations.

Due to this thinking, as far as the Obama administration is concerned the US should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs.

As Michael Ledeen noted last week at Pajamas Media, this boilerplate assertion, backed by no evidence whatsoever is what passes for strategic wisdom in Washington as Iran completes its nuclear project. And this US refusal to understand the policy implications of popular rejection of the regime is what brings State Department wise men and women to the conclusion that the US has no dog in this fight. As State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told the Wall Street Journal this week, the parliament's bid to impeach Ahmadinejad was nothing more than the product of "rivalries within the Iranian government."

Then there is Lebanon. Since Ahmadinejad's visit last month, it is obvious that Iran is now the ruler of Lebanon and that it exerts its authority over the country through its Hezb'Allah proxy. Hezb'Allah's open threats to overthrow Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government if its role in assassinating his father in 2005 is officially acknowledged just make this tragic reality more undeniable. And yet, the Obama administration continues to deny that Iran controls Lebanon.

A month after Ahmadinejad's visit, Obama convinced the lame duck Congress to lift its hold on $100 million in US military assistance to the Hezb'Allah-dominated Lebanese military. And the US convinced Israel to relinquish the northern half of the border town Rajar to UN forces despite the fact that the UN forces are at Hezb'Allah's mercy.

In the midst of all these crises, Obama has maintained faith with his two central foreign policy goals: forcing Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and scaling back the US nuclear arsenal with an eye towards unilateral disarmament. That is, as the forces of mayhem and war escalate their threats and aggression, Obama's central goals remain weakening the US's most powerful regional ally in the Middle East and rendering the US incompetent to deter or defeat rapidly proliferating rogue states that are at war with the US and its allies.

Having said that, the truth is that in advancing these goals, Obama is not out of step with his predecessors. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both enacted drastic cuts in the US conventional and nonconventional arsenals. Clinton and George W. Bush adopted appeasement policies towards North Korea. Indeed, Pyongyang owes its nuclear arsenal to both presidents' desire to be deceived and do nothing.

Moreover, North Korea's ability to proliferate nuclear weapons to the likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela owes in large part to then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's insistence that Israel say nothing about North Korea's nuclear ties to Iran and Syria in the wake of Israel's destruction of the North Korean built and Iranian financed nuclear reactor in Syria in September 2007.

As for Iran, Obama's attempt to appease the regime is little different from his predecessors' policies. The Bush administration refused to confront the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Iranian proxy wars to a large degree. The Bush administration refused to acknowledge that Syria and Hezb'Allah are run by Teheran and that the 2006 war against Israel was nothing more than an expansion of the proxy wars Iran is running in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama's failed "reset" policy towards Russia is also little different from its predecessors' policies. Bush did nothing but squawk after Russia invaded US ally Georgia. The Clinton administration set the stage for Vladimir Putin's KGB state by squandering the US's massive influence over post-Soviet Russia and allowing Boris Yeltsin and his cronies transform the country into an impoverished kleptocracy.

Finally, Obama's obsession with Israeli land giveaways to the PLO was shared by Clinton and by Bush, particularly after 2006. Rice who compared Israel to the Jim Crow South was arguably as hostile towards Israel as Obama.

So is Obama really worse than everyone else or is he just the latest in a line of US Presidents who have no idea how to run an effective foreign policy?

The short answer is that he is far worse than his predecessors.

A US President's maneuver room in foreign affairs is always very small. The foreign policy establishment in the Washington is entrenched and uniformly opposed to bending to the will of elected leaders. The elites in the State Department and the CIA and their cronies in academia and policy circles in Washington are consistently unmoved as well by reality which as a rule exposes their policies as ruinous.

The president has two ways to shift the ship of state. First he can use his bully pulpit. Second, he can appoint people to key positions in the foreign policy bureaucracy.

Since entering office, Obama has used both these powers to ill effect. He has travelled across the world condemning and apologizing for US world leadership. In so doing he has convinced ally and adversary alike that he is not a credible leader; that no one can depend on US security guarantees during his watch; and that it is possible to attack the US, its allies and interests with impunity.

Obama's call for a nuclear free world combined with his aggressive stance towards Israel's purported nuclear arsenal, his bid to disarm the US nuclear arsenal, and his ineffective response to North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship and Iran's nuclear project have served to convince nations from the Persian Gulf to South America to the Pacific Rim that they should begin developing nuclear weapons. By calling for nuclear disarmament, he has provoked the greatest wave of nuclear armament in history.

Given his own convictions, it is no surprise that all his key foreign policy appointments share his dangerous views. The State Department's Legal Advisor Harold Koh believes the US should subordinate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy believes terrorists become radicalized because they are poor. She is advised by leftist extremist Rosa Brooks. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to open criminal investigations against CIA operatives who interrogated terrorists and try illegal enemy combatants in civilian trials.

In all these cases and countless others, Obama's senior appointees are implementing policies that are even more radical and dangerous that then the radical and dangerous policies of the Washington policy establishment. Not only are they weakening the US and its allies, they are demoralizing public servants who are dedicated to defending their country by signaling clearly that the Obama administration will leave them high and dry in a crisis.

When a Republican occupies the White House, his foreign policies are routinely criticized and constrained by the liberal media. Radical Democratic presidents like Woodrow Wilson have seen their foreign policies reined in by Republican Congresses.

Given the threats Obama's radical policies are provoking, it can only be hoped that through hearings and other means, the Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives will take an active role in curbing his policies. If they are successful, the American people and the international community will owe them a debt of gratitude.  

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 Michael Sherbourne, November 28, 2010.

To International Christian Zionist Center

Thank you dear friends for your message (see below) and Oh! if only the Israeli leaders would listen to your voice, the voice of reason and common sense ! But NO! They still consider making concessions to their enemies. They still seem to think that they must make efforts to get them to the so-called "negotiations" table, when there is nothing to negotiate. For the Arabs have only one main idea in their heads, namely, "How quickly can we destroy the "Zionist entity" and thus be able to slaughter the Jews !"

There can be no negotiations with such people, especially when they make it quite clear that a so-called "2 State Solution" is only the first step towards a "One State Solution", a state that will be run under Islamic Sharia Law, with not a living Jew inside its borders. For they will be either slaughtered or "driven into the sea".

But NO! Israel's leaders are still stuck with "negotiations"; and the Israeli Army commanders are still mind-fixed that we must not harm their civilians — those civilians who are only too bloodthirsty to spill the blood of as many Jews as they can. "We must not harm their civilians even if it endangers our own soldiers' lives" is their clarion call !

They should learn from Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt that Total War means Total War for both sides !. Those two great men had no qualms about bombing German cities, even Dresden, and Winston Churchill, probably the greatest man of the 20th century is reported as having said during the War "The only good German is a dead one". And only after the War was won and the Nazi menace was destroyed did he talk of "Magnanimity in Victory." And that was after the two Atomic Bombs dropped on Japan, killing innumerable civilians.

with gratitude to you, but Sadly,
Michael Sherbourne


"Peace Through Victory"
by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director
By International Christian Zionist Centre (iczc@iczc.org.il).

Elisha had become sick with the illness of which he would die. Then Joash the king of Israel came down to him, and wept over his face, and said, "O my father, my father, the chariots of Israel and their horsemen!" And Elisha said to him, "Take a bow and some arrows." So he took himself a bow and some arrows. Then he said to the king of Israel, "Put your hand on the bow." So he put his hand on it, and Elisha put his hands on the king's hands. And he said, "Open the east window"; and he opened it. Then Elisha said, "Shoot"; and he shot. And he said, "The arrow of the Lord's deliverance and the arrow of deliverance from Syria; for you must strike the Syrians at Aphek till you have destroyed them." Then he said, "Take the arrows"; so he took them. And he said to the king of Israel, "Strike the ground"; so he struck three times, and stopped. And the man of God was angry with him, and said, "You should have struck five or six times; then you would have struck Syria till you had destroyed it! But now you will strike Syria only three times." (2 Kings 13:14-19)

So, what is the policy Israel's government is ready to implement in the event war breaks out?

Will Israel now forewarn the world, in no uncertain terms, that finding itself surrounded as it is with deadly enemies on all sides — despite all its concessions and proven willingness to secure peaceful coexistence — that if these enemies nevertheless, in their folly and hatred, should again attack Israel and cause thousands of civilian casualties, Israel will annex all territories she already has and those she will acquire as a result of this aggression against her state and people?

If the international community is opposed to such a dire outcome, Israel should serve the following notice: Tell the Arab nations now to desist from attacking us again or face the consequences of the war you initiate.

As Israel's outgoing chief of Military Intelligence just warned, the next war will unquestionably be more serious and bloody than all that have gone before. None of the thousands of Israeli civilian and military casualties will be able to be retrieved.

Israel's government should therefore, in preparation for this conflict, and in a serious bid to avert it, confront the whole world — including its hate-driven foes — with the dire consequences and outcome of this war. There will not be no more negotiations for false and unworthy peace agreements. Israel will make clear and announce now that, like the Allied forces in the last world war, Israel will this time fight until victory, and not until another ceasefire and endless negotiations. And the Jewish state will then, much as the Allied command did after its victory over the Nazis, dictate Israel's own conditions of peace.

Therefore, no Mr. Muallem, Foreign Minister of Syria, when you recently said, "There only will be losers as a result of the next war," I want to say to you, "No, there will be a winner and also there will be a loser. So don't start this war, Mr. Muallem!"

Contact Michael Sherbourne by email at maiklsher@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 28, 2010.

In the December 2010 issue of Commentary, Michael S. Bernstam placed a brilliant dissection of UNRWA as helping keep Palestinian Arabs in a state of war. Mr. Bernstam would end the UNRWA-type treatment of Palestinian Arabs as permanent UN dependents, revanchist and revengeful, and entitled to reconquer Israel. He thinks that would permit a genuine peace process in the Mideast.

That conclusion misses the scope and point of the conflict. There is no "the Mideast" conflict. There are several Mideast conflicts. One of them is the Arab-Israel conflict, really a Muslim-Jewish conflict. In most of Israel's wars, foreign Arabs were its main antagonists.

Even if Palestinian Arabs were not institutionally kept in a state of war by the way UNRWA treats them, the other Arabs and the Palestinian Arabs still would have an Islamic motive for war on Israel. That is why there cannot be a peace process until Islam becomes tolerant.

Although Bernstam suggests letting the refugee descendants assimilate into their host countries, he also suggests, without offering justification, encouraging them to set up their own state alongside Israel. Considering how motivated Arabs are by jihad, it would be wiser to rule out sovereignty for them in what he admits is the Jewish homeland.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 28, 2010.

Dennis "Avi" Lipkin, a Jew, in his book, Israel's Bible Bloc, explained how he got over his hatred of Christians and came to embrace them as Israel's best friend.

In 1991, as the IDF spokesperson, he was invited to speak to the Dallas Council on World Affairs. They were part of the famous or infamous Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He writes, "These are the people who control the economy of the US and the World. These are faceless people who decide who the President of the United States will be as well as leaders of other countries. They control the banks corporations and oil companies that control the world."

The CFR includes among its members the power elites in both the Democrat and Republican parties and they include most Presidential nominees. They support world government and globalization. They are building a modern day Tower of Babel which denies American sovereignty and the supremacy of God from which our inalienable rights come in favour of a secular socialist utopia. Pres Obama is a member of CFR.

Lipkin spoke eloquently on how Israel had already returned 93% of the conquered land and on Israel's need to keep the rest. Afterwards, he was invited into the "woodshed" with about 20 members of the Council.

"You are a great IDF spokesman but you don't know the realities. We here of the Dallas Council on World Affairs, are going to teach you realities.

"First reality: America is tired of paying for your wars. Israel is going to make peace with the Palestinians whether it likes it or not. We don't care if you have already handed over to the Arabs side 93% of the land you took in your wars. You are going to hand over, not 93%, or 97%, but 100% and more! You Israelis are all alone. And we don't even care about the UN Resolutions 242 and 338 calling for new borders which are recognizable and defensible."

"Second reality. There is only one thing that made America great: the barrel of oil — the steady price of oil the steady supply of oil. Is that clear?"

To which Lipkin replied, after he picked himself up off the floor,

"You know, we Jews never came in the way of America's oil supplies. In fact we paid for your oil supplies with 6 million of our people in WWII. When the Arabs and their oil snapped the whip in the 1930's and 1940's, the U.S. and Britain decided not to give the Jews seeking to flee from Nazi Europe, visas to Palestine, England, the western hemisphere or whatever. It is true that Hitler and the Nazis physically killed the Jews, but the decision to industrially kill all the Jews was only taken in January 1942 at the Wannese Conference in Berlin because there were then over 7 million Jews holed up in the ghettos behind Whermacht lines and the world would not grant the Jews asylum. So we Jews were massacred so as not to get in the way of Arab oil. Breckenridge Long, US Under-Secretary of State for visas, made sure to it that no Jews would get visas to get into the US, Canada and Cuba.

"And now you mean to say that it is going to happen again? You guys are going to sacrifice 5 million more Jews in Israel for the barrel of oil?"

They answered in the affirmative which meant they were prepared for a second holocaust.

What made him appreciate Evangelical Christians as Israel's friend was that in response to their dire threats and warnings, two Christians who were with him in the room and not members of the Council, boldly stood up and said to them, one after the other, "You call yourself Christians? You say that what made America great was a barrel of oil? You should be ashamed of yourselves. What made America great was not a barrel of oil. What made America great was Jesus Christ." and "Besides it says in the bible those who bless Israel are blessed and those who curse Israel are cursed."

History bears CFR's threats out.

The State Department was against the creation of Israel before its birth, forced Israel to retreat from the Sinai after she conquered it in '56 and maintained an arms embargo on Israel throughout the War of Independence ending only after the '67 war. The State Department negotiated UNSC Res 242 at the end of the war which allowed Israel to remain in occupation until she had an agreement for "secure and recognized borders". But the Arabs refused to accept it. So two years later, the US came up with the Rogers' Plan which required full retreat to the '49 armistice line.

In 1974, President Richard Nixon told Syrian president Hafez al-Assad that Washington was committed to seeing an "Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied territories".

A year later, Henry Kissinger met with Sadun Hammadi, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs. A transcript of this meeting has been published which discloses Kissinger's attempts to assuage the concerns of Hammadi.

"We don't need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. We can't negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs."

Thereafter the US, at first surreptitiously and then openly, backed the PLO. She saved them from Israel's coup de gras in Beirut and enabled them to be welcomed in the United Nations and into the US.

The US forced Israel to participate in the Madrid Conference in 1991 and insisted that Jerusalem be put on the table and that the PLO be included in the Palestinian delegation. All this pressure resulted in the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the re-entry into Israel of her mortal enemy, the PLO, headed by Arafat. Remember how sick Rabin looked when he was forced to shake the hand of the arch murderer, Arafat, on the White House lawn under the auspices of the smiling President Clinton.

Oslo ran its course and was superseded by the Roadmap in 2003. This Roadmap replaced Res 242 with the Arab Initiative which included the Rogers Plan just as the Dallas Council had underlined.

While the US maintains that the final agreement had to be negotiated between the parties, the US puts a "gun" to Israel's head during negotiations. The peace process is all about reaching an agreement, pre-determined by the Saudi/US alliance.

If you think this is an antisemitic thing, it is not. It is about money and world domination.

Mordechai Nisan recently wrote that The U.S. has long sided with the Arab world. He pointed out that the US has supported the Muslims in the Balkans, in Cyprus, in Somali and in Lebanon at the expense of the Christians. The U.S. also turns a blind eye to the killing of Christians in Egypt and in Iraq and to discrimination against Christians in Saudi Arabia and in the territories under the rule of the PA,

The US brought Turkey into NATO and backs her inclusion in the EU. The US has also maintained an alliance with Pakistan for many decades. The US arms Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the PA. Now she is also arming the Lebanese army which is controlled by Hezbollah. Who else, but Israel, is the target?

Avi Lipkin adds to this list by informing that "In Indonesia, over a half a million Chinese were slaughtered in the sixties by the Moslems and the word remained silent. In 1975, the Indonesian army marched into East Timor and 300,000 Catholics were slaughtered". This is the same Indonesia that Pres Obama recently praised so much. And let us not forget that the Turkish Moslems slaughtered one and a half million Christian Armenians during WWI, to little Western condemnation. This silence gave Hitler the confidence that he could slaughter six million Jews twenty years later.

Recently, Turkey turned Islamist, aligned itself with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and still Pres Obama stands by Turkey.

Pres Obama's much pursued Muslim outreach merely makes public what has been a covert reality for American policy for 100 years.

The Islamic countries can do no wrong. They have all the oil and money. Israel can do no right. They are a pain in the globalist's butt.

You need not wonder anymore why the US embraces CAIR, invites Muslim immigration, integrates Muslims into the government, has sensitivity training for members of the FBI and calls Islam a religion of peace, notwithstanding 9/11. Or why the US permits the radicalization of most of the mosques in America by Saudi Arabia, their Muslim partner.

The establishment in America embraces the UN, the International Court of Justice and other international bodies. Plans are underway to create a North American Common Market (NACM) including Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. So why protect your borders? Why deport your aliens? It won't matter when the NACM is created.

All of these things and many more international initiatives, require the relinquishment of U.S. sovereignty. But that's OK. The establishment prefers Globalization and the New World Order.

Islam also denies sovereignty and democracy in favour of a World Caliphate ruled by Sharia Law. Thus the globalists and Islam make good bedfellows. Just as the Roman Empire co-opted the Catholic Church to control the masses, the Globalists employ Islam to do likewise.

Avi Lipkin understands this. He is advocating for an alliance between Israel and the Evangelical Christians as a bulwark to the plans of the unholy American/Muslim alliance. Only with such an alliance, can America and Israel, as we know them, be saved.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 28, 2010.

A Pennsylvania Jewish group that has claimed the Internal Revenue Service is targeting pro-Israel groups introduced in federal court today a letter from an IRS agent to another, unnamed organization that tax experts said was likely outside the usual or appropriate scope of an IRS inquiry.

"Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?" IRS agent Tracy Dornette wrote the organization, according to this week's court filing, as part of its consideration of the organizations application for tax exempt status. "Describe your organization's religious belief sytem toward the land of Israel."

The document emerged in the course of a lawsuit filed in August by Z Street, a hawkish group that casts itself as the Zionist answer to the liberal J Street. Z Street claims that a different IRS agent reviewing its application for tax exempt status said the agency is "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel" and that "a special unit" is determining whether its activities "contradict the Administration's public policies.'"

The IRS can deny tax exempt status to groups that work against "established public policy," a precedent established in its denial of a tax exemption to Bob Jones University over racial discrimination, and Z Street is suggesting that the IRS has begun applying some such policy to pro-Israel groups. The State Department has complained of tax exempt contributions to groups that fund weapons and equipment for West Bank settlers, which Z Street co-founder Lori Lowenthal Marcus said Z Street has never come close to doing.

"Given that we have fallen within this net, how big is the net?" she asked.

The agent's question was contained in correspondence with "a Jewish religious organization" with no stated position on Israel, Z Street says in its court filing. The group's tax adviser, Z Street says, shared the correspondence with Z Street. Z Street does not know the name of the group and may subpoena the tax adviser, who is no longer cooperating with them, for more information, Marcus said.

Several experts on non-profit tax law said the questions to the organization were unusual, at best, though they were also skeptical of the claim that the IRS is specifically targeting pro-Israel groups.

"The claims go far beyond what should be the IRS's role," said Paul Caron a University of Cincinnati law professor and the author of TaxProf Blog.

Ellen Aprill, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles said the second question was "appropriate" in the context of an application seeking a tax exemption on religious grounds.

"The first one is not the way I would want any of my agents to do it," she said.

Former I.R.S. Commissioner Sheldon Cohen said he was skeptical of Z Street's motives in its high-profile lawsuit, rather than pursuing its concerns in tax court.

"They were hardly into the process when they screamed rape — nobody lifted the dress yet," he said, noting that 501(c)3 groups can't advocate for political positions.

But he called the specific questions "unusual."

"I've never seen that kind of inquiry," he said.

And Ofer Lion, a California tax lawyer, said he thought the question was probably the work of a misguided agent.

"People who work in the field and have done a lot of these applications have seen these bizarre questions shot back at them more than once," he said.

Z Street maintains, however, that the questions are more evidence of a broader policy targeting pro-Israel groups. The organization claims that the agency is "improperly considering the political viewpoint of applicants" and engaging in "clear viewpoint discrimination."

The IRS has sought to dismiss Z Street's claim on technical grounds. A spokesman said he couldn't immediately comment on the new filing; in August, a spokesman said he couldn't comment on an ongoing case.  

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by US4Israel, November 27, 2010.

See article below for a discussion of the traditional firm Orthodox Jewish stance against Palestinian state. It is by Hillel Fendel and is called "Strong Orthodox Opposition to Palestinian State." It appeared November 25, 2010 in Arutz-7

Unfortunately, an American Jewish organization, the OU, with close ties with the Obama administration http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/04/06/1004289/ diament-ratzan-named-to-obamas-faith-based-council, has just switched sides and begun advocating for Palestinian state while disregarding the entrapment inherent in that plan for Israel. The article is called "Diament, Ratzan named to Obama's faith-based council" and is archived at
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/04/06/1004289/ diament-ratzan-named-to-obamas-faith-based-council/.

In Nathan J. Diament, OU Director of Public Policy op ed entitled, "Jerusalem must remain undivided," the 3rd paragraph from bottom ("We support a two-state solution") in:
http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/weblog_single/77552 reads:

"While we support a two-state solution that guarantees Israel's security and Jewish character, the choices required to bring us to that point must be grounded in reality. To keep Jerusalem growing socially and economically in the 21st century and beyond, the city must be unified under a single flag that recognizes and guarantees the rights of all its citizens."

Even when apparently asked point-blank by dismayed former supporters to clarify that it does not support Palestinian state, OU continued to waffle:

Kindly consider contacting the OU to protest this.

Example letter (if you don't enjoy writing your own):

Dear OU Management,

It is unthinkable to me that an Orthodox Jewish organization should support Palestinian state. This notion means an additional hostile, anti-Semitic Arab-Moslem state immediately overlooking Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv and Israel's sole international airport. It also exposes the Jewish people as a population willing to give away forever, crucial assets to which they are far more entitled than the Palestinians are. This is an extremely damaging image to have, considering the many powerful enemies who constantly aspire to test the Jewish people's resolve. Sincerely, (name)

OU addresses are as follows: rabbiweil@ou.org; execthw@ou.org; burg@ou.org; shlomoschwartz@ou.org; frankeld@ou.org; besslerl@ou.org; davido@ou.org; davidovics@ou.org; steiners@ou.org; rabbidave@ou.org; ipadc@ou.org; aberman@ouisrael.org; posners@ou.org; rakalinsky@ou.org;

If you wish, bcc us at: us4israel@gmail.com.

Please feel free to pass this letter on to other friends of Israel and particularly Orthodox American Jews. If you receive a response from the OU managers, kindly forward to us4israel@gmail.com.

Thanks for helping Israel.


"Strong Orthodox Opposition to Palestinian State. "
by Hillel Fendel

Orthodox Jewry in the United States is "fairly solid" in its opposition to a PLO state in the heartland of Israel — though a slight crack has been noted.

For instance, the National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) has urged American political leaders to reconsider its "two-state solution" policy. The NCYI also initiated a grass roots effort aimed at "enlightening" U.S. leaders regarding the dangers of pushing for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

In late 2007, when the future of the Jerusalem appeared to be on the table at the Annapolis talks, a broad coalition of Orthodox organizations wrote a letter to 2,000 American rabbis, stating: "This is not the time to discuss the dangers of a terrorist Palestinian State as a neighbor to Israel. Today, we must raise our voices at the thought of losing our united capital of Jerusalem..." The coalition included the National Council of Young Israel, the Orthodox Union, the Rabbinical Council of America, Emunah Women of America, AFSI, Hineni, AJOP (Outreach), NCSY, Poalei Agudath Israel of America, ZOA, and more.

Just this month, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) criticized plans reportedly being pushed by the Obama Administration to turn Judea and Samaria into a Palestinian state, with parts of eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to be "leased" by Israel from said state. The organization asserted that such a state "in which there is incitement to hatred and murder against Jews in PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps; terrorist groups not outlawed; terrorists not arrested; a Palestinian society that supports terror against Israel and doesn't accept Israel as a Jewish state — would likely become another anti-Israel terrorist state."')

The ZOA also called upon the Obama Administration to publicly declare that it will veto any attempt by the Palestinian Authority and its allies to have the UN Security Council pass a resolution to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state.

Similarly, the OU (Orthodox Union), at its last international convention, adopted a resolution that stated, "The Orthodox Union feels an historic obligation to preserve for the Jewish people the right to live and travel freely and safely in the land of our heritage, including the territories of Yehuda and Shomron [Judea and Samaria]... Thus, while we strive for security and peace, we are skeptical of any policy that relinquishes part of Eretz Yisrael without obtaining both."

A Crack?

This week, however, a slight crack in this strong Orthodox policy alliance against a Palestinian state was opened, even if not very noticeably. It occurred in an op-ed written by Nathan Diament, the Public Policy Director of the OU, for the New York Daily News, entitled, "Jerusalem Must Remain Undivided."

While making a solidly compelling case for keeping Jerusalem wholly under Israeli sovereignty, Diament allowed that the OU actually supports the two-state solution. "While we support a two-state solution that guarantees Israel's security and Jewish character," he wrote, "the choices required to bring us to that point must be grounded in reality." Contacted by Israel National News, Diament responded that the OU "hasn't changed its position," that a "passing phrase in my op-ed is not a reversal or change in that position," and that it was just "an unfortunate articulation." He did not offer to retract it, however.

OU leaders contacted by INN about this apparent contradiction of official OU policy by a top official did not respond. Others, however, in other email correspondence, left the off-the-record impression that Diament had "made a mistake."

The OU, billed as America's largest Orthodox Jewry umbrella organization, has been called upon, along with others, to "openly deplore plans promoted by the United States which clearly imply a total repudiation and [forced] elimination of Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria... Our entitlement to the Land of Israel is G-d-given. Declare to the world vocally that you as Torah Leaders of the People of Israel... do not reject our Biblical birthright... and therefore do reject, in principle, a Palestinian State."

Opposition to Palestinian State

Opponents of the two-state solution have cited many concerns regarding the formation of yet another Arab state specifically in the heart of the Land of Israel, including:

  • the cession of Jewish land to a foreign sovereignty, including religious, historic, political and security ramifications;
  • the fate of the 320,000 Jews who live in Judea and Samaria — whether they reside in "settlement blocs" that the PA has never agreed will remain Israeli, or in the dozens of other towns that much of the world feels "certain" will come under PA rule;
  • security dangers on many planes;
  • the gradual militarization of the state, even if it starts out demilitarized;
  • fear that Judea and Samaria will be taken over by Hizbullah-Hamas-Iranian elements, as has occurred or is occurring in other areas relinquished by Israel;
  • the future of the holy sites;
  • the ramifications of yet another Israeli diplomatic collapse;
  • and more.

Contact US4Israel by email at us4isrel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 27, 2010.

Elder of Ziyon writes: "Yossi Klein Halevi has written a semi-autobiographical book review of "When They Come for Us We'll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry" by Gal Beckerman, at The New Republic."


By any realistic measure, the movement's chances of success were minimal. How would a handful of students in New York influence the world's most powerful totalitarian empire? Would they even manage to rouse American Jewry? There was, after all, little tradition of American Jewish activism, at least not for Jewish causes. Most American Jews greeted the founding of the movement with skepticism or indifference. The established Jewish organizations preferred sporadic action to an ongoing campaign to save Soviet Jewry. The ultra-Orthodox — who had been wrong about every Jewish rescue and defense effort of the twentieth century — were predictably hostile, insisting that activism would only provoke the Kremlin's anger and harm Soviet Jews.

By the mid-'70s, a transformed Jewish establishment was leading the movement. Thanks to Jackson-Vanik, a new generation of Jewish leaders learned how to lobby Congress and, no less important, how to resist White House pressure. Jackson-Vanik was the moment that American Jewry repudiated the legacy of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the pre-eminent American Jewish leader during the Holocaust, who failed to challenge President Roosevelt on Jewish rescue. Through the Soviet Jewry movement, moreover, a beautiful symbiotic relationship emerged between the freest Jews in the Diaspora and the most oppressed. By publicly expressing their solidarity with Soviet Jews, American Jews overcame their inhibitions and assumed their place within American society as a self-confident community. The courage shown today by American Jewish leaders in standing with Israel against the growing effort to delegitimize it, and to stand against an administration intent on weakening the American-Israeli relationship, is a legacy of the Soviet Jewry movement.

I was intrigued. Kahane appealed to my growing impatience with the respectability of the Student Struggle, which opposed civil disobedience even as refuseniks were becoming increasingly bold in their own protests. It was time to take the Soviet Jewry issue off the obituary page and put it on page one, Kahane said beguilingly. The media reinforced his argument by rewarding his violence. Reporters covered the most minor JDL demonstrations, just in case Kahane's boys provided any action. By contrast, the Student Struggle had to plead at times for coverage. After an arrest of refuseniks, I helped organize a Student Struggle vigil at the United Nations. When no reporters came, I phoned a local radio station and said, "Do we have to smash windows to get you out here?" Shortly afterward, a reporter from the station appeared. "Which one's the window smasher?" he asked.

The complete New Republic article can be accessed here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 27, 2010.

In case you think that because you are a Christian believer you are safe from Shariah, think again.

This was posted today by Women Against Shariah.


TEHRAN, IRAN (Worthy News) — A detained pastor of a major network of Christian house churches in Iran will be executed by hanging for "apostasy", or abandoning Islam, according to translated court documents seen by Worthy News Wednesday, November 24.

The 11th Chamber of The Assize Court of the province of Gilan said Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani had proved his "apostasy" by "organizing evangelistic meetings and inviting others to Christianity, establishing a house church, baptizing people, expressing his faith to others and, denying Islamic values." Nadarkhani is "an apostate [and] will be executed by being hung...Somehow his soul is taken from him," the court wrote.

The written verdict was "officially officially handed out" Tuesday, November 23, said a source of Nadarkhani's evangelical Church of Iran network speaking on condition of anonymity.

Lawyers Naser Sarbazi from Tehran and Abbas Salmanpour from Gilan's capital Rasht, who already learned about the verdict earlier this month, are appealing the sentence, Worthy News learned.


Under Iranian law, once the written verdict is delivered, there will be 20 days to appeal to the Islamic Republic's Supreme Court.

The 33-year old Nadarkhani, who was detained in October last year, is currently held in a security prison in Lakan, Iran, just south of his hometown of Rasht.

He was arrested after protesting against the enforced reading of the Koran, viewed as a holy book by Muslims, to Christian children including his own. His wife Fatemeh Passandideh was released October 11 by a court in Gilan province, after she was detained on similar apostasy charges, Christians said.

In comments accompanying the death sentence, the court claimed Nadarkhani confirmed he converted to Christianity from Islam, despite possible execution. "Even in his last defense...when he was asked [by the prosecutor] 'from the age of puberty until the age of 19, what religion have you had?', he replied... 'Since I was born in a Muslim family I was Muslim until I converted to Christianity at the age of 19'."

Nadarkhani said the persecutor "induced" him "to believe whoever is born from Muslim parents and does not choose any religion after passing the puberty age, is a Muslim," the court acknowledged.


However adding to the "apostasy" were indications that he did not agree with all aspects of Islam, according to the verdict obtained by Worthy News. The court noticed that Nadarkhani believes in "the unity of God and the resurrection of the dead" but expressed concerns that in his view Mohammad "is the prophet of Muslims but not a messenger from God..."

Nadarkhani's defense team argued that their client confirmed that "Muhammad was a prophet of Islam" and that he did not commit a crime of apostasy because he was never a true Muslim.

The lawyers also pointed out that there is "no punishment specified in the Islamic judicial system of Iran and other penal laws" for these kind of cases and that their client "has not committed a crime to deserve a punishment."

The court disagreed. "It has been proven to the members of the jury that Mr. Yousef Nadarkhani, son of Biram, has been born from Muslim parents, choose Islam [but] abandoned it at the age 19. His actions according to the fatwas of all Shia theologians is considered as inherent apostasy from the sacred religion of Islam."


If confirmed, Nadarkhani would be the first Christian to be officially executed in Iran for religious reasons in 20 years. The last Iranian Christian convert from Islam executed by the Iranian government was Assemblies of God Pastor Hossein Soodmand in 1990.

However several other Christians, including at least six Protestant pastors, are known to have been assassinated by unknown killers in recent years.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has asked President Barack Obama Obama to seek the release of Nadarkhani, who is married with two young children.

Yet, citing from the Bible, Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani wrote to his fellow believers not to fear persecution in the strict Islamic nation, saying Jesus Christ gives him strength. "As we've heard He has said: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

Despite reported persecution there are at least 100,000 believers in the nation, most of them former Muslims, according to Elam Ministries, a mission group of Iranian church leaders. Many of them worship in underground house churches, including those of the Church of Iran movement.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 26, 2010.

Israel is engaged in a branding exercise. Both under Livni's Kadima and under the current Likud-Lieberman control, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is spending millions on "branding Israel" and "Israel beyond the conflict."

For a long time I advocated that a branding exercise should be the inheritance of Israel's Ministry of Tourism. There, the additional tens of millions spent will go to a good cause, promoting tourism to the Holy Land. People, after all, are the best judges for themselves, and there is nothing better than a site visit to dispel any false notions of Apartheid and other lies and blood libels.

The issue though is not of budgets (although these are handsome and can be well spent). Rather, it is Israel's steadfast refusal to deal with the root cause of her plight: THE CONFLICT.

Once it was called the Arab Israeli conflict, though the conflict was not very pronounced, almost a disagreement. The Arabs wanted to eliminate the Jewish state; they could not, so life went on. Israel was able to withstand the attacks, including every war against her.

Then it became the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, where the emergence of Palestinians has replaced all other enemies of Israel combined. An idea succeeded where armies failed. The conflict became the center of world attention, but the label does injustice to the situation.

This is not a mere "conflict." It is a methodological approach to eliminate the Jewish state from existence and to rid the world once and for all of a Jewish presence. It is a war designed to destroy the Jewish State.

Once the aspiration was to "throw the Jews into the [Mediterranean] Sea," today it is to "wipe Israel off the map."

Intentions are clear, as is the background: This is not a territorial dispute any more. This is a war to destroy and eliminate. This is a war that will be fought to the very end. It is a geo-political aspiration of Islam to dominate the world, and Israel is just an obstacle in the way, the Palestinians nothing but a pawn on a chessboard.

In this context, the attempts to paint a pretty picture and "Brand Israel" are as productive as a vitamin pill to a cancer patient in his last hours. A meaningless, wasteful and misleading effort. Misleading, because it give the pretense that the Israeli government is doing something when in fact it is not.

The Israeli politicians are immersed in a game of "make believe." Let us make believe that we are doing something useful, that our efforts are worthwhile. So they go and tell the world their intentions: We will bring Hollywood to Israel to make movies like Exodus to paint a better picture of the Jewish State.

Do they not understand the severity of the situation? Do they not see how their attempts are interpreted around the world? Israel buys its way to Hollywood — flying producers and directors, entertaining them at the highest levels of government, showing them glimpses of an artificial Israel, deliberately distancing them from reality — and then expects something major in return.

Today what sells are films about the plight of the Palestinian craving for a homeland and lamenting his house bulldozed and destroyed by Israeli military. Olive trees and citrus groves uprooted by settlers or soldiers, and yarmulke-wearing settlers lighting mosques on fire and desecrating Quarans.

Today a pretty young Palestinian born in the States, going to Israel determined to claim back her inheritance is what captures the minds and the hearts of moviegoers.

A Palestinian kid hiding behind his father while Israeli soldiers shoot to kill becomes an icon, and the best filming locations are in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel already provides free passage and usually will assist in scouting, on-location filming and scenery, and that reality replaces imagination.

All done with the compliments of the Jewish State of Israel, branding herself as open, democratic and strong enough to sustain criticism from within. Even if it eventually destroys her.

So millions of Israeli taxpayer shekels (Israeli currency) are invested in movies, which almost without exception are critical of Israel and highlight the plight of the Palestinians.

Then Israeli actors, many of whom dodged mandatory military service, portray the mighty Israeli soldiers when they allegedly harass and annoy, torture and make the lives of Palestinians intolerable.

Hollywood at its best is already hard at work, compliments of the Israeli government, Israeli filmmakers and Israeli actors.

Stop wasting time, money and effort. You will not be able to buy Hollywood or influence the road already taken. The glory of Exodus is a thing of the past. Deal with the present, lest there be no Israel to protect and enjoy in the future.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a full department in Los Angeles, otherwise known as the Israeli Consulate. They are those who fly with the Hollywood elite to Israel, entertain the Israeli filmmakers when they are Oscar contenders (irrespective if the movie is good for the Jews or not, "that would be forgotten") and otherwise enjoy mega-events when they step on the red carpet as celebrities and are invited to talk in front of very influential audiences.

If change in the perception of Israel is to occur, Israel must start dealing with the root cause and not ignore it. Superficial remedies will fail. The problem will grow until it explodes.

Until that day, let us all go to the movies. Israel is already branded, and the words that immediately come to mind include "OCCUPATION," "APARTHEID," "SETTLEMENTS" and "THE NEW NAZIS."

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, November 26, 2010.

This was written by Moshe Kormornick.


During the Holocaust, a large group of Polish women were rounded up to be sent to the gas chambers. As the group gathered their possessions to take with them into the camp the Nazi officers called out to all the villagers who were standing by watching, "Anything that these Jews leave behind you may take for yourselves, because for sure they will not be coming back to collect them!"

Two Polish women who were standing nearby saw a woman towards the back of the group, wearing a large, heavy, expensive coat. Not wanting to wait to see if others got the coat before them, they ran to the woman and knocked her to the ground, grabbing her coat and walked away. As the Jewish women were being led away, these two Polish women lay down the coat to divide the spoils of what was hiding inside. As they rummaged through the pockets, they discovered gold jewellery, silver candlesticks and other heirlooms, but still, as they lifted the coat it seemed heavier than it should be. After further inspection they found a secret pocket, and hidden inside the coat was a little baby girl. Shocked at their discovery, one of the women insisted to the other, saying "I don't have any children, and I'm too old to have now. You take all the gold and silver and let me take the baby". The deal was agreed and the Polish woman took her new 'daughter' home to her delighted husband. They raised the Jewish girl as their own, treating her very well, but never told her anything of her history. The girl excelled in her studies and became a successful paediatrician, working in the top hospital in Poland.

After some years the girl's 'mother' passed away. A week after, an old woman knocked on her door. The old woman invited herself in and said "I want you to know that the woman that passed away last week was not your real mother..." and she proceeded to tell her the whole story. The girl did not believe her at first but the old woman said to her "When we found you, you were wearing a beautiful gold pendant with strange writing on it which must be Hebrew, I am sure that your mother kept the necklace, go and look" and with that parting advice she left. The girl went into her 'mother's' jewellery box and found the necklace just as the woman described. She had it extended and wore it every day, but thought nothing more of her Jewish roots.

Sometime later, she went on holiday abroad and saw two Lubavitch boys. Seizing the opportunity she told them entire story and showed them the necklace. The boys confirmed that a Jewish name was inscribed on the necklace but did not know what to say about her status. They recommended that she send a letter to the Lubavitch Rebbe explaining everything. She sent off the letter and received a speedy reply saying that it is clear from the facts that she is a Jewish girl and since she had a special talent, she should use her invaluable skills in Israel, a place in desperate need of talented paediatricians.

She took the Rebbe's advice and moved to Israel where she approached a Beis Din who declared her Jewish. She was accepted into a hospital to work, and she met her husband and raised a family.

Some years later...

When there was a terrorist attack at the Sbarro cafe in the centre of Jerusalem in August 2001, this woman was walking nearby with her husband. She told her husband to return home to the kids and she proceeded to rush to the scene where she treated the wounded and helped the injured to hospital. When she arrived at the hospital she met an elderly man who was in a state of shock. He was searching everywhere for his granddaughter who had become separated from him. She calmed him down and went with him to search amongst all the patients in order to find his granddaughter. Asking how she could recognise her, the frantic grandfather gave a rough description of a gold pendant necklace that she was wearing. After searching amongst the injured, they finally found the granddaughter who was wearing the necklace. At the sight of this necklace, the paediatrician froze. She turned to the old man and said "where did you buy this necklace from?" "You can't buy such a necklace" he responded, "I am a goldsmith and I made this necklace. Actually I made two identical ones for each of my daughters. This is my granddaughter from one of them, and my other daughter did not survive the war"

...And this is how the Jewish Polish girl was reunited with her father.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 26, 2010.

This is by Diana West.


A few days ago, I got to do what many Americans would like to do — ask Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano a thing or two. Before I report on what I asked and what she said, I must note there were "ground rules" in effect. The conversation itself between a small group of mainly conservative-minded journalists and Napolitano was free and even easy, but reporting on any aspect of the exchange required after-the-fact approval from DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Sean Smith.

This rankles. It is also something new in my personal experience. Sure, I have conducted scores of one-on-one interviews "on background," a term which, in brief, I define as a means to acquire an understanding of a story from a source unwilling to be quoted directly, at least at first. Follow-up conversations may or may not be "on the record." But I have never participated as a member of a group so bound, and I have to say I don't like it.

First of all, it's a phony setup. Telling 15 or 20 people in a room a secret is obviously no way to keep one, no way to keep anything confidential. There are simply too many people involved, each with his own private pipeline to public access. Something else is afoot. Making the journalist into a kind of co-conspirator? Or, as bad, a supplicant begging for morsels of information?

The point, we are told, is to allow for a no-holds-barred exchange — attractive on its face, maybe, but in the end, when you actually have to go back and ask for permission to print a government official's response to questions every American has the right to ask, the exchange is very much barred. In sum, the state is managing the news.

So why did I participate? Curiosity. I wanted to see "Big Sis" in person. I was curious also how an event billed as "off the record" — which to my understanding means "total blackout, didn't happen, can't use it" — could be selectively switched to "on the record" by government diktat. I wanted to see how our brave new world works.

I didn't "clear" my impressions of Napolitano the person, so I'll have to leave them "off the record." I did e-mail the press secretary for permission (gag) to report two particular points Napolitano made. What follows is how I played along with the state, almost as a lark. (PS. I don't claim it's pretty).

"Hi, Sean — Good to hear from you.

"Two main points I'd like to be able to write up:

"1) After the main discussion I had the opportunity to ask the Secretary whether she envisioned this security situation ever abating — for example, whether she could foresee conditions under which the current scanners might be removed. Or whether, as she told us earlier, it would be necessary for Americans to toughen up, stay involved (indefinitely) ... I would like to be able to report that I spoke to the Secretary on this topic and that she indicated that in the future the current scanner technology could someday be replaced by less obtrusive technology, including less obviously invasive security checks that might not require taking off shoes, etc. ..."

The answer came back from on high: "Yes, but you should also put into context that there are no current plans to move off the current technologies and procedures."

Context so ordered.

(I will not convey my second question because the e-mailed answer — "I'd like to see how you formulate it" — ratcheted state control outside the bounds of my experiment.)

Napolitano's vision of our techno-future, however, is devastating. If, as she makes clear, our government has no conception of a plan to end this untenable security situation stemming from the jihad in progress, our government has admitted defeat, and is merely managing the aftermath of capitulation

In its colossal failure of imagination and responsibility, the government has abandoned its primary purpose — to defend the citizenry. Thus, every time we the people go to the airport (now and apparently forever the nation's forward front) we are expected to "toughen up" and make up a pathetic first line of defense — unarmed, unshod, de-toothpasted and, now, disrobed by scanners and violated by government workers — until, happy day, the technology is "less obviously intrusive."

There's no managing that news. It stinks.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by M.S. Kramer, November 26, 2010.

I hope all my readers believe that Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. We base this conclusion on one or all of the following reasons: God promised the Land of Israel to the Jews; there were two Jewish commonwealths in the Land of Israel before the common era, the Davidic and the Hasmonean; Jews never interrupted their devotion to Zion even during a 2,000 year Diaspora; Jews remained in the Land of Israel, in greater or lesser numbers, throughout history; numerous declarations and treaties in the first quarter of the 20th century (Balfour Declaration, League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, etc.) attested to a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel; the growing Jewish community in Palestine established the apparatus for a new Jewish state and then proclaimed the State of Israel; the new Jewish state was accepted as a member of the United Nations.

Evidently, none of the above reasons is enough for the current United Nations, which is blindly led by its 22 Arab members (plus Palestine) and the other 35 members of the Islamic coalition. It has been said that if the Arabs proposed a General Assembly motion that the world is flat, it would pass with no problem. This is no joke. On Oct. 21, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) voted 44 to one [America] that Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem (Bilal bin Rabah Mosque to the Muslims) and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron (al-Haram al-Ibramhimi to the Muslims) are "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law, the UNESCO Conventions and the United Nations and Security Council resolutions."

Both Rachels's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs have been sacred to Jews "from time immemorial," predating the founding of Islam by thousands of years. Rachel is believed to be buried in the first site and Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah are buried in the latter site, which is Judaism's second most holy site after Jerusalem's Temple Mount.

What's next on the Palestinian agenda? It's logical to expect pressure on UNESCO to resolve that the so-called Al-Buraq Wall is the true description of the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, Judaism's primary heritage site! A new "study", released in mid-November by the Palestine Authority Ministry of Information (really DISinformation), asserts that the Western Wall (Al-Buraq Wall) is Waqf (Islamic religious endowment) property owned by an Algerian-Moroccan Muslim family. Further, it claims there isn't one stone in the wall that belongs to the era of King Solomon and that Jews never used the site for worship until the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

Thus our Palestinian "peace partners" seek to undermine Judaism's historic rights to Jerusalem, the essence of our religion to which Jews have paid allegiance for thousands of years. Once the Palestinians accomplish their tactic of having the United Nations proclaim, through UNESCO, that Jews have no history at all in Jerusalem, there will be a final maneuver to turn the entire city, not just "Eastern Arab Jerusalem" over to Palestinian rule.

From where does the hostility against recognizing Jerusalem as the Jewish capital come from? It's the insistence of the Palestinians that Jerusalem is their capital. What gives them the right to even mention Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital? Was it their capital in the past, as it was for the Jews in ancient days and at present? No, there was never a Palestinian country. Are the Palestinians the majority in Jerusalem? No, far from it. The Jews have been the majority there for more than 150 years. Was Jerusalem ever the holiest city of the Muslims? No, but it is for the Jews. Was Jerusalem ever a significant place for Muslims, or just a backwater? A backwater, even when Jordan occupied it. But the Jews had their Holy Temple there and even today pray three times a day facing the Temple Mount.

Is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? No, but it's mentioned in the Bible more than 600 times. Did the Palestinians conquer Jerusalem, giving them ownership of the city? No. There have been Muslim conquests in the past, but in the Six Day War of 1967 Israel defeated Jordan's King Hussein, following 19 years of Jordanian occupation of eastern Jerusalem, where the Temple Mount and Western Wall are found. It should be remembered that Jews were not permitted to visit their holy sites in Jerusalem when Jordan occupied it.

When you come right down to it, the Palestinians simply demand that Jerusalem be their capital. Their dogged insistence seems to be enough for most of the world to appease them. Sadly, there is more acceptance of (east) Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state than there is of (west) Jerusalem as Israel's capital, despite the demographic facts: 200,000 Jews, more than a quarter of Jerusalem's population, live in the eastern sector (beyond the 1949 armistice line) alongside of 250,000 Arabs. 300,000 Jews live in the city's western sector.

The world seems intent on a division of Jerusalem, which would gut Israel, no matter what. This is unprecedented for any nation's capital. The usual diplomatic agenda is to restore unity between divided sectors, such as occurred in Berlin at the end of WWII. There can be no Israel without Jerusalem as its political capital and the Temple Mount as its spiritual center. It would be better for Israel to withdraw from the UN altogether than for it to accept any new travesty that UNESCO might perpetrate.

That the world's democratic countries allow themselves to be bullied in the United Nations by a group of rag-tag, non-democratic oligarchies defies imagination. Towards the end of November the UN's General Assembly voted to convene yet another Israel-bashing conference, Durban III, in New York City, a week after the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attack. Perhaps the thought of another UN celebration to delegitimize Israel, featuring Iran's President Ahmadinejad mouthing off a few miles from the 9/11 site, will be too much for New Yorkers to bear. This event could be the catalyst for waking America and the West to the farcical but dangerous activities of the United Nations.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." Contact him at mskramer@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 25, 2010.

In a war, one must fight to survive, and to win. Israel is in a war, although the missiles are not yet raining over Tel Aviv and the center of Israel.

The geographic war over this tiny peace of land along the shores of the Mediterranean will be fateful, one in which soldiers will sacrifice their lives and innocent people will die. The war would decide either the extinction of the Jewish People or the continuation of the existence of Jews around the world; but winning it is not a sufficient condition.

A physical war may not even materialize, on land, in space, in the air or seas.

Another war is already raging in the arena of public opinion, and the courts are in London, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Stockholm, Johannesburg, Melbourne and all points around the world.

This is a war of "delegitimization."

The very existence of the Jewish state hangs in the balance. The very right of the Jewish people to have a country of their own is being questioned, ridiculed and used as an excuse to hate Jews even more.

This is the war that is necessary to be won.

Jews and others used to dismiss criticism against Israel as legitimate, but soon discovered that protecting the "right" of others to criticize the Jewish state opened the floodgates for global anti-Semitism of new methods and proportions not seen before.

This is a most sophisticated war, in which poison drips slowly but constantly into an intravenous line that affects the mindset of billions. Most hate the Jews and the Israelis without ever meeting one. Many equate the Jews to apes, pigs and snakes; others to the devil.

Israel is demonized as an evil oppressor, a colonizing force, a killing machine, and an extremist-led country whose only mission is to keep the poor Palestinians from their rightful homes and prevent them from their right to return to their homeland and the capital of their dreams, Jerusalem.

What does one expect to gain from an ongoing effort to delegitimize Israel? Simply put, to destroy her very being.

Hamas and Hizbollah are trying to do so using advanced military technologies and know-how, missiles, nuclear weapons, radiological and biological agents and any means at their disposal.

Muslims across the planet are making it acceptable to harm Israel, claiming Israel is the cause of all the world's problems.

Famine, starvation, disasters, poverty, AIDS, terrorism attacks, loss of jobs, a bacterial or viral spread of a disease — blame the Jews.

After all have we not heard they control the media, banking, financial sector and most other industries? They control the US Government. They caused America to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein.

They have military power second almost to none, and they do not hesitate to use it against the Palestinian population they are holding hostage in ghettos and prisons, under siege and blockade.

Jews are evil. They murder young Palestinian males to harvest their organs. They kill young, innocent children for their blood.

Rid the world of the Jews, and the world will be a Utopia, no longer infested with ailments, neither man- nor nature-made.

Slowly the poison drips, the body becomes weaker, and the will to fight is diminished, to a point of no return. All along, the body Israel is surrounded by so-called well-wishing, concerned Jews (predominantly American Jews) and Israelis who are, for lack of any other way to describe their behavior, self-haters.

They sit around the bed and pray out loud for the speedy recovery of the patient, yet encourage those closest to the drip to turn it up a notch, to ensure a most steady flow, a faster death.

They stand up and claim the Holocaust is a figment of imagination designed to capture land from the Palestinians. They add that the September 11th attacks against the USA were the work of the Mossad. They cry foul when Israel builds a wall that reduces the number of daily terrorist attacks to close to none. They demonstrate and claim Israeli brutality even when a barrage of deadly missiles attacks Israel.

When soldiers stop cars for a check — designed to minimize or prevent terrorists roaming the roads freely and unchecked — they cry foul, "the damn Zionists are at it again: CHECKPOINTS! How dare they?" [How would the same argument work at spot checks at the entrances to LAX? "Damn our government?" "Islamophobia," "unreasonable stop and search?"]

When a foreign visitor to Israel is profiled and goes via an extensive security check, they highlight the fact that Muslims are being treated unfairly, and raise the flame of hatred toward this unjustified behavior by the Jews.

Some, those closer to the drip, participate more heavily: They aid terrorists who disguise themselves as Jews and pass them in their cars into Israel from Palestinian-controlled territories into Israel. Others engage in undercover acts to put the blame on Jews, they dress up as religious Jews and uproot olive trees and spray hateful graffiti on walls. They set houses and places of worship on fire, desecrating holy books.

Yet others knowingly break the law, photograph military installations, cross the border to areas they are prohibited from entering, and the list goes on and on.

At universities in Israel and throughout the world, they boycott the Apartheid State of Israel, encourage others to divest any monies away from Israel and to sanction Israeli professional and Israeli products.

They publish articles and books and make movies, in which the fact they are Israeli and Jews is a preface to justify what is about to come next. We, good and loyal Israelis, people of Jewish descent, know and present the following facts: and it matters not that the facts are vicious lies, exact opposites from reality.

Israel thus finds herself attacked on multiple fronts. She must rise, gather her last drops of strength and attack. Beaten, bloodied and fatigued from treatment, there she lies, and she does not yet fight back.

The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover.

This point — and often — counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.

Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 24, 2010.

This is by Kieron Monks and it appeared in the Guardian (UK)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2010/nov/19/palestine-aid-models-must-change.

Far from offering sustainable development, the UNRWA's Peace Starts Here aid campaign is simply life-support for Palestine


"Peace Starts Here" is the slogan adopted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to promote its work in the Palestinian territories. But why does peace "start here"? Why not 60 years ago when UNRWA began its work with Palestinian refugees? Or 60 years in the future, when we will still be debating the same problems if the aid models do not change. The timing of Chris Gunness's recent article about the UN agency's work was unfortunate, coinciding with strikes by UNRWA employees, which have paralysed essential services in the West Bank's 18 refugee camps. The laudable initiatives Gunness mentioned — health centres, schools, food for hardship cases — ground to a halt without his agency's patronage.

That's not sustainable development; it's a permanent life-support system. Neither is it sustainable for UNRWA, which had been forced to slash its services because of budget deficits even before the strikes began.

Palestine is one of the world's largest beneficiaries of foreign aid, receiving over $3bn (&euro:1.9bn) annually (not including the budget of UNRWA itself). Yet a quarter of the West Bank population remains food-insecure and half of all Palestinians live below the poverty line.

If relief work is failing, economic development is even more worrying. Prime minister Salam Fayyad told the Annual Capital Forum that Palestine's GDP grew 9% in the past year, but as a former IMF representative he should know that the gains are hollow. In 2009, over 60% of Palestine's gross national income, and almost 100% of government expenditure, came from aid.

The Palestinian Authority, which receives over $2bn annually, is answerable not to Palestinians, but to its donors. The aid-management structure in Palestine is innately political. At the top level, the ad hoc liaison committee, members include the United States and Israel. The impact of foreign interests can be clearly seen in PA budgets that allocate 10 times more money to security — suppressing resistance to the occupation — than to agriculture, which could be the backbone of the Palestinian economy.

Industries with export potential, agriculture and construction have shrunk to half their 1999 output. Building for future independence has been subordinated to short-term crisis management.

The 2006 elections showed how vulnerable Palestine's economy and development efforts are to foreign interests. Following Hamas's election victory, emergency and development aid were drastically reduced — making a clear statement that foreign aid is contingent on foreign control. Joseph DeVoir, author of Tracking External Donor Funding, has compiled an extensive study linking aid figures with political changes in the territories. In his words, "when realpolitik shifts, development takes a back seat".

Attempts to make aid work for the population have had little success. Ninety-one countries, including the US, signed up to the 2005 Paris Principles on aid effectiveness, which stipulated: "Developing countries must lead their own development policies." Although the declaration showed widespread acknowledgement of aid's failure to empower Palestinians, it has not been the catalyst for change that was hoped for.

Individual NGOs have attempted to assert their independence from donors. Many reject USAID funding due to its political demands, which preclude assistance for projects that could benefit people with affiliations to undesirable political groups. The Dalia Association has introduced a "Village Decides" scheme, focused on institution building, which empowers local communities to invest funding as they see fit, without conditions.

This commitment to reform is not generally reflective of Palestine's NGO sector, which has become a byword for corruption, incompetence and meaningless job creation. Thousands of NGOs have sprung up, promoting everything from family planning to liberal arts education, bloating the aid industry without delivering long-term benefits.

Naseef Mu'allem, director-general of the Palestinian Centre for Peace and Democracy, revealed that "JICA — the Japanese government aid mission — invested $5m last year, but practically what they spent is $600,000. The rest is given as salaries, accommodation, hotels, retreatment and transportation for the foreign employees here but not for the Palestinians". Without donors thoroughly checking on their investments, this kind of private profiteering has become normal.

Palestinian perceptions of foreign NGOs are revealing. Bir Zeit University's 2008 survey found just 35% of the West Bank population feel they contribute to the development of Palestinian society; 78% said they played some role in reducing human suffering and 55% felt they contribute to reinforcing the Israeli occupation.

According to DeVoir, the combination of these results seems to reveal a perception that NGOs "do not achieve political goals; they facilitate occupation by making it bearable". Certainly NGOs and international agencies have financial motives for sustaining the occupation, without which they could not obtain the funding to combat its effects.

The foreign money flooding into NGOs has entrenched class divisions in Palestinian society. Employment opportunities within them are typically limited to the educated elite class, narrowed further by routine nepotism. In Ramallah, the difference is most apparent with glitzy nightclubs on the doorsteps of refugee camps — the preserve of foreigners and rich Palestinians who live too comfortably to identify with the struggle for independence. Their money has already immunised them against the worst effects of occupation, working in jobs that allow them to cross borders and checkpoints, lessening their incentive to fight the status quo.

So why are the major donors happy to keep pouring money into a black hole? What have the US and Europe bought for their tens of billions since 1994? Stability, which could just as easily be called stagnation. Their money is compensation for half a century of political failure.

Last week Hillary Clinton had her picture taken donating an additional $150m to the Palestinian Authority, her first photo opportunity in the region since chairing the failed peace talks. The current systems of aid will never deliver peace, or development, while they serve interests that run counter to Palestinian independence.

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 Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2010.

According to the JPost today, David Makovsky — who is director of the Project on the Middle East Peace for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — says that Washington and Jerusalem have finalized a letter regarding the renewed building freeze.

Well-connected to the American administration though he may be, Makovsky has certain biases and does not represent an official source. Moreover, there is no news of an actual letter in our government's hands. Yet, what he says is worth taking a look at precisely because it evokes that "Is this for real?" response.

According to Makovsky, the crux of the deal centers on the US providing Israel with advanced fighter jets in return for a three-month freeze that both the US and the Israeli government hope will get Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

That's it? Jets? What happened to promising that no further freeze would be requested by the US administration? What about wording that implies (although not explicitly stating) that Jerusalem is not included in the freeze? What about US security assurances such as backing our right to keep the IDF in the Jordan Valley? What about a promise that the US will not support PLO unilateral actions in the Security Council (even if for one paltry year)?

None of this is mentioned by Makovsky. And I'm inclined to accept this version precisely because that letter has been haggled over for so long now.

Many if not all of the items we might have expected to see included — not asking for another freeze, etc. etc. — have been sources of dissension. It's possible that the Obama administration backed off, in the face of vehement Arab objections, on what was promised by Clinton. And it's possible that Netanyahu misinterpreted or exaggerated what Clinton originally offered.

But there is also a third possibility. According to Arutz Sheva today, a "diplomatic official" says that Clinton deliberately misled Netanyahu. Her claim is that she wasn't speaking for the president, and he had final word.


Explains Makovsky, even Obama's offer on the jets is not a sure thing, because the deal must be sanctioned by the House. Because of this, he says, Netanyahu is seeking some sort of "fall-back understanding" so that he can present the Security Cabinet with an iron-clad arrangement regarding the planes. What that might be — how our prime minister could absolutely promise the Cabinet that we'd get our planes when relevant members of the House have not yet spoken — is not explained. It would require some political doubletalk, methinks.


On top of all of this, according to Makovsky, there has been a "verbal affirmation" from Netanyahu to Clinton that there would be "meaningful progress" on border issues during those 90 days.

Sickening, if true. But, of course, Netanyahu cannot really make such an affirmation, because "meaningful progress" depends on two sides.

As I have previously indicated, separating out this issue is greatly dangerous to Israel, for it might provide the PLO with the means to go to the Security Council and ask for recognition of a state based on borders that we had already agreed to.


I'm going to try to adhere to my maxim, "Never say never," but it appears exceedingly unlikely that the Security Cabinet would approve this, as it is being discussed by the JPost according to Makovsky. I think Yishai has been too clear and public in his demands regarding no additional freeze and the exclusion of Jerusalem from the moratorium to buy into this for the sake of jets — no matter what might be promised him and his Shas party under the table. I think he'd look too foolish, too corrupt, to do so.


I'm not even certain if Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who is just starting to wax a bit ambivalent, would sit still for this. On Monday he said he would support the freeze if construction continued in Jerusalem and the US promised not to demand another freeze. Nu?

Likud Central Committee anti-freeze activists intend to focus on Sa'ar now.


See the statement about the freeze by Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu):
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v= bdR0nShI4Lg&feature=email


In any event, Abbas is not going to come to the table. Since the vote on the referendum bill passed Monday night, this is, predictably, more certain than ever.

Declared Abbas: "This law is aimed at placing obstacles in front of a peace settlement. The Israelis are telling the world that they won't withdraw from Jerusalem and the Golan."

The Arab League has gone him one better, calling this bill proof that Israel is "aggressive."


As to that referendum bill, allow me to expand the understanding of what it's about. The talk is about Jerusalem and the Golan. But the bill alludes to everywhere that Israeli civil law applies, and that means all of Israel within the Green Line, as well. Were Netanyahu or any other prime minister to attempt to strike a deal in which we were to keep some communities beyond the Green Line, but give the Palestinian Arabs a commensurate area of land within the Green Line in exchange, this, too, would have to be submitted to a national referendum or be approved by a supermajority of the Knesset.

(With thanks to Jeff D. on this.)


Damn. In spite of predictions that Durban III might not happen, it seems now that it will. The General Assembly voted, 121 to 19 (with 35 abstentions) to commemorate the anti-racism Durban conference of 2001 at next year's opening General Assembly meeting in New York.

Anne Bayefsky explains:

"Late yesterday, the UN General Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution which launches another global 'anti-racism' hatefest. It is intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the debacle held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. But this time, the UN has outdone itself: the celebration of a notorious prescription for intolerance, closely linked to Islamic extremism, is now scheduled for New York City just days after the 10th anniversary of 9/11...

"The plans for Durban III contained in the document are much more explicit than a usual UN resolution and contradict a very active misinformation campaign already underway by the UN and closely-related individuals and organizations.

"Most heads of government avoided Durban I and the only one to attend Durban II was the poster-boy for racism and xenophobia himself, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So for Durban III, the UN decided to ensnare most heads of state and government by scheduling the event to coincide with the annual opening of the UN General Assembly, when they are all present in New York anyway. The resolution sets the date as September 21, 2011 ('the second day of the General Debate'), and specifically designates it as a 'High-Level' meeting 'at the level of Heads of States and Governments.'

"Contrary to some suggestions, the event will not be a quiet commemoration with minimal political design. Amendments made to the resolution late in the day decide that the meeting should 'consist...of an opening plenary, consecutive round tables/thematic panels and a closing plenary meeting.' And then the meeting will adopt a final 'political declaration.'

"...In addition, in the resolution the UN puts out a call for help from the world of rabble-rousers who masquerade as human rights enthusiasts. Despite being fully aware of the violent extremism characterizing the NGO Forum at Durban I, the resolution asks 'civil society, including NGOs' 'to organize and support' 10th anniversary initiatives 'with high visibility.'

"The Obama administration is clearly worried about the effects of Durban III on its policy of embracing the UN and its human rights apparatus. U.S. representative John Sammis spelled out their concerns, lamenting to the UN committee that the event 'risks undermining the relationship we have worked hard to strengthen over the past few years between the United States and the UN.'

"Indeed it does.

"The question now is which countries will ensure that their heads of state and of government will not participate in such an outrage. The United States and Israel walked out of Durban I in disgust. Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States refused to participate in Durban II.

"With 19 votes against and another 35 democracies concerned enough to abstain, it is time to send an even more powerful and permanent message to the UN about Durban and its progeny.

"Last night U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, th>We will have to return to this. A campaign is called for that will pressure the Obama administration on this matter.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 24, 2010.

This is by Andrew Bolt and is archived at
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ index.php/heraldsun/comments/when_the_ reaction_comes_it_will_be_ugly/


Britain is seeing an increasingly number of examples of this foul reaction:

Masked men threw bottles of beer and urinated on a mosque following a march against Muslim extremism.

Bacon was also left on cars near Kingston Mosque during the attack by a group of 10-15 youths on Sunday.

Kingston Mosque claimed baseball bats were also used in the incident on East Road, but this was not confirmed by police.

It's deplorable, of course, even this latest protest comes after repeated and deliberate provocations, including this incident, which the protesters were responding to with their giant poppy:

Muslims clashed with police after burning a large poppy in protest at Britain's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which was timed to coincide with Armistice Day's two-minute silence.

About 35 Islamic protesters, dressed in dark clothes and with many masking their faces, carried banners and chanted slogans such as "British soldiers: terrorists".

The group confronted police officers and briefly fought with them, leaving one officer with a head injury requiring hospital treatment, and three arrests were made...

Posters bore slogans including "Hands off Muslim lands" and "Islam will dominate", and flags bore Arabic writing with the words "There is no God but Allah".

But this illustrates the folly of multiculturalists treating their own society as something they can change at will without some reaction, and of their own people as being infinitely more docile and malleable than the imported cultures being imported and cossetted.

They play with something they do not understand, and mix chemicals whose reaction they fail to prepare for.

They trust foolishly to the power of increasingly draconian anti-discrimination laws to deal with the consequence of dissolving the glue of tradition, community, old loyalties and the social contract.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabriel Goldwater, November 23, 2010.

This was written by Julian Dobbs and is called "ACNA Archdeacon Writes Open Letter to President Obama over Intolerance to Christians in Indonesia." It is archived at
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/ news/article.php?storyid=13568


Mr. President, On Wednesday November 10, 2010, you addressed a gathering at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia, where you discussed tolerance, human rights, free speech and religious freedom. You called for a commitment to the 'steady pursuit of progress' between Islam and the global community.

In your speech, you suggested that Indonesian Muslims reflect the spirit of religious tolerance that is enshrined in Indonesia's Constitution.

However, in many parts of Indonesia, Christians are being prevented from worshipping in public, converts from Islam to Christianity are forced to live in hiding, others and being intimidated, imprisoned and even killed as a result of their Christian faith.

It would be easy for many people listening to your speech to conclude that Islam is a religion of peace and that violence committed in the name of the Muslim faith is confined to extremists.

I recognize that by far the majority of Muslims in the world are law abiding citizens who seek to live out their lives without recourse to violence.

However, Muslims take the injunctions of the Quran very seriously and there are increasing examples of atrocities committed in the name of the Islamic faith, all in accordance with Sharia Law.

The 'common ground' of which you spoke in Jakarta, must first be a call for an end to the apostasy and blasphemy laws of Islam.

Surely every human being must have the freedom to choose and change their religion without fear of intimidation or reprisal.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls for such freedom for the global community, however in Islam all schools of Islamic Law agree that apostates must be killed.

In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old Christian mother-of-five, has been sentenced to death for blasphemy.

In Afghanistan, Said Musa, an Afghan Christian convert from Islam, now in prison for his faith in Jesus Christ and threatened with death.

These unacceptable atrocities will continue in the world today until Islam is prepared to honestly examine its beliefs and texts which permit and endorse such suffering and the denial of basic human freedoms of which you speak.

Being tolerant of Islamic beliefs and teachings must never become an excuse for shallow dialogue which fails to address the denial of human rights and freedoms which continue to be committed in the name of the Islamic religion.

I urge you and your administration to work for the protection of all minorities in Muslim majority countries, such as Indonesia, and to confront the injustice perpetrated in the name of the Islamic religion.

It will be a long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order so that it can coexist peacefully with the rest of society in the 21st century.

But change needs to start now and means facing the reality that in many countries there is a strand of Islam that is determined to undermine peace.


The Ven. Julian M. Dobbs

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, November 23, 2010.

Critics Slam Obama Administration for 'Hiding' Massive Saudi Arms Deal," read the headline Friday on ABC News' Web site. The article reported that some members of Congress were upset by the administration's "stealthy effort" to rush through a $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia by notifying Congress just as it was heading home for the November elections, more or less nullifying the 30-day review period Congress had to raise objections.

Unfortunately, Congress's concerns came too late. It was a done deal as of midnight Friday.

It appears that Obama, for whom sneaking around Congress has become a nervous political habit, can't resist being underhanded even when it's not necessary. There was little protest about the deal either from Congress, Israel or America's pro-Israel lobby — despite the fact that this was the largest arms sale in U.S. history and to a country technically still at war with the Jewish state.

One gets the impression that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobbying group, was just going through the motions. It acknowledged on its Web site simply that 'Yes, the impact of the Saudi arms sale should be examined.' From Congress came two letters protesting the sale and one resolution attempting to block it. From the Israelis — silence. Informed ahead of time, they acquiesced. They were also assuaged by U.S. officials, who promised that the Saudi F-15s would not be equipped with long-range offensive weaponry.

Those familiar with past Saudi arms deals have heard that one before. In 1978, the Senate approved a Carter administration sale of F-15s to the Saudis on condition that certain offensive components wouldn't be included. The administration also promised that the Saudis wouldn't receive AWACs (Airborne Warning and Control System) radar planes. Three years later, the Reagan administration was lobbying on behalf of the Saudis to get the additional F-15 equipment they'd earlier been denied along with the AWACs.

That added capability gave the already purchased F-15s "a dramatic five-fold offensive capacity against Israel," Shmuel Katz noted at the time. And the AWACs enabled "the Saudis to spy upon every movement in Israel 24 hours a day — and to do so from within their own borders." ("Closing The Circle", The Jerusalem Post, April 30, 1981)

According to Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, the U.S. also placates Israel by downplaying the Saudis' ability to actually use the weapons. As he writes: "One irony is that administrations tell Israel the Saudis are too incompetent to use the weapons but then they tell Congress the Saudis need the arms to defend themselves vs first the Soviets, then Saddam and now Iran."

Assuming for a moment that the Saudis are too incompetent (this writer can't say one way or the other, but counting on your enemy to be clumsy with their weapons systems is no way to ensure national security), the fact is that technology has a way of advancing to the point where even the incompetent become competent. Think of that octogenarian who couldn't figure out a VCR, but now programs that DVR like nobody's business. At two buttons they were all thumbs. Get it down to one button and you've got a nation of Arabic-speaking Audie Murphys.

As AIPAC notes, "The F-15 fighter jet proposed for sale to Riyadh will be one of the most advanced combat aircraft in service outside the developed world, featuring a revolutionary new advanced radar system and other systems that could largely offset the difference in skill between Saudi and Israeli pilots. [italics added]"

This didn't stop the administration from pooh-poohing concerns about Israel's security. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, during a briefing on the arms sale, was reassuring. "We have conducted an independent assessment of what the impact would be on Israel's qualitative military edge and our assessment is this would not diminish Israel's qualitative military edge and therefore we felt comfortable in going forward with the sale."

Andrew Shapiro may have felt comfortable, but Israel sure didn't. According to Politico.com, while Israel kept quiet publicly about the sale, "Privately, in August — a top Israeli official told POLITICO — they asked the Obama administration to match the Saudi sale with 20 F-35 jets for the Israeli air force, a move that would maintain the 'qualitative military advantage'...."

Assistant Secretary of State Shapiro came off poorly in comparison to another Jewish member of an American administration, in this case Mark Siegel, who served as liaison officer to the American-Jewish community under President Carter. He resigned in protest when that administration pushed through a Saudi arms deal.

The American-Jewish community couldn't expect Shapiro to share a similarly heroic character. What it could have expected was that AIPAC do its utmost to block the sale. The reason most often cited for AIPAC's failure to act now, as with previous arms sales, is the bruising it took in 1981 during the AWACs battle, a fight it nearly won, "Never again would AIPAC make a serious effort to stop an arms transfer to an Arab ally of the United States."

In 1986, when yet another Saudi sale was in the offing, Shmuel wrote:

It is surely not possible that our government believes that America's supplying large quantities of sophisticated arms to Saudi Arabia is a good thing for Israel, or that assurances that these arms would "never be used against Israel" can be taken seriously.

We know, after all, that the leaders of the country are not all deaf and blind — and suffering from amnesia.

The government is not actively opposing Washington's current plan to add more weapons to the Saudi's overflowing arsenals.

Nobody has even tried seriously to deny the abject reasoning behind this restraint: the government does not want to upset relations with the U.S. It has been cowed by experience. In 1981, for example, the opposition to the U.S. administration's plan to supply AWACs spy-planes to the Saudis evoked not only harsh anti-Israeli comments, but some old-fashioned anti-Semitic code-words from within the administration.

The Saudis, it should be remembered, long ago proclaimed that the inordinately large quantities of arms they acquire are to serve all the Arab states for use against the Israeli enemy. ("Surrendering to Pressure", The Jerusalem Post, April 11, 1986)

Early on, Shmuel observed the growing Saudi arsenal with concern. In 1978, he wrote:

Ever since the Yom Kippur War a variegated pattern of arms purchases has become evident in Saudi Arabia. These include hundreds of planes, fighting and transport, hundreds of tanks, thousands of missiles and bombs of different types, artillery and ships. The Saudis do not buy exclusively from the US. They are buying also from France, Italy and Britain. In the past it was widely assumed that Saudi Arabia is acquiring arms mainly as the financier of her sister Arab States and storing them until required. This no doubt is still true, but the accumulating facts point to a new direction and a new purpose: in case of war Saudi Arabia will open a front of her own against Israel." ("Mark Siegel Opened A Window", The Jerusalem Post, March 17, 1978)

Twenty-nine years is plenty of time for Israel and AIPAC to nurse their wounds. While our opponents may have convincing-sounding arguments, they pale in comparison to one simple truth: We arm people who spread radical Islam, finance terror, teach their children to hate Christians and Jews, and stone to death innocent women. We arm barbarians.

A few Congressmen, at the last minute, began to ask hard questions of the administration. They were joined by hundreds of their colleagues. Had Israel and AIPAC supported them, it would, at the very least, have raised public awareness of the dangers involved in arming not a friend, but an enemy.

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, November 23, 2010.

The very fact that the Israeli Knesset passed a bill that would require a referendum before any land officially under Israeli sovereignty is surrendered, specifically the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, is in itself a tacit admission by the present Israeli government that at some future time the very thought of giving away these parts of the ancestral and biblical Jewish homeland may be entertained.

That is treachery most base; treachery to the living Torah; treachery to Jewish history; treachery to Zion; and last but not least treachery to the eternal Holy Covenant made between God and the Jewish people. Liberals, leftists and secular folks may not like being told this, but it is a truth that cannot shrivel away.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office rejected the idea that the referendum law would hurt the chances for peace negotiations between Israel and its neighbors. But when did it become an accepted truism that a so-called peace between Israel and the Arabs, those who call themselves Palestinians, requires that Israel gives to them it's very biblical birthright for a mess of potage?

Have the Oslo Accords, the Wye Agreement, the Roadmap, ad nauseum, all now superseded the eternal possession of the Jewish people to their God given homeland? It would seem so, and that is a monstrous tragedy so enormous as to spit in the face of the Almighty and make the very angels in heaven weep.

Netanyahu said: "A referendum prevents an irresponsible agreement and on the other hand makes it possible to achieve a strong public backing for an agreement that will respond to Israel's national interests."

There again. The word "agreement" and the implicit suggestion that the Golan Heights, ancient biblical Bashan, the homeland of the Tribe of Manasseh, may be given away in an, oh, so base agreement with the Syrian Arabs.

The referendum bill also covers United Jerusalem, but then if the Knesset votes more than two thirds to give away parts of Jerusalem to the hateful Arabs, known as Palestinians, in order for them to create a new Arab capital that has never existed in all of recorded history, it will be a sin so abhorrent that I fear God's wrath upon the Land itself.

And all this political foolishness is to appease the present occupant of the White House who is a clear and present danger to the very existence of Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.

All this erodes the millennial and inalienable rights of one people alone — the Jewish people — to the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, there should be demands made upon the artificial entity known as the Kingdom of Jordan for the return of biblical Gilead — the ancestral homeland of the Jewish tribes of Gad and Manasseh.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's government and previous governments stretching back to that of Yitzhak Rabin, all betrayed Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel. They have accepted the Arab and pro-Arab lie that Israel "occupies" Arab territory — specifically territory belonging to a fraudulent Arab people who have come to call themselves Palestinians. This stupidity has torn a grievous, self-inflicted wound into the very psyche of Jews within Israel and the Diaspora.

Notice that the referendum refers only to Jerusalem and the Golan because they were "annexed." Does that fact make them special? These are Jewish lands and there is no need to annex what already belongs to the Jewish people.

Notice too, that Judea and Samaria are not included in this foolish attempt to bargain over an illusory "land for peace" deal with the Arab world. The reason given is that Judea and Samaria have not been annexed.

Again! So what? These lands are the very warp and woof, the very fabric and fiber of Jewish history during and after biblical times. Whether they were or were not annexed is mere sophistry.

I was looking back at what Professor Talia Einhorn wrote in 2003 about Judea, Samaria and Gaza, or as it is known by its Hebrew acronym, Yesha: meaning Yehuda, Shomron and Azza.

She was commenting on the 'slip of the tongue" by then Prime Minister Sharon who used the word "occupation" in reference to Israel's presence in Yesha. In 2003, Yesha still included Gaza. It was abandoned in 2005 for the sake of peace!

She stated clearly then that Israel, the Jewish state, is not an "occupying force" in Yesha. This is what she said: ''Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank'.

"Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it — and Britain did not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem.

"In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories — which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter — returned to Israeli control.

Professor Einhorn added that, "according to international law, Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense settlement and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920.

"At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British and an introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'"

We, of course, know how that turned out. Britain reneged on its promises and undertakings. Britain tore away 80% all of the mandate territory east of the Jordan River in 1922 and gave it away to the Emir Abdullah.

There is nothing, therefore, in international law that requires the creation of a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Professor Einhorn pointed out that the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 merely recommended that a Jewish and Arab state in what was the geographical territory known as Palestine "shall come into existence."

Though the Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan, it was, as we all know, rejected utterly by the Arab states, which thus voided the UN's recommendation of any legal basis.

So the fact that what is left of Yesha — Judea and Samaria — has not previously been the subject of an Israeli annexation is neither here nor there. It is empirically the Land of Israel by all that is holy. And if that's a dirty word to some, so be it.

Simply put: The Jewish people do not annex land that already belongs to them. And the Jewish people cannot be called settlers in their very own ancestral and aboriginal homeland.

Now if those facts are understood and hammered home again and again by every Israeli and every Jew in the Diaspora, think of the power and the glory that will illuminate the world as the veil of deception is finally torn from the world's eyes.

This appeared in Ruthfully Yours
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/11/27/ victor-sharpe-a-people-have-no-need-to-annex- what-is-already-theirs/

To Go To Top

Posted by Eye on the UN, November 23, 2010.

This article by Anne Bayefsky appeared today on FoxNews.com.


Over in Turtle Bay, the U.N. General Assembly is now wrapping up its key fall session. After taking a good hard look at human rights violations around the globe, it has come to the following conclusions about the world's ills: In 2010, eighty percent of all its condemnations of alleged human rights abuses — twenty-one resolutions — will have been directed at Israel alone.

The Assembly will also finish the year having decided that only six more of the 192 U.N. member states raise human rights concerns. Warranting a single resolution each are Afghanistan, Burma, Georgia, Iran, North Korea, and the United States.

This astonishing result percolates up primarily from the General Assembly's main committees, such as the third committee on humanitarian affairs and the fourth committee on decolonization which finish their business before Thanksgiving. All U.N. members sit in each of these committees, so that over the past two months a thousand diplomats have huddled in meetings and churned out documents, speeches, webcasts and press releases.

All these busy bees, however, could not manage to come up with a single resolution about the horrors in Sudan — where reports of government forces killing and raping civilians in Darfur continue to surface. Tens of thousands have fled in fear this year alone, while humanitarian relief is deliberately impeded by the government in Khartoum.

Nor did the General Assembly think Haiti warranted a resolution, though the U.N. is at the center of recent riots amid claims that its peacekeepers have fueled the cholera epidemic already affecting eighteen thousand residents.

The billion Chinese without elementary civil and political rights went unnoticed.

Millions of Saudi women, trapped in their homes at the will of their male guardians, were forgotten. And no mention was made of the other myriad number of non-democracies and human rights basket cases where torture, female genital mutilation and gross violations of every kind are routine.

The virtual ban on country-specific human rights resolutions — except when it comes to demonizing the Jewish state — is a result of a theory of international human rights protection that has taken the U.N. by storm. It goes by many names, such as "non-selectivity," "impartiality," "objectivity," and "de-politicization." "Naming and shaming" used to be considered an important tool for encouraging change.

At the Assembly last week, Sudan described the prevailing view of this now out-of-vogue idea. Too "negative" they called it. Today, it's all about "constructive dialogue."

Every U.N. diplomat, of course, can translate this babble. "Non-selectivity" means don't select my state, or any of my pals, for criticism. "Politicization" means any politics that is not in sync with my state's politics is unacceptable. The game is really an old Soviet trick for avoiding scrutiny and criticism, which Islamic states and dictatorships everywhere have fully embraced.

The problem is that Western governments have recently fallen for this nonsense too. Only two weeks ago the Obama administration sat in the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva and allowed the United States and its human rights record to be ridiculed by some of the world's most notorious abusers — in the name of even-handedness.

A few days later, on November 9, the Council followed-up by presenting the administration with a list of recommended reforms, itemized together with the proud sponsors. They included: "end all forms of racial discrimination" (Libya); "ensure the implementation of U.S. obligations under international humanitarian law..." (Iran); "end excessive use of force by law enforcement bodies" (China); and "ban torture and other ill-treatment in U.S. detention facilities" (North Korea).

How did the Obama administration react to this travesty? Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, told the assembled: "The work of this very Council is very close to the history and culture of our country." — A rolling-over-in-the-grave moment for Founding Fathers, if there ever was one.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is the only senator to insist on an annual accounting of all the money U.S. taxpayers send to the U.N. every year. He finally extracted the information for the fiscal year 2009: $6.35 billion, or about 23% of the U.N.'s budget from all sources.

Isn't it about time our dollars were put to better use?

This article was written by Anne Bayefsky, a spokesperson for Eye on the UN and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. Contact her at anne@hudsonny.org Contact the organization at info@EYEonthe UN.org. For more United Nations coverage, see www.EYEontheUN.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 23, 2010.

This was written by Julia Gorin.


The "max" in Newsmax, if pronounced backwards, is "scam." So the above is pronounced "News-scam." This time it's because the cover story of the November issue — "The Truth about Islam in America" — is handled in a way that would make the mainstream media proud.

Because it's almost indistinguishable. In addition to being an overall puff piece, there is a flattering timeline titled "Important Events in Muslim-American History" (printed in an Indiana Jones-style font), which goes through all the contributions by Muslims in America. When it gets to the contribution on September 11, 2001, instead of an active sentence such as :

"Muslim hijackers fly airplanes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, killing 3,000 people," we get:

"The 9/11 terror attacks fuel a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment across America that continues today."

So the victims in that sentence are Muslims. And the main point about that day is that it triggered anti-Muslim sentiment. Then we get to 2002 and it reads, "The FBI reports that hate crimes against Muslims have risen 1,600 percent since 2000."

What that statistic doesn't tell you is that the increase amounted to a total of 481 crimes in 2001, nationwide. Which is less than one-sixth of the number of people killed by Muslims in just one day, in just three locales.

It also doesn't tell you that by the following year the number was down to 155 — compared to 931 hate crimes against Jews, who in contrast did not kill 3,000 people.

One other odd thing about the timeline is that the issuance of the postage stamp honoring the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr was placed before the 9/11 event.

Even though the decision to issue the stamp had been made well in advance of the holiday, the holiday itself actually came after the month of September, so the stamp would have only been available starting in November. I suppose that putting these two events in correct succession would have seemed just too blatantly perverse a reality. Meanwhile, missing was the related fact that the public only learned about the stamp when Muslims had the naglost* to complain that it was missing from a poster advertising holiday stamps, causing the post office to reissue the poster, with apologies. All two months after 9/11.

(*The Russian word "naglost" is like 'gall,' only stronger: it means taking a dump on someone's front doorstep, then ringing the bell to ask for toilet paper.)

One additional touch the magazine had was a sidebar titled "Muslims in America: Middle class, Educated, Professional." It was about how well integrated Muslims are in American society and how well they do, with a snapshot of Muslim Girl magazine in the middle.

I guess Newxam sees that the future is Islam, and is securing its place in the 7th Century so as not to get left behind in the 21st.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Swier, November 23, 2010.

I recently received my very own electronic copy of a special edition of Inspire Magazine. No this is not about losing weight or Apple's Steve Jobs. Inspire Magazine is published by Al Qaeda. November's magazine is a special edition dedicate to "Operation Hemorrhage".

So what is Operation Hemorrhage?

It is the sending of bombs to American synagogues or blowing up UPS and Federal Express cargo aircraft. The magazine gives all the details of the planning and execution of Operation Hemorrhage. According to Inspire:

"Two Nokia mobiles, $150 each, two HP printers, $300 each, plus shipping, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses add up to a total bill of $4,200. That is all what Operation Hemorrhage cost us. In terms of time it took us three months to plan and execute the operation from beginning to end. On the other hand this supposedly "foiled plot", as some of our enemies would like to call, will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures. That is what we call leverage. A $4,200 operation will cost our enemy billions of dollars."

Inspire states, "We would like to ask the Americans a question: Why try to solve the symptoms of the problem rather than the root?"

I agree. The bombs are the symptoms — the root is the geopolitical system called Sharia. Unless and until we recognize, analyze and attack the root we cannot win. The seminal report Sharia:The Threat to America does just that. Every American needs to read this report. The root is Sharia, the enemy are those nation states and their proxies spreading Sharia globally. They include nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen. They include proxies like Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas.

Sharia compliant Islamists are gloating at our feckless response to their tactics.

Inspire Magazine will inspire those who would kill us. The message is clear — for $4200 I will make you fear me and I will never stop until you stop me. The must be stopped! We are at war! Our policy must be we win and they lose!

Any questions?

Contact Richard Swier by email at drswier@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Raanan Isseroff, November 22, 2010.

Town of Ghajar sitting half on the border of Israel and half on the border of Lebanon thanks to the UN which split the town against the wishes of its residents to be considered Israeli after it was captured in 1967. On the top right is the kibbutz Snir. To the left are the Golan Heights soon to be given back as part of agreements between PM Netanyahu and Syria. The Ravine in the front is the River Snir, a source river for the Jordan River.

A Druze town on the Border of Israel called "Ghajar" or "Rajar" is turning Israel upside down by demanding that Israel keep the town Israeli. This is despite the fact that last Wednesday Israel's Knesset voted it away.[1]

MK Mr. Ayoub Kara

Israeli MK Mr. Ayoub Kara of Likud who has always been against Israel's giving any land for Peace including the abandonment of Gush Katif has again risen to the challenge and valiantly champions the towns cause saying that this in fact violates Golan Law.[2]

Mr. Kara said that besides being a violation of Israeli law, a withdrawal from the village would leave residents at the "mercy of the monstrous Hezbollah terror organization."[3] He vowed to: "fight with my last drop of blood" against Israel's abandoning the northern border village of Ghajar to the United Nations and Hezbollah.[4]

The problem is that when the town (A village really) became Israel's after 1967, the ever culturally caring UN drew a line through the middle of the town making the northern part Lebanese and the Southern part became Israel's.[5] Rajar or Ghajar, sits on the border at the base of Mount Hermon and at the head of the River Snir.

Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara has a Turkish map from World War I showing that the northern village of Rajar must not be divided, but must rather remain totally Israeli.[6] Those in Israel who support retaining the entire village say it was captured in its entirety from Syria. Kara, says the newly-discovered map shows that there was a mistake in the Sykes-Picot agreement map of 1916. The agreement was made between the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Imperial Russia, defining their respective spheres of influence and control in the Middle East after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire. Its terms were negotiated by French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes.

The official map mistakenly has the Druze village of Rajar as half Syrian and half Lebanese. However, Kara's map shows that Rajar — population 2,200 — was in fact totally Syrian, and not Lebanese. The error in the Sykes-Picot map was caused when the original was traced over, and a slight movement caused the line to be drawn through, and not aside, Rajar. The implications of this are that Rajar is part of the Golan Heights, the area that was annexed to Israel in 1981. As such, its northern half need not be "returned" to Lebanon, as demanded by Hizbullah.

According the same resolution that put the line through the town, the UN was appointed to keep the security in check. The same agreement also said that Lebanon NOT Hezbollah is supposed to be in police control of the northern part of the town. As Hezbollah slowly gained control of Lebanon, they took over police control of the northern part of the town in partnership with their "good friends" the UN...

To give you an example of the UN's positive feelings about Hezbollah while tolerating broken parts of the agreement; in 2000 the UN force supposed to be in control of the area in its October 31st Report to the United Nations Security Council UNIFIL itself says: "near the Blue Line the (Lebanese) authorities have, in effect, left control to Hizbollah. Its members work in civilian attire and are normally unarmed. They maintain good discipline and are under effective command and control. They monitor the Blue Line, maintain public order and, in some villages, provide social, medical and education services."[7]

This accepting by the UN of Lebanon's appointing Hezbollah terrorists to "police" of course helped make Israel's controlling the Southern part of the town a nightmare until predictably Israel simply took over the Northern part of the town as well. It was hard to tell where the "police" began and the terror ended off.

Of course when Israel took over the Northern part of the town the useless UN called a "foul" claiming Israel to be in International violation of UN resolution 1701. Never mind you that of the nineteen accords in the agreement, Israel was keeping its 14 but Lebanon in partnership with the UN had a hard time keeping their 5![8]

Finally, last Wedsnday, Israel got sick of the problem and simply threw in the towel effectively returning the town to Hezbollah control.

The townspeople petitioned both Israel and the UN to stay Israeli[9] but nobody seems to be listening...

My thought is like this:

I think we could help make them be listened to. We can give Ghajar a voice. In the process is brought out how the Peace process has nothing to do with peace, nothing to do with "brotherly love" and only has to do with Israel giving in to Terrorist use of making demands using international pressure.


[1]  Netanyahu to Tell UN: Israel to Withdraw from Ghajar. Israel national news — Nov 7, 2010 by Chana Yair —
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/140485

[2]  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/Flash.aspx/197378

[3]  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/Flash.aspx/197378

[4]  http://www.ouwet.com/ynot/lebanon/ druze-mk-don%E2%80%99t-trust-un-%E2%80%98dol

[5] HaAretz — "Getting Rid Of Ghajar" Zvi Bar'el 10-05-09
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/ getting-rid-of-ghajar-1.275742

[6]  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/135189

[7]  UN Security Council Report S/2000/1049 Oct 31, 2000 "Interim report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. See section #10. The rest of section 10 testifies to the UN's inability to effectively police Lebabnon: "On several occasions, Hizbollah personnel have restricted the Force's freedom of movement. The most serious incidents of this kind occurred after Hizbollah's operation on 7 October, one on the same day, the other four days later. In both, Hizboflah forced UNIFIL personnel at gunpoint to hand over vehicles and military hardware they had found on the terrain. UNIFIL protested all such incidents to the Lebanese authorities."

[8] See:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_ Security_Council_Resolution_1701 The Resolution demands of Lebanon & the UN: 1. Full cessation of hostilities. 2. Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon in parallel with Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers deploying throughout the South (OP2). 3.Hezbollah to be disarmed. 4. Full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon. 5. No paramilitary forces, including (and implying) Hezbollah, will be south of the Litani River.

[9]  http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ features/getting-rid-of-ghajar-1.275742 Raanan Isseroff is Director of the Crown Heights Committee For Shlaymus HaAretz and can be contacted by email at rsisseroff@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, November 22, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z — not right; not left; just 4 justice 4 Israel).

We have this to say about Hilary Clinton: According to widespread reports and 501(c) 3 reports, her husband, X-POTUS Bill, received and most likely still receives mega-millions from the Saudis and other arab "royals" to build and furnish Bill Clinton's presidential library. Reports indicate the library provides the Clintons with sumptuous living quarters. We also suspect the presidential library operates on the same level as Jimmy Carter's in that its budget pays for Clinton's post presidential services such as: air travel and travel "maintenance" etc. etc. As Bill's spouse, Hillary enjoys the fruits of wealthy arab largesse, and we suppose she treats israel badly as a sop to her Saudi benefactors.

It's about time ALL presidential libraries were nationalized. It is unseemly for a US president or any member of his or her family to receive gifts, emoluments, book contracts, or any other form of support or reward or financial honorarium from foreign sources, either directly or indirectly--e.g.: funneled to the recipients through corporate, trust, stiftung, individual, or any other nominee.

Put bluntly, we believe Hillary compulsively vilifies and will continue to insult israel in order to pander to her/her spouse's foreign benefactors lest they terminate their largesse.

Thank you for reading our message.

Paul — SC4Z

This below was written by Eli E. Hertz, president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org


"Moslems have enjoyed, under Israeli control, the very freedom which Jews were denied during Jordanian occupation."
— Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, 1968

The U.S. State Department International Religious Freedom Report 2009, bundles Israel with Afghanistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran as violators of freedom of religion. Secretary Clinton should know better.

In Israel, both Jews and non-Jews are free to practice their faiths freely and openly on individual and institutional levels. That contrasts sharply with neighboring Arab states, where intolerance is the norm and the number of non-Muslims is constantly shrinking. The Palestinian Authority's conduct — including the destruction of Jewish sites and violations of the holiness and neutrality of Christian ones — raises serious doubts as to whether the PA can be a trusted custodian of sacred sites in the Holy Land — Jewish or Christian.

Download the entire article here.

Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Murray, November 22, 2010.

There are Islamic uprisings around the world but do all Muslims recognize the direction Islam has taken? Islam must be better understood by both Muslims and all non-Muslims throughout the world. In doing so we need not define it as either a peaceful or violent religion. Islam will define its own character.

Islamic history is contained in texts from the Qur'an to the hadith and in the classical works of Tafsir (explanation or interpretation of the Qur'an). We can also read the writings of modern Muslim thinkers and ideologues. In the prophet biographies we see Muslim culture, theology, and politics. Life in Muslim countries is reflected in the vast array of studies by Western Islamists in polls, surveys, speeches, videos, TV shows, and more. I have even heard John Brennan state more than once that we are not to use the term jihad because it has a true and spiritual meaning in Islam and does not refer to war. In reality, he is in wrong. There is a spiritual meaning to the term jihad and from the beginning the word has meant violent action to spread or defend Islam. There has been 1400 years of jihad, with an intent to subordinate other religions.

We should have an open dialogue as to what Islam really really believes. Pretending that it is a "Religion of Peace", when it has never been committed to peace in any modern definition of the word, gets us nowhere. Islamic teaching states "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah"'. Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, long celebrated as a leading "moderate", called on all Muslims to fight a sacrificial jihad, and has stated "Allah brought us Hitler to fight the Jews". He was permitted to address young British Muslims, attract them to his website and TV shows by preaching violence in the name of religion. Many of these young are impressionable and will support jihad and join the extremists.

All Muslims, and the rest of the world, had better address the intent of Islamic fundamentalists before world wide religious conflict is worsened. Muslims must begin facing reality and recognize the truth about their faith. The truth includes the unjust treatment of its women, other religious minorities, as well as the inequities inherent in shari'a law. Governments around the world should encourage Muslims to take an objective look at their religion and where it is heading. If they don't, the world will experience another Christian Crusade or Inquisition causing the demise of millions. I take this position not lightly, nor do I lack an understanding for the religion, for I have studied the Qur'an and have corresponded as to its meanings with the Two Most Holy Mosques in Saudi Arabia.

Contact Bill Murray at wmurray8@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 22, 2010.

Time, that is, to consider the new freeze deal dead? Officially, not quite. Although we are getting close.

Yesterday, PM Netanyahu called a meeting to lobby Likud MKs on supporting the freeze. He discussed his red lines regarding any additional freeze after the 90 days, securing a US promise to veto a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN, and other matters that we've heard about before.

Of primary interest with regard to this meeting is that Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, who was present, reported that, "[The prime minister] is not certain that the United States will receive our demands, and not certain that the Palestinian Authority will accept them."

Indeed? This is markedly different in tone from the public statements by the prime minister.

Coalition Chair Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) reiterated Kara's sentiment: "Of course, these things will not be agreed upon. I did not hear confidence from the prime minister that the Americans will give us a document that fully reflects the understandings that would enable him to bring the moratorium for a cabinet vote."


For the first time now, there are hints that Minister of Education Gideon Sa'ar (Likud), who has been in the pro-freeze camp (because of political considerations) may be having second thoughts. And Shas is said to be angry at the prime minister for misrepresenting the situation and leading everyone to believe that US assurances would be forthcoming.

Reportedly, there is a new idea floating outside of government circles that advocates delaying any moratorium we might agree to until the Palestinian Arabs actually come to the table. No point in making the sacrifice, goes the logic, if the other side is not going to cooperate. The problem with this is that even if we ended up not actually instituting a freeze, we would have gone on record as being willing to do so in principle. And that's bad.


With all that I've written above, there may be changes now, because of a vote just taken in the Knesset. I have actually been delaying the transmission of this posting, waiting through the hours of debate, so that I might learn of voting results.

What has been called the Golan Bill has just passed its second and third (and final) reading in the Knesset — 65 to 33. This bill requires a national referendum or a vote by a supermajority of the Knesset (80 votes out of 120) before there can be any withdrawal from areas of Israel that are under civilian law. This applies specifically and most pertinently to the Golan Heights and Jerusalem (Judea and Samaria being under military law).

It is an exceedingly important law, as it would prevent the sort of thing former PM Ariel Sharon pulled with the withdrawal from Gaza. Only if there were a clear national consensus in favor of withdrawal could it happen — no prime minister, not Netanyahu and not anyone else, is now able to proceed autonomously in approving a withdrawal from Jerusalem or the Golan. Not even with a Cabinet vote or a simple majority of the Knesset. And I think it's safe to say that the chances of a majority of the voters of this nation, or a supermajority of the Knesset voting to surrender part of Jerusalem (which is the issue on the agenda right now) is very slight indeed. There is no issue that garners as strong and passionate a consensus as this does.

And it's also safe to say that without a surrender of part of Jerusalem to the Arabs, there would be no deal.


What fascinates me here is the efforts that have been expended by PM Netanyahu to push through this bill. Labor requested that it be postponed (would you believe: because it would threaten peace overtures with Syria?) and he declined to do so. He is saying that this vote prevents any "irresponsible" agreement from being forged and will guarantee that any action taken has strong public backing. What he will bring forward, he is suggesting, will respond to Israel's "security needs" and will get that strong backing.

This last sentence should be taken as spin that attempts to show that this measure is not meant to be obstructionist, but rather to guarantee that all deals have solid backing.

My reading, however, is that Netanyahu is eager to have measures in place that put the brakes on, so that he cannot be coerced into surrendering either Jerusalem or the Golan. This for me affirms my long held conviction that, while Netanyahu plays a very dangerous game, and is forever eager to appear cooperative in the extreme, he is not Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu is a tough (and I would say, dirty) fighter. If he didn't want this bill to proceed, he would have blocked it. But it appears that he does not want to be in a position in which he could unilaterally agree to surrender part of Jerusalem to the Arabs, and thus would be pushed to do so. This bill makes that impossible.

Rather than saying no himself, he now can rely on the process of the bill to cover his rear. More on this bill will certainly follow.


Will we hear from the Arabs, and from Obama, and from the EU on this? Oh, yes, indeed. We will be accused of obstructionist action and showing bad faith that hinders "peace." And worse. The fact that Israel is a democracy, and that this bill merely seeks to protect the will of the people from being thwarted will be totally ignored.


For a taste of what we are in for:

An official paper — referred to as a "study" — prepared by Al-Mutawakel Taha, a senior official with the PA Ministry of Information, was released today by the PA.

It maintains that Jews have no claim to the Western Wall, which is an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Haram al-Sarif (Temple Mount).

This paper further claims that the Western Wall, (Al-Buraq Wall) is Waqf property owned by an Algerian-Moroccan Muslim family.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/ Article.aspx?id=196329


I spoke yesterday about Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper and his brave and honorable position.

Professor Efraim Inbar and David M. Weinberg have now written a piece for BESA — "A Salute to Stephen Harper" — in which they express praise for him:

"Our Biblical patriarch Abraham pleaded with God to rescind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, arguing that the virtues of just a few righteous people could suffice to save that world.

"In our modern world, that righteous person — whose voice of conscience, critique and courage may be the saving grace — is surely Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"In his speech before a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism in Ottawa last week, Harper sounded the clearest and most courageous call of this century against modern anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish state. In fact, Harper's entire political career has been punctuated by steadfast support for Israel and the Jewish People, with clarity of vision and intensity unparalleled in recent times..."
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/ perspectives122.html


Please, take the time to hear PM Harper's marvelous statement on anti-Semitism in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfFdhIOoQM& feature=player_embedded

And then, I encourage you to write and thank him:

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by NGO Monitor, November 22, 2010.

John Ging has been the head of the United Nation Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza since 2006. In this role, and despite his reported opposition to the BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) movement, Ging has promoted political warfare targeting Israel, as illustrated by the following quotes:

  • Support for "Free Gaza flotillas" provoking violent confrontations with Israel: In May 2010, Ging expressed support for flotillas to Gaza, encouraging the world to "see ships coming with [cut in video]... to the rescue": "The sea is open, we've had a few human rights' activists, who've brought small boats to Gaza over the cause of the past three years with medical supplies and other supplies. And again, they show the way." In fact, most flotillas have been comprised of fringe activists from ISM, ICAHD, Viva Palestina, and the IHH terror organization. One week after Ging's remarks, the "Free Gaza" flotilla initiated a violent confrontation with the Israeli navy, resulting in nine deaths. (At a November 2010 lunch, Ging claimed that he was misquoted because the statement first appeared in a Norwegian newspaper. However, the original interview was conducted on video in English.)

  • Promoting Palestinian victimization: "I am delighted that the Elders come again to Gaza...The truth that...we are in the fourth year of an illegal, inhumane and counterproductive blockade on 1.5 million innocent civilians...it has taken the tragic deaths of activists on a flotilla to generate this new level of political clarity and resolve... Whether it is realized or not depends on the triumph of truth over propaganda and legality over illegality. The fate of children well beyond the borders of Gaza is at stake." ("Gaza: The simple truths that go untold," John Ging, The Elders, October 16, 2010)

  • "Stripped of their dignity": "The situation is very desperate at the humanitarian level, I mean people have been stripped of their dignity here, it is a struggle to survive for every body." ("UN aid chief to EI: Gaza people 'stripped of their dignity' ", Electronic Initfada, November 25, 2008)

  • "Sub-human existence" in Gaza: "There's a very sub-human existence for the general population... The definitions of a humanitarian crisis are rather obscene when compared with just how people are having to struggle to survive here..." ("'A disaster for everybody' ", Guardian UK, May 12, 2008)

  • "Immoral equivalence" on Gilad Shalit (comparing the kidnapped Israeli soldier to Palestinian terrorists): "Equally, there must be action to end all violence emanating from Gaza into Israel and to secure the release of Gilad Shalit and Palestinians administratively detained in Israeli prisons, including more than 300 children." ("Gaza: The simple truths that go untold," John Ging, The Elders, October 16, 2010)

  • Demonization of Israel: Ging's condemnation of Israel for allegedly causing 43 civilian deaths in an UNRWA school in Jabalya, Gaza on January 6, 2009 fuelled false accusations of an Israeli "massacre" and demonization of Israel. Ging's statements erased the fact that Hamas fighters were in the immediate vicinity of the school, and that the deaths occurred outside the school grounds. Three weeks later Ging admitted, "I know no one was killed in the school," and acknowledged that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school.

  • (For more on Ging's role, see CAMERA's "UNRWA's Omissions Distort Coverage of Jabaliya Tragedy," February 4, 2009)

NGO Monitor is a Jerusalem-based research institution that promotes accountability and transparency among nongovernmental organizations that claim to protect human rights in the Middle East. Jason Edelstein is communications director of NGO Monitor. Steinberg is President of NGO Monitor. Contact them by email at mail@ngo.monitor.org and visit their website at www.ngo-monitor.org

To Go To Top

Posted by YJ Draiman, November 22, 2010.

Imagine that the various people who settled in the United States for the past 300 years decided one day that they one to parcel the United States into an independent State just for them, would the American public go for it. The Answer is absolutely NO.

The situation in Israel today is no different. The Arabs there are not Palestinians, there is no such Arab nation as Palestine or Palestinian people.

Europeans countries today are consisting of numerous people from other countries. Would the Europeans people cede part of their country to set up another State in their midst. The answer is absolutely NO.

Archeological excavations and historical data is the best proof Israel belongs to the Jewish Nation and non-other.

All the Arabs in Israel and surrounding areas are from the various Arab nations, such as Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab nations.

Prominent PLO Arab says there are no 'Palestinians' and no "Palestine" PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a March 31, 1977 interview with a Dutch newspaper Trouw.

"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. "

The Qur'an 17:104 — states the land belongs to the Jewish people  

IF THE HISTORIC DOCUMENTS, COMMENTS WRITTEN BY EYEWITNESSES and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for Muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter we [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

YUSUFALI: And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
PICKTHAL: And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
SHAKIR: And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.
- Qur'an 17:104

Any sincere Muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by Muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Any building of housing in The Greater Israel is the right and duty of the Israeli government. There is no such a thing as occupied territory. It is the land of Israel for over 4,000 years.

Sequence of historical events, agreements and a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem and the rest of Israel totaling approximately 45,000 square miles, as mandated by the League of Nations in July of 1922. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel. (You might as well break apart Syria which was mandated at the same time).

PS 20 Years of Research Reveals Jerusalem Belongs to Jews

(IsraelNN.com) Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: "Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.".

Gauthier has written a doctoral dissertation on the topic of Jerusalem and its legal history, based on international treaties and resolutions of the past 90 years. The dissertation runs some 1,300 pages, with 3,000 footnotes. Gauthier had to present his thesis to a world-famous Jewish historian and two leading international lawyers — the Jewish one of whom has represented the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions.

Gauthier's main point, as summarized by Israpundit editor Ted Belman, is that a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel.

We must unleash the wrath of G-D against the enemies of Israel and those collaborating with the enemy.

Contact YJD at yjdmd@msn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 22, 2010.

This review was written by Leon De Winter and it appeared in the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870 4312504575618193385907122.html

Giulio Meotti's book about Palestinian terrorism tells a truth many Westerners don't want to hear.


A New Shoa: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism, is a hard read. Not because it is badly written; it is clear, precise, and eloquent. It is a hard read because it is deeply moving — many times, I had to stop reading and catch my breath, wipe away the tears. Giulio Meotti, an Italian author and journalist, has written a monumental study of pain and grief, of mourning and remembrance, of hatred and love.

The book's title is well-chosen. From the very first pages, Mr. Meotti makes clear that he considers Palestinian terrorism and Arab hatred of Israel and the Jews the continuation of Nazi anti-Semitism. He shows that Palestinian and Arab rhetoric is focused on Jews — not just Israelis. The dream of the Islamists is to destroy the Jewish people, not just the sliver of land called Israel.

This is not a matter of opinion but of facts, which Mr. Meotti's well-researched book provides in abundance. Take just this recent example from a public speech by Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, aired on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV on November 5, 2010:

"Allah willing, their [the Jews'] expulsion from Palestine in its entirety is certain to come. We are no weaker or less honorable than the peoples that expelled and annihilated the Jews. The day we expel them is drawing near. ...

"There is no place for you [Jews] among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world. You are headed to annihilation."

These words move far beyond a conflict about territory — the underlying emotion is genocidal rage. Mr. Meotti's list of murderous anti-Semitism by Palestinian leaders and media is exhausting. But it is a list the Western media ignore as it would destroy the prevailing narrative that the Mideast conflict is about land and Palestinian suffering. It isn't. It is about that old sickness, Jew-hatred.

Mr. Meotti's other great achievement is to record the stories of the Jews who died as a result of this hatred and preserve their memories. He recalls victims who were trying to lead an ordinary life in a unique country. They were on their way to work, to the market, to see friends when the murderers crossed their paths, themselves dying in the fires they unleashed.

A New Shoah
By Giulio Meotti
Publisher: Encounter Books
October 12, 2010
ISBN-10: 159403477X
ISBN-13: 978-1594034770
428 pages, $27.95

The roll of victims is long. "This is the Ground Zero of Israel, the first country ever to experience suicide terrorism on a mass scale," Mr. Meotti writes, "more than 150 suicide attacks carried out, plus more than 500 prevented. It's a black hole that in 15 years swallowed up 1,557 people and left 17,000 injured."

It must have been almost unbearable to write this book. Mr. Meotti gave the Jewish victims names and faces and, amid all that horror, packed his book also with descriptions of hundreds of acts of human kindness and dignity.

"There is a long, heartbreaking list of teenage Jewish girls whose lives were cut off in a moment by a suicide bomber," Mr. Meotti writes. "Rachel Teller's mother decided to donate her daughter's heart and kidneys: 'That is my answer to the hyena who took my daughter's life. With her death, she will give life to two other people.' Rachel wore her hair very short and had a wistful smile. Her friends remembered the last time they saw her. 'We said bye-bye, a little bit bored, like it was nothing. Instead, it was the last time we said goodbye to Rachel.'"

The book is filled with these moments of intense pain, but this 400-page study of Jewish love of life is indispensable for anybody who wants to understand Israel's position in the world and the tragic position of the Jews in history.

There is the story of Massoud Mahlouf Allon, who was an observant Jewish immigrant from Morocco. "He was mutilated, bludgeoned and beaten to death while giving poor Palestinians the blankets he had collected from Israelis," Mr. Meotti recounts.

Or the disabled Arnad, who was blown up in the seat of his motorized wheelchair in Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda market.

Or Nissan Cohen, who was a teenager when he fled from Afghanistan. "During the day he helped handicapped children, and at night he studied the Gemarra, the commentary on the Law. A bomb killed him at the entrance to the Mahane Yehuda market."

This book doesn't dumb down evil. It doesn't try to understand terrorists as victims of their socio-economic circumstances, doesn't miscategorize them as poor or uneducated (they are often middle class) or driven allegedly to despair by the very same people they murdered. No, in "A New Shoah," the terrorists remain what they are, the executors of a hate-filled religious ideology. This is a truth too many Westerners still don't want to hear.

My own Dutch publishing house, the distinguished De Bezige Bij, born out of the Dutch resistance against the Nazis, refused to publish this amazing book. It had no qualms, however, about publishing a book of anti-Zionist rants by Dries van Agt, the former Dutch prime minister and Hamas apologist.

In a Continent stuck in denial about both Palestinian anti-Semitism and Europe's own resurgent Jew-hatred, hidden behind the label of anti-Zionism, Mr. Meotti's hard read is a breath of fresh air.

Editor's Note:

I despair of it ever leaking out to the majority of the great unwashed that Israel is occupying Jewish land; that there is no Palestinian people or even an ancient indigenous Arab people; that the vast majority of the so-called Arab indigenous migrated into "Palestine" after 1900, when the Brits and the Jews created jobs in a land that had been economically dead for hundreds of years.

But some people understand. In response to a comment by a reader, Bennett David, claiming in essence that Israel was acting as Nazi to the Palestinians — stealing their land, starving them in Gaza — letters from two readers are of interest:

Michael LeFavour, wrote

The hatred does have context, David. All you need to do is to go back to what every Muslim scholar understands about the life of Muhammad and study how he treated his Jewish neighbors. Hint....those neighbors either converted, fled in fear for their lives, or died. None of which, has anything to do with Jews immigrating to their ancestral homeland, ie the "Zionist project" per se.

Since you say that the Jews have produced "ample terror or suffering that could match ANY of this narrative" I challenge you to match the barbarity of the Hatuel family murder. You will have no trouble finding an incident where two Arab policemen were ripped apart by a mob of Jews and had their intestines paraded around the street? Do you know of any incident where an Arab mother and her four daughters were traveling just minutes away from their home, got the tires shot out of her car, and had her 4 children executed at point blank range, then had a gun placed against her swollen womb (8 months pregnant) and fired three times to kill the unborn son she was carrying? The truth is, there is no comparison. When the one Jew that snapped killed a bunch of male worshipers at a mosque, possibly to end a terrorist plot, the reaction of the Jewish side was quite telling...they banned the entire party he belonged to and condemned the act of violence. How are mass murderers treated by the Arabs?

it is embarrassingly obvious you know nothing of war or what it takes to bring peace. Peace will come when one side has been defeated. So long as enablers such as yourself entertain the idea that the Zionist project is the problem the Arabs will see a chance to keep murdering Jews.

Raphael Avital wrote:

Yes, yes, it's all true, Israel is the scourge of humanity, and the sooner we're rid of it, the sooner all the world's woes will go away. It's all Israel's fault. That is the prevailing wisdom, and it will not allow itself to be confused with facts.

Such as, Israeli Arabs vote and get themselves elected to the Israeli parliament. A Jew in an Arab country is lucky if he survives shopping for groceries. There's equivalence there.

Such as, Muslims can build a Mosque in the Jewish State, or in NY at Ground-Zero, because they have a constitutionally protected right to poor judgment, but Christians will never be allowed to build a Church, or even restore an old one, under Muslim regimes. Certainly, there's equivalence there.

Such as, an Israeli woman can get a divorce, and an Israeli woman was elected to the highest executive post in the country, that of Prime Minister, but a woman in Muslim regimes has to wear a tent, and will be stoned to death if a breeze causes her garment to reveal her ankles. And a woman under Muslim regimes can be killed by her own father or brother for committing adultery, in an "Honor Killing," which authorities hardly ever investigate. There's certainly lots of equivalence there.

Such as, gays serve openly in the IDF, but woe to the homosexual in a Muslim regime. There's equivalence there.

Such as, Israeli Arabs literally breeze through security at Ben-Gurion airport, because security there practices profiling that's based on behavior, not on ethnicity. But a U.S. Senator flying out of a major airport in an Arab country is interrogated, because he has an Israeli stamp on his U.S. passport. There's equivalence there.

Such as, Arabs living on the West-Bank, under the Palestinian Authority, will soon get arrested and thrown in jail, for the unspeakable, despicable crime of putting food on their tables, clothes on their children, and contributing to their local economy by... working for an Israeli employer. There's equivalence there.

Based on the article, any reasonable person could legitimately conclude that the book is one-sided. That's probably true. And all are blind to the fact that the book exists in a media world that is itself one-sided, that champions the Palestinian side and is ruthlessly critical of the Israeli side. Heck, the author admits his own publisher won't touch the book — does anyone think this is based on the publisher's moral compass, or political ideology, or compassion for the underdog, or simply fear of violent reprisals? Like the violent reprisals against Danish embassies and consulates in Muslim regimes, following the publication of the offensive cartoons a few years back? Because we all know that a small, obscure Danish newspaper is widely read all over the Arab world, don't we? And when Iran sponsored art exhibits showing the worst anti-semitic depictions of Jews and denying the Holocaust ever happened, we all did see dozens of violent attacks on Iranian embassies and consulates all over the world, didn't we? Yes, there's equivalence there.

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 22, 2010.

This is from correspondents in London, England and was published at news.com (Australia)
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/todays-lesson -at-islamic-school-how-to-cut-off-criminals-hand/story- e6frfku0-1225958505096


PUPILS at Islamic schools across Britain are being taught how to chop off a criminal's hand and that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, a BBC investigation has found.

Up to 5000 pupils aged between six and 18 are being taught Sharia law punishments using "weekend-school" text-books which claim those who do not believe in Islam will be subjected to "hellfire" in death.

A text book for 15-year-olds advises: "For thieves their hands will be cut off for a first offence, and their foot for a subsequent offence."

"The specified punishment of the thief is cutting off his right hand at the wrist. Then it is cauterised to prevent him from bleeding to death," it added.

Young pupils are warned that the punishment for engaging in homosexual acts is death by stoning, burning with fire or throwing off a cliff and that the "main goal" of the Jews is to "have control over the world and its resources."

The schools are part of the "Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland" organisation. The BBC investigation claimed that one school in London is owned by the Saudi government.

Education Minister Michael Gove told the BBC program: "I have no desire or wish to intervene in the decisions that the Saudi government makes in its own education system.

"But I'm clear that we cannot have anti-Semitic material of any kind being used in English schools. Ofsted (Britain's education watchdog) will be reporting to me shortly."

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, November 21, 2010.


Can you imagine Adam — G-d's first human creation in Eden's green meadow? See him, newly minted. His fresh body gleaming and his mind totally empty of facts, attitudes, opinions — as empty as Eden is of thorn bushes — ready to begin its lifelong task of accumulation of data and weaving that data into an intellect. He turns slowly 360 degrees, a full circle, and takes in grass and forests, and flowers, and mountains, and brooks, all covered by a blue dome.

As he registers every throb of the new creation in the lush, green grass of Eden and wonders at his consciousness — as flimsy as the few white clouds that sail above him. he looks closer and sees the songbirds. And look, there are small creatures in the grass and larger ones hopping and bounding amongst the trees. Truly, a brave new world full of creatures unlike himself that are necessary for him to understand — he who at birth has no identity and a head full of inexperience. Then he chances to stare into that copper disc that illuminates his new world. It beams over all.

Still sitting on the green Savannah and swiveling his head in all directions, because the Lord of creation has put a potion called curiosity into his bloodstream: unappreciated at the time by Adam but destined to feed his intellect. So much to see that it took many hours to inscribe it all in his heretofore blank brain like the honeybee fills his comb with nectar.

Then among his recording of his surroundings, he made an alarming observation. That bright orange thing was no longer straight ahead. The trees on the far horizon appeared to consume it. And he could no longer see the sharp outlines of trees and mountains. In fact, the creatures that had been joyfully bounding in the woods were no longer visible to him. Darkness was replacing light. He trembled. Even a partially stocked brain knew that somehow darkness meant blindness and blindness was death. And as the trees pulled more and more of the light below the horizon, Adam's blindness increased. He chose to run to escape this danger, but he fell over a large boulder. He rose, only to run into a tree. He resumed his running — somewhere there must be light and he must find it. He was cold and blind and fearful all at once.

And the Lord G-d saw his fear and took pity on him. Ah, we need a light for the night, thought the mind of G-d wherein dwells all the mechanisms of the universe. Therefore, he flung the full moon into the midnight sky. Adam stopped. Only a small improvement. Now at least he could see the river, which lay in his path. But still the garden's beauty seemed blurred in dusky yellow. So, the lord flung millions of points of light into the sky. They helped but a little.

The good Lord, who made the heart of Adam, understood the heart of Adam. This fear of nighttime blindness needed more than moon and stars.

The Creator spoke in Adam's ear the secret of day and night. How they revolve like all things in nature; life and death, the seasons, the great architecture of the galaxies. But Adam's mind could not accommodate the voice of his maker. It was like talking to the beasts. He needed one of his own kind. The ragged hole of fear in Adam's soul could only be filled by a helpmate. Thus, Adam slept and G-d made Eve.

She stood beside him and pointed to the horizon where the earth had swallowed the sun. Her eyes expressed no fear, only wonder. They sank to the grass in each other's arms — huddled like two babes. Neither knew anything except the warmth of the other. They watched and waited. Their fearful eyes focused on the Pine tree where they had last seen the sun. Would it ever return to bless them with light and warmth? They dozed, frightful, but full of the need to sleep. Then Eve, feeling a warmth at her back and noticing the lightening of the black sky, laughed the first exultant laugh of creation and put her hand to Adam's face in order to turn it to the life-giving light behind them. "It returns, it returns," she whispered with awe; "but not where it was eaten by the earth." They stand, they face the rising sun, and then they lift their faces to heaven — wherein the laws of nature are made — to thank He who gave them life and light and warmth. Around them all living things hummed a hymn of hope.


When my son and his family went to Israel last month I gave him detailed instructions on my gift. He WAS going to bring me a gift, was he not? Using the same subtle techniques I used for birthdays and wedding anniversaries ("I want a new, large-head tennis racket") I gave him careful direction. No plastic temple bookends for me. And no antiquities stamped "158 Israelite BCE bronze vase, made in China".

No, I wanted my own personal symbol of the land of Milk and Honey. The celestial signer of the covenant — and I mean no disrespect — was also the world's first salesman because he lauded the rocky, poorly-watered slice of Mideastern earth he calls a land of Milk and honey. Just like the guy at the car lot gushes over the new Lincoln MKZ. I mean who is going to abide by 613 rules and never snatch a peek at his neighbor's voluptuous wife or drop a rock on the head of the guy looking at yours — for a sandy sanitary landfill of boulders, grit, and tumbleweed, a path of earth rich in history, but poor as a synagogue mouse in vitamins? No, says creation's first marketing man — it is a sweet land of milk and honey. (The Negev, too?) And that's not all. "Every man shall sit under his own Fig tree."

And Pomegranate trees will flourish. If you check your concordance, you'll see that giant, red fruit with juicy nectar is mentioned maybe forty times. It is almost a metaphor for the sacred land that the Lord has promised to us. It is required in the trappings of the temple and the decorations of the priests' robes. Thinking back to my visits to Israel, I remember them in mosaic floors. I remember seeing as many pomegranate as fig trees. Evidently, they thrived in 3000 BCE as well as in the 20th Century.

This antique fruit has inspired storytellers for ages. It figures in Greek explanations of seasonal change. Remember Persepone, who spent her winters in Hell — and the world of nature mourns — because she ate a few pomegranate seeds? It goes back that far. And of course, even further in our Chumash. What an ancient and honorable pedigree is the seed of this fruit.

Such an unusual fruit. A huge cluster of juicy red seeds (613 like the mitzvahs, say the sages) covered by a leathery red skin. More fitting as a descriptor of the sabra (the native Israeli) than the traditional fruit. Tough as hell on the outside — sweet as sugar within. I prefer the symbol of the pomegranate.

So, about now you've figured out my request to my kids: bring me, I asked, a couple of pomegranates, which I will not devour like a hungry heathen, but invest in the fertile earth of my backyard! What a machaya that would be — my own little piece of Jerusalem. I specifically requested one from Jerusalem. Who wants one from Tel Aviv, which was a stretch of sand in Bible times? That's where you buy those plastic temple bookends. And perhaps selfishly I gave my neighbor, a kind and devout Christian who shares with me the fruit of his garden, a handful of seeds. I use the world "selfish" because I'm thinking that if my seedling fails, his won't. Evidently, he is a man of virtue who the Lord rewards with a bountiful garden. He has only to say "GROW" to a tomato plant and we have salads and spaghetti sauce and fried green tomatoes for six months. I fertilize, weed, and pray and here comes a barren weed that never achieves the sexual maturity of blossoms. So, I'm taking no chances.

I planted bunches of seeds. Using probabability theory to compensate for my botanic ignorance. I planted seeds everywhere. Inside and outside and in pots and in the earth and in sand and in clay. Meanwhile, I bought pomegranates in the grocery and settled down in front of the TV and waited. And sure enough, little green things came up. But suddenly, with over whelming logic, it struck me. How will I recognize a pomegranate seedling from shrubs, weeds, and bushes that don't bear big, red, leathery-skinned clusters of juicy seeds? I never saw an adolescent pomegranate. How will I know her when I meet her? I might be nourishing Forsythias for five years before I figure out it is an impostor. Oh well, they bear after three or four years. I guess I can wait. I'm a youthful 77 — let's see — 77 plus 4. Hey, that'll work.

Ted Roberts' essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, November 21, 2010.

This comes from the Sam Hindu website
(http://samhindu.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/ ya-arabs-love-to-pick-on-tiny-nation-israel/).


Today I would like to talk about the settlements that are causing so much trouble in the middle east, and to the entire world. These manifestations of a ruthless, oppressive occupation, which treads on human rights without any thought, destroys any culture it touches, and warps history itself to suit its own purpose — which is to conquer all who dare stand in its path. I'm talking, of course, about the Arab settlements in Israel.

Arab settlements in Israel far outweigh Jewish ones, for the simple fact that while Arabs deny Jews the option to live amongst them, Israelis allow its Arab population to proliferate wherever it pleases, though, to be honest, they're not exactly being asked anymore. After all, the police doesn't dare upset these gentle souls of the land, and the traitor-leaders are very busy not looking racist before their foreign masters, by maintaining a stranglehold on the Jewish population.

This is how besides invader settlements in Judea and Samaria, there's East Jerusalem — which was cleansed from Jews by the Jordanian Legion during Israel's independence war; Hebron — one of the most ancient of Jewish towns, and the resting place of the father of the nation — Abraham; Ramla and Lod (where crime runs rampant, thanks to good Arab citizens); Tiberias and the Galilee; the Negev (Bedouins look less exotic and mysterious when they ride into Beer-Sheba in Subaru sedans, looking for stuff to steal, and harassing anyone in sight); 'the triangle', which includes Um-Il-Fachem; Haifa and Acre, which both include mixed populations — the first sees much brazen dissent from its Arab students, and the later has witnessed a couple of pogroms in the past year; Jaffa in Tel-Aviv (where trendy rich leftists come to live, while others protest for the 'indigenous population' — as if ethnic purity in neighborhoods is some god given right), and the list goes on and on.

While foreign appeasers insist that Jews cease construction in their liberated, yet disputed lands (an area that becomes increasingly larger, the more appeasements are offered), Arab settlements, both in and out of Judea and Samaria, spread unabated. There is absolutely no counter-balance to that trend, as even the KKL (Keren Kayemet L'Yisrael) has given money, donated by Jews, to the cause of erecting even more Arab settlements. Not that it has to — Saudi funded groups already buy territories in this country as if it was open market day.

The supreme court, long since a bastion of pro-Arab, anti-Israeli rulings, has declared it illegal to prevent Arabs from settling anywhere in Israel, even though some villages require every potential citizen moving there to go through a screening interview. In practice, it is not a measure of equality, but one-sided favoritism. The same judges, naturally, do not want anyone not of their own ethnic group living anywhere near their ivory mansions.

Even if the law allows Jews to purchase land and houses in Arab, the immediate intimidation and threats of murder sends them looking for a safer alternative. A bold news piece covered such a case recently, though I can't say anyone dared paint the whole picture as it is.

Israel's position is not a good one, geographically speaking, and is even less favorable in demographic terms, with Islamic families having 7-12 children per wife (polygamy is quite alright, when speaking against it can spark violence). The lie of 'Israeli-Arabs' is a bubble that will eventually burst, as they certainly do not identify with Jews, and even less with confused Israelis that can't sell values to their own kids (save, maybe, the values of 'partying!', and 'be kind to minorities like Arabs, gays, and criminal youth, but not religious Jews or your own countrymen').

That is why when haughty leftists speak as if Israel is not under any reasonable threat, I can't do much but laugh. Hubris has destroyed mightier nations, so their faith in miracles must be stronger than that of any messianic Jew.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, November 21, 2010.

This interview with Jonathan Pollard was conducted by Arik Bender and it appeared in Maariv. These are excerpts.


Today, a quarter century ago, Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard was arrested and sent to an American prison. Prisoner number 09185-105 looks out from his cell and hears the growing calls in Israel and the United States for his release. He says: "The letters that come to me from Israel are my oxygen... I live for the day when my beloved wife will race into my open arms when I land at Ben Gurion airport."

After more than 9,000 days in prison, Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard now hopes that his release is closer than ever before. "Every day I get up in the morning and I pray that today will be the day," he told Israel's Maariv newspaper from his federal prison cell in Butner, North Carolina. "Every day, I pray today will be the day the warden will walk in and tell me: Pollard, get your things together. You're going home today!"

"I get a lot of mail from people all over the country. I am always surprised that the Israeli people remember me, that they care about me, that they want me home. These letters are my oxygen."

"In their letters, people often share with me personal stories. Some of the stories are simply amazing. I am always impressed by the courage and strength of our people! I feel blessed to be part of this nation."

"My wife, Esther, has been the one consistent ray of light in my life. Her faith in me, her encouragement, her optimism, and her devotion have sustained me through the hardest times."

"I imagine how it will be when the day comes that my beloved wife, Esther, will race into my open arms when I arrive at Ben Gurion airport. I picture our joyful embrace. I imagine holding her very close for a very long time as tears of gratitude and joy run down our faces. I wipe her tears away and kiss her eyes and tell her over and over again, "Esther, we are home! We are finally home!"

"All around us, family and friends and our people will be sharing in our joy, laughing and smiling and welcoming us home. May the day speedily arrive!"

The efforts to bring about Pollard's release continue on all fronts.

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Richard Swier, November 21, 2010.

An investigative report by Fox News has found The Congressional Muslim Staff Association (CMSA) informally established in 1998 and formally recognized at the behest of Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MI) in 2008 is suspected of hosting Sharia compliant (terrorist) clerics. Sharia is the military/political ideology that requires the overthrow of any opposing political system which does not embrace Islam. Islam literally translated means "submission" and Sharia literally translated means "the path". So Sharia is the path to submission.

According to Fox News the following Muslims who fully embrace Sharia have held Jummah prayer services under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama:

Anwar al-Awlaki, the notorious Al Qaeda cleric believed to be hiding in Yemen and the lone American on the U.S. government's capture or kill list, who conducted a prayer service on Capitol Hill shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Randall "Ismail" Royer, a former communications associate for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who confessed in 2004 to receiving jihadist training in Pakistan. He is serving a 20-year prison term.

Anwar Hajjaj, former president of Taibah International Aid Association, which was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and U.N. in 2004.

Esam Omeish, the former president of the Muslim American Society, who was forced to resign from the Virginia Commission on Immigration in 2007 after calling for "the jihad way," among other remarks.

Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who was forced to step down from a national terrorism committee post in 1999 for pro-terrorist comments.

Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director, who attended a Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 that was wiretapped by the FBI.

Johari Abdul Malik, Dar al-Hijrah imam, who made statements in support of convicted and suspected terrorists who attended his mosque.

Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar banned from the U.S. for six years beginning in 2004 for his alleged ties and donations to terror groups. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted Ramadan's ban in January.

Abdulaziz Othman Al-Twaijri, the head of a division of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, considered a foreign agent by the U.S.

In Florida we have Imam Muhammad Musri who adheres to Sharia and has been embraced by Governor Charlie Crist. Governor Crist appointed Musri to two key committees.

According to investigative journalist Patrick Poole:

"A key Muslim ally of Florida Governor and U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist, Imam Muhammad Musri, hosted a fundraiser in Orlando for the terrorist group Hamas in June 2009, and a camera crew from ACT for America infiltrated the event held at Masjid Al-Rahman, Musri's mosque, to record the proceedings. Imam Musri, head of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, serves on Crist's Faith-Based and Community Advisory Council and was appointed by Crist to his 2010 Sunshine Census Committee."

Patrick reports:

"Galloway and Bray raised $55,000 at Musri's fundraiser. During the event, [Mahdi] Bray [of the Muslim American Society-Freedom] promised that the cash and materials collected from the Orlando event would be sent straight to Gaza:

Well we've got the equipment. We're going to send it Insha'Allah. We're going to go with your movement Viva Palestina... We'll ship it here from Florida to New York, and from New York to Egypt, and from Egypt we will put it into Gaza."

What is happening in our highest levels of government is troubling at best and extremely dangerous at worst.

According to the seminal report "Sharia: The Threat to America" the Muslim Brotherhood's Sayyid Qutb made the object of his seminal jihadist monograph Milestones the concept of "progressive revelation", which is a self-radicalization process. According to Sayyid Qutb:

"Had the person of the Prophet — peace be on him — been absolutely essential for the establishment and fruition of this message, God would not have made Islam a universal message, ordained it as the religion for the whole of mankind, given it the status of the last divine Message for humanity, and made it to be a guide for all the inhabitants of this planet in all their affairs until the end of time." — Milestones, Chapter 1 — THE UNIQUE QUR'ANIC GENERATION [My emphasis]

According to Jerry Gordon, President of World Encounter Institute and Sr. Editor for New English Review:

"Whether it be the Capitol Rotunda in Tallahassee or Capitol Hill in Washington, Muslim Brotherhood infiltration has been emboldened by feckless politicians like outgoing Florida Governor Charlie Crist and US Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Politicians employing Muslim staffers who use US taxpayer funded facilities to make common cause with terrorist supporting Imams and Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and the Muslim American Society Freedom have to be put on notice that this amounts to supporting sedition and the overthrow of our American Constitution.

Anytime I read of Ibrahim Hooper chief spokesperson for CAIR squirming when queried about attending Jummah prayers with the Capitol Hill 'gang' of the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association (CMSA) and terror supporting Imams it is a 'red letter day'. With the GOP in control of the US House of Representatives and Florida's US Senator Marco Rubio in the 112th Congress perhaps investigative Hearings will be launched to expose and stop this patent infiltration of our government by Muslim Brotherhood extremists."

I believe the more Sharia compliant an individual or organization the more radicalized he, she or it becomes.

Editor's Addendum: From Judith Miller and David Samuels in Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527 48703572404575635053157718986.html?mod =WSJ_newsreel_lifeStyle):

"If Inspire feels so very American, that is because it is believed to be the work of two longtime American citizens — Samir Khan, a Saudi-born American who produced jihadist propaganda from his parents' basement in Queens, N.Y., before fleeing to Yemen in 2007, and Anwar Al-Awlaki, a supposedly "moderate" Islamist cleric who once ran a mosque in Virginia and was recently labeled "the most dangerous man in the world" at a public briefing by New York Police Department intelligence analysts. Targeted for death by a presidential order last May, Mr. Awlaki has reportedly inspired recent terrorist strikes against the U.S. and its allies, including Major Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage at Fort Hood, in which the U.S. serviceman killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 32 others.

"Available as a download from an array of websites, Inspire represents a shift among Western jihadists from following theological casuistry on YouTube videos and chat rooms to mobilizing individuals for violent jihad in their home countries. The magazine, whose title comes from a Koranic verse, "inspire the believers to fight," remixes old-school jihadist tropes for an English-speaking Western audience raised on videogames and consumer magazines. Feature stories, first-person narratives, and theological and strategic arguments are mixed with step-by-step instruction in the nuts and bolts of killing people with readily available objects. "If you are sincere in your intentions to serve the religion of Allah," one article advises, "what you have to do is enter your kitchen and make an explosive device." A recipe for making a simple but deadly bomb follows."

Contact Richard Swier by email at drswier@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 21, 2010.

My readers are likely familiar with this Hebrew word, which I use from time to time. It means confusion, a mess, a muddle.

Thus my choice of this word to describe the negotiations on the freeze that are still pending. I've learned never to say never — especially with regard to occurrences in this part of the world. But it's sure looking less likely as time goes on.

The biggest development on this front, as I see it, is a statement by PA president Mahmoud Abbas, after meeting with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, that: "Of course ... if there is no complete halt to settlements in all of the Palestinian territories including Jerusalem, we will not accept."


At the very same time, Minister Eli Yeshai, head of Shas faction, has said, "As of now we oppose an additional freeze."

Yeshai explained that, "Rabbi Ovadia (who calls the shots for Shas) wants to see things clearly and only then will he make a decision."

"The rabbi asked for a US guarantee there will be no freeze in Jerusalem and that there will not be an additional freeze after three months. All Israeli administrations built in Jerusalem, even the left-wing governments, did not stop for one second."

Well, there ain't gonna be a "guarantee" from the US regarding our right to continue building in Jerusalem. That much can be stated with some certainty. Former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, made news the other day when he said that a "clear statement" from the Obama administration that excluded a freeze in eastern Jerusalem would set a "policy precedent" and was "highly unlikely."

At best there would be a blinking of the eye and a request that we soft-peddled construction east of the Green Line in Jerusalem. I had alluded to an article in Haaretz last week with regard to what a US official said about this. Here we have an expanded version of that article:

"[According to a US official] the US administration is not demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declare a formal construction freeze in East Jerusalem, but it expects a halt to Israeli construction in practice, and that Israel will not carry out any other provocative activity.

"The US official said that if a new settlement freeze takes effect, the American administration will continue to pressure Israel to keep things quiet in East Jerusalem during the 90-day period."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ u-s-to-demand-halt-to-east-jerusalem- building-as-part-of-freeze-1.325460



[] Netanyahu top security advisor Uzi Arad has publicly questioned whether we have a negotiating partner in the PA. This is not exactly a startlingly new observation, but it departs from the politically correct babble his boss has been spouting, and we must ask if he did this with sanction. Is this a trial balloon for a new approach?

[] Thousands of people demonstrated against the freeze outside of the prime minister's residence today. Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) addressed the demonstrators:

"The Oslo accords are a fatal disease whose traces we can still see inside of us today. Israel has changed its tune...We said we wouldn't return to the '67 borders, which are Auschwitz borders. We said we wouldn't divide Jerusalem or evacuate the settlements. But each year we see the governments are ready to make concessions."

The demonstrators have said they will be camping outside the prime minister's house.

[] Members of the Likud Central Committee who are opposed to the freeze have begun circulating a petition supporting those Likud MKs and Ministers who have stood strong. They have acquired close to 300 signatures to date and hope to secure signatures of the majority of the Committee. The goal is to provide reassurance to those who in Likud who have opposed the freeze, letting them know the Committee is with them.

[] Last Thursday, MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) created a stir when he spoke out against the freeze, warning that Israel would be forced to accept another after this, and then another. While Mofaz is certainly to the right within Kadima, one senses political motivation here; he might be speaking as the head of the much-alluded-to, but somewhat illusory faction within Kadima that was expected several times over to leave Kadima and join Likud.


Tonight our prime minister said that he will not bring the issue of a new freeze to the Security Cabinet until he has a letter from the US. However, he also declared that "I'm sure the ministers will approve it." We'll see.


On Friday Reuters ran a piece that began:

"Away from the headlines, Palestinians have been trying to advance their statehood agenda in small but symbolic ways in United Nations agencies that fall off the radar for most people.

"But even on the outer reaches of the sprawling UN system, their efforts have been blocked by a United States resolved not to display the slightest tilt toward Palestinians as it tries to act as honest broker in their halting peace talks with Israel."

It would be a stretch to believe that the US is eager not to display the slightest tilt towards the Palestinian Arabs. But this information is interesting nonetheless because it does seem to be the case that the Obama administration is reluctant to foster unilateralism by the PLO as long as there's a chance that Abbas might come to the table.

The big question is what happens when all chances of this happening fall apart.


In October The Israel Project commissioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research to do a poll of Palestinian attitudes towards peace and negotiations with Israel. The results have been released:

"A majority of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza favor direct negotiations with Israel...but most are yet to reconcile themselves to the long-term existence of the Jewish state." (Emphasis added)

30% think the best goal is for a two-state solution that keeps two states living side by side.
60% think the real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

58% think this is a time for armed struggle.
36% think this is the time for engagement with Israel.


I want to recommend another excellent piece — "Obama's Jerusalem Apartheid" by Daniel Greenberg writing as Sultan Knish:

"When Obama attacked Israel for building housing on Jewish owned land in Jerusalem, he was doing more than just pandering to his Muslim hosts with an obligatory dose of Israel bashing. He was diving once again into the ugly pool of bigotry, that first surfaced when he used Joe Biden as a proxy to launch a hate campaign against Israel over the same issue back in March.

"And what it comes down to is Apartheid. Plain and simple.

"Obama does not object to Arab Muslims living in Jerusalem. He objects only to Jews living in Jerusalem. The issue is not about 'Israelis,' as the media likes to present it, because Jerusalem Arabs and Jews are all citizens of Israel. What distinguishes them is race and religion.

"The media and the administration only attack the municipal authorities of Jerusalem and the Israeli government for providing housing for its citizens — when those citizens happen to be Jewish. If they are Arab and Muslim, then there's no problem. If they're Jewish on the other hand, then the alarm bells go off and the politicians and the press denounce them as enemies of peace. How does one describe that as other than 'Apartheid'?"
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ 2010/11/obamas-jerusalem- apartheid.html


The Cabinet today approved 85 million shekels over five years for improvement of the Kotel (Western Wall) plaza and its environs. Plans include preservation of — and improved accessibility to — — archaeological findings, upgrading infrastructures, and development of educational activities for students and soldiers. A major consideration is accommodating 8 million visitors to the Kotel annually.

The project will be managed by the Prime Minister's Office and carried out by the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, with the funds coming from the interior, transportation, tourism, public security, defense and education ministries, and the Israel Lands Authority.

Lovely that this should be set in motion, especially now.

But sure enough: inexorably, as night follows day, the PA has now registered a complaint. This plan, you see, is preventing peace. Said a PA spokesman:

"Israel does not have permission to make changes in the occupied territories, especially in Jerusalem."

They do go on about this. We should only be as persistent and consistent in stating our position.


With everything else happening, I had not gotten to this, and so am grateful for a column by Isi Liebler — "Harper and Obama on Israel" — that explores the subject of the great friend we have in Canada, and the way in which the US has failed to provide support.

"...Canada [whose prime minister, Stephen Harper, has taken brave stands on behalf of Israel and against anti-Semitism] was in fact 'punished' for its support of Israel when it was ignominiously defeated by Portugal, an almost bankrupt country, in its attempt to obtain a seat at the UN Security Council. All 57 seats of the Organization of the Islamic Conference opposed the Canadian nomination.

"For some, Canada's defeat under such circumstances will be viewed as a badge of honor. But what made Canada's defeat even more outrageous was the role of the US. According to Richard Grenfell, a former press officer with the US mission to the UN, 'US State Department insiders say that US Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn't campaign for Canada's election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weekend leading up to the heated contest.'

"David Frum, a speechwriter to former president George W. Bush, also noted that 'the US government has kept awfully quite about the suggestion that it went missing during the Security Council vote.'

"The US betrayal of its neighbor and long-standing ally is a chilling indication of the depths to which the Obama administration has stooped in its efforts to "engage" and appease Islamic and Third World rogue states."


JINSA's report on this subject — "By Failing Canada, We Failed Ourselves" — includes this:

"Thank you, Mr. Harper. Most sincerely, thank you.

"State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley declined to directly address Grenell's claims (cited above). Asked whether the United States did anything to support Canada, Crowley said, 'For that particular seat there was a contested election, and we were present. We voted. And beyond that, I'm not going to comment.'

"Watch out for that. Our vote is one of 192 in the body.

"When the United States wants the right thing, lobbies for it and argues for it, there are a great many countries that will go where we want to go. But if we decide our vote is worth only 1/192nd of the total, we will be overwhelmed by forces in the body that seek to do us — and our friends — ill. If that is the best Israel can expect from the United States — that we will be present and vote our 1/192nd with Israel on principle — the UN will sink even lower than we thought it could.

"Some days, being Canadian looks like a good option."

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, November 20, 2010.

This is by Ben Caspit.


"Israel never came to Pollard's rescue"

Translated to English by J4JP [May be reprinted with full attribution to author and venue]

Last week a public/media campaign was launched here for the release of Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard. This coming Sunday, Jonathan will "celebrate" 25 years in an American prison — an indescribably harsh punishment: cruel, grossly disproportionate, and unjust.

The information that has come to light in recent weeks proves once again, beyond any doubt, that Pollard was locked away for things he did not do. They fabricated false charges against him. Yes, he did sin and offend and had to be punished, but if we compare the sentence he received (an unlimited life sentence with no end in sight at this time) to the sentences others received for similar offenses, the enormity of the travesty of justice is apparent.

Against this backdrop, a discussion took place this week about the Pollard case, on the Television program "Politica" on Channel One. Invited to participate were: MK Nachman Shai (who said courageous and constructive things); Yitzhak Oren, who was the Israeli Congressional liaison in Washington and the first Israeli official to visit Pollard; and the former Director General of the Foreign Ministry, Alon Liel.

On the air, Liel said some shocking things: "In my eyes, Pollard is no hero. When Pollard lands here, I am not going to Ben Gurion Airport to greet him. Just a minute ago someone mentioned how the US relates to traitors. How do we relate to traitors? After all he betrayed the United States, our best friend. I served as an Israeli official for 30 years. What Pollard did was not a heroic deed in my eyes."

The moderator, Oded Shachar, tried to explain to Liel that it was Israel that requested and received the information from Pollard. But Liel persevered: "First of all, whether or not that is so, is also subject to debate. I served for 30 years in the Israeli Foreign Ministry in the United States, and indeed in all the years that I worked in Chicago (where Pollard was first held) and then in Atlanta (near where Pollard is now held) we never made any effort to free him, and we were right not to. Today it is already another matter since he has been in prison for so many years."

Incredible to hear such things! I picked up the phone and called Liel this week, but he just continued his tirade. Pollard, Liel told me, is a traitor in the same league as Vanunu. "When I was an Israeli consul in the United States, the policy was, we do not visit Pollard, we do not have anything to do with him, and if anyone ever mentions him, we must silence them and calm things down, lest it harm the Jewish community. Pollard betrayed his employers. I was an official for 30 years. How am I supposed to feel towards someone who took the most sensitive documents and gave them, for money, to someone else?"

Liel was, as has been pointed out, the Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Was he also the Director General of the American Foreign Ministry? Pollard endangered his life to pass (pass, not sell) information he saw as vital to "someone else". That "someone else" was us. For this, he is now paying an exorbitant price.

Liel's bitter comments contain no small amount of unwarranted evil, but other than that, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what was written in this column last week: the State of Israel never really came to the rescue of Jonathan Pollard.

To the credit of the first Netanyahu government in 1998, Pollard was officially recognized as an Israeli agent. Period. There is no argument about this fact, nor can there be. But this did not change things much for Liel (or the rest of the Foreign Ministry staff). It is true that he was a consul before this recognition was granted and he did not go to visit Pollard, because that was the policy at the time. But in the years 1999 to 2001, after Pollard was granted official recognition, Liel was the Director General of the Foreign Ministry under Ehud Barak. Did someone forget to update Liel? Hesays, "Even when I was the Director General of the Foreign Ministry, I do not recall a single time when the issue of Pollard was raised. There was never any discussion of Pollard raised at the level of the Director General."

So now it is perfectly clear. Liel was the superior of the deputy general manager of the Foreign Ministry for North America, the one who held responsibility for the Pollard file for the Government of Israel all of these years. And as his superior, Liel admits that nothing was ever done to secure Pollard's release. Indeed, quite the opposite!

Today top American officials say that Pollard has served far too long in prison, that the charges against him were fabricated, and that he should be released at once. But this means nothing to Liel. When Pollard arrives, Liel won't go to the airport to welcome him. After all, says Liel, he's a traitor.

Let's leave Liel, for the moment. The issue is bigger and more important than he is. The Pollard campaign has to be country-wide. For all to participate. Not just one newspaper or another. Guaranteed: if the entire country, from the smallest of the deputy general managers of the foreign ministry to the Prime Minister, to the Mossad, to the Israeli public at large, believe that this abomination must end after 25 excruciating years, then it will happen. Pollard will be released.

We need to promise in advance that Pollard will not become a national hero. As far as I am concerned, he can promise not to interview for the next 10 years — let him live in peace and work at putting his life back together. And we won't make a huge public reception for him, nor hold a celebration to welcome him home at Ben Gurion Airport. And we won't even invite Alon Liel.

Just let him be released already.

Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, November 20, 2010.

This below is by Rabbi Meir Kahane, published in January 1988.

(May his soul rest in peace) Has history proven him wrong?

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:


There is a specter haunting Israel and its American Jewish supporters. It is called guilt. Guilt over the "repression of Palestinian human rights". Guilt over the refusal to remove "the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East — the occupation of the Arab land seized in 1967". Guilt over the unwillingness to give the "Palestinians" their own state in the "occupied lands". And now, guilt over the killing of "Palestinians" and innocent civilians in the "Occupied territories". It is a powerful weapon, this guilt; Jews have a difficult time coping with it.

A people that has been the most debased of losers for 2,000 years finds it difficult to cope with victory. It finds it extraordinary difficult to remain normal. It inherits insecurities, complexes, guilt. It begins to believe its enemies' slanders. It loses its self-respect and longs for the love of a hating world. That is especially true for the Jewish liberal! It is important that those who have retained their self-esteem and sense of Jewish survival speak out against the disease of guilt and moral insecurity. No guilt.

Are the lands of 1967, "occupied" by the Jews, the main obstacle to peace? Is the year 1967 the origin of the conflict? How peaceful it must have been in 1966 when Sinai and Gaza were in Egyptian hands and the Golan was possessed by the Syrians to shell, for 19 years, the Jewish settlements below, and when Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem were in the hands of the "moderate" King Hussein. Why did they go to war? What did they want then? When they had all the "occupied lands" before they were "occupied"? When one has East Jerusalem and attacks Israel, can it be that he desires West Jerusalem? And Tel Aviv? And can it be that that is what they really want again? Now? And why did the "innocent Palestinian women and children" take to the streets then, in 1967, when Jordan and Egypt ruled them to call for "Israel in the sea"? What "occupied lands" did they want back then? And could it be that that is what they want now?

And what did they wish in 1947 when they rejected the "Palestine" state offered them by the United Nations and went to war, killing fully 1 % of the Jewish population? And what did they wish in the riots of 1936-38 when there was no country called Israel and they murdered more than 500 Jews? And in 1929 when no "Zionist occupation troops" were in Hebron, why did the "Palestinians" rise up to murder 67 Jews in one day? And why the pogroms in Jerusalem and Jaffa in 1920 and 1921?

What troubles the Arabs is the very presence of large numbers of Jews in the land, and Israel of any size. Zionism. That is what troubles the Arabs. That is the obstacle to peace. Let us inscribe that on our hearts lest we open the doors to a repetition-on a grand scale-of that which the Arabs have done to Jews since 1920. A horror of slaughter by knives and axes. And the bearers of guilt would do just that.

No guilt. There is one sublime reason why we should not give up a centimeter of land...it belongs to us. If we have no right to Judea and Samaria and Gaza, then we indeed have no right to Tel Aviv. Abraham did not walk on Dizengoff Street nor did our ancestors live in Israeli cities that were built in the 20th century. But Abraham, who lived in Hebron, and Jacob who lived in Shechem, now Nablus, and David in Bethlehem are the sole legitimate reasons that Jews can lay claim to a Tel Aviv and the kibbutzim of the guilt-ridden Left. The land belongs to us because the G-d of Israel, creator and Titleholder of all lands, gave it to us. No guilt.

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian people". They are Arabs, part of the Arab nation, possessor of 21 lands. Let them live in peace in any or all of them. But there are no "Palestinians". It was the Roman emperor Hadrian who, after the Jewish revolt against the Romans, angrily erased the name of the state, Judea, and invented the name "Palestine" after the Philistines. In every normal case, an existing people gives its name to a land. The Franks named it France and the Angles, England, and the Germanics, Germany. Only in this ludicrous case does a Roman invent a name, give it to a land, and the arriving Arab trespassers become "Palestinians". One presumes that had Hadrian not changed the name, Israel today would be fighting Yasir Arafat and the Judean terrorists. There are no "Palestinians" and there is no "Palestine" in the land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael. No guilt.

The "Palestinian" civilians in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Lebanon cheered and supported every P.L.O murder and terror of Jews. They are united in hatred of Israel. It would be nicer if they did not stone our soldiers and try to kill Jews. It would be nicer if they did not rise up in revolt in order to force us out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as the first step to the elimination of the State of Israel. But since they do, let Jews not allow themselves to be destroyed by "Palestinian" women and children. And if the only way to survive is to take the lives of people who attack us we have no choice. I wonder how many Americans and British and French mourned and protested the killing of German civilians during World War II bombings of Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden?

There is nothing ethical about dying or anything moral about another holocaust. There is nothing immoral about winning and nothing necessarily noble in a loser. Let us cast off the chains of guilt and reject the accusations of its bearers. The greatness of Judaism is its spirit, but no spirit can survive without a living body. If we do not want to kill Arabs--and we don't; and if we want to put an end to the nightly television pictures of violence; and if we do not want to see those pictures tomorrow inside Israel itself, with Israeli Arabs fighting soldiers; and if we do not want to see the threat of Arab demography destroying the Jewish State--then let us have the courage to take the one difficult but immutable step that will free us of all this and guarantee a Jewish State: Remove the Arabs from the land and let them live with their brothers and sisters in any of the 22 Arab states. Anything short of that will see the horrors of today escalated a hundred-fold tomorrow. And let us not fear the world. Those who stood by during the Holocaust and when Israel faced destruction in 1948 and 1967 have nothing to tell us.

Faith in the G-d of Israel and a powerful Jewish army are the only guarantors of Jewish survival. Let us not fear the world. Far better a Jewish State that survives and is hated by the world, than an Auschwitz that brings us its love and sympathy. No guilt Rather faith in G-d and a return to authentic Torah laws; rather pride and strength, and the love of our people rather than the enemy that would destroy us. That is sanity; that is Judaism.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 20, 2010.

Sleep well, dear Harry Potter. The death-eaters finally got you. They continue to destroy and try to take over the world and — as you know, dear Harry — the press never wants to report the truth about evil, and this allows the evil to spread.

The article of how Harry Potter's grave in Ramle has become a tourist attraction immediately raised my attention. It isn't just that I am a rabid Harry Potter fan, it is also because of the way the article was written.

I have learned that any evil perpetrated upon humanity that might be pinned upon a Jew, always mentions that Jews are the culprit. However, any evil perpetrated upon humanity that might be pinned upon an arab carefully avoids mentioning that the Arabs are at fault. It is glossed over with general language, usually.

So, when I came across this Associated Press article about the grave of Harry Potter in Ramle, and the article reported that Harry Potter was "killed in battle with an armed band in 1939," I knew something was up.

I just love how the Associated Press, (especially in Israel, where the AP notoriously only hires arab reporters but never reveals their names in a byline) has reported that Harry Potter was "killed in battle with an armed band in 1939," but doesn't go further to report that that "armed band" were arab terrorists who murdered Harry Potter in cold blood.

Obviously, since the article cites the regiment's website, the reporter is familiar with the story of how young Potter was killed, but avoids the fact that his death is reported within the larger context of the regiment's fight against the arab uprising of 1939, and that he was murdered when his car was ambushed on the road (still a favorite tactic of terrorists).

If you read the regiment website, you will see that the clear implication of the regiment article is that Harry Potter was killed by arab terrorists.

It is also important to note that, in 1939, all the Jews had left Hebron because they had been evacuated by the British when the arabs revolted — first during the 1929 Hebron Massacre, and then during the 1931-39 arab uprising.

As an aside to the legions of the great unwashed out there — this is before their was a modern country called "Israel." At that time, that the British were still using the Ottoman title "Palestine" for Israel, and the Jews were the "Palestinians" then. Despite the fact that Israel did not exist, the arabs were killing Jews and "peacekeepers" like Harry Potter. So, all those arguments that "the arabs are fighting against Israel because of the 'occupation'" are pure rubbish and outright lies.

This below is an Associated Press story called "Harry Potter's grave draws tourists to Ramle." It appeared in the Jerusalem Post.



Hundreds flock to military cemetery to see resting place of British soldier killed in 1939 with same name as everyone's favorite wizard.

Not the bespectacled teenage wizard created by author J.K. Rowling. This deceased Potter was a British soldier killed in 1939, and his grave is helping draw tourists to the central town of Ramle.

Ramle does not keep numbers on how many tourists flock to the grave in the town's British military cemetery, but tour guides and the municipality say the tombstone has become a popular attraction, largely for domestic travelers.

"There is no connection with the Harry Potter we know from literature, but the name sells, the name is marketable," said Ron Peled, a tour guide who said he has brought dozens of groups to the grave.

Pvt. Harry Potter was born near Birmingham, England, and joined the British military in 1938. According to his regiment's website, he arrived to British mandate Palestine later that year, where he was killed in battle with an armed band in 1939. He was 18.

The tombstone says, incorrectly, that he died at 19 — a result of him having lied about his age so he could enlist.

The municipality said people began inquiring about the grave about five years ago, and the city listed it on its tourism website at the start of the year.

On a recent afternoon, a group of Israeli visitors, led by a microphone-wielding tour guide, scoured the manicured cemetery, looking for Potter's tombstone. Once they found it among the 4,500 graves, they huddled behind it and snapped photos.

"It's a type of pilgrimage for some man whose name stands out. If you didn't say that Harry Potter was buried here, no one would come here," said Josef Peretz, 76, from Tel Aviv.

Thousands of tourists visit Ramle every year in large part because of its many archaeological ruins and convenient location, according to the municipality.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1," the second-to-last of the big-screen adventures about the young wizard, opens Friday.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Liran Kapoano, November 19, 2010.

Normal Finkelstein spoke recently at Rutgers University, where he was treated like a "scholar" — the same way he is received at other universities. Finkelstein you may know, has made a career of calling to question the magnitude of the Holocaust and doubting the veracity of the stories of survivors.

Why is he so embraced so warmly on supposedly "liberal" college campuses? You may be surprised by the simplicity of the answer.

Please share with your readers.


This is for Norman Finkelstein and by extension everyone who applauds him at his events.

I'm not here to debate his stance on Israel and Zionism — there is really only one thing that I want address within this letter. My issue with Finkelstein and his supporters is nothing more than a simple number.

No, it's not six million, as in six million murdered Jews, killed during the Holocaust — a fact that Finkelstein casts doubt upon by referring to "six million" in quotation marks. Finkelstein has also gone on record that Holocaust denier David Irving — who believes there were no gas chambers and that Auschwitz was a "tourist attraction" — is an "indispensable" historian. No, this isn't some unbelievable fiction from George Orwell's 1984; this is actually what this man thinks.

Nor is the number 2,000, as in the nearly 2,000 years since Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were forced to flee their ancient homeland. The desire to return home has been expressed during Jewish festivals, in Jewish prayers three times daily and in countless other customs, many centuries prior to the rise of modern Zionism.

Finkelstein would have everyone that attend his rallies believe that the state of Israel is a modern colonial invention fueled by Holocaust guilt, rather than the truth which is the exact reverse — that the Holocaust was a disaster fueled by a lack of an independent Jewish homeland.

But no, that isn't it either. The number I want to discuss is "43334."

"43334" is the tattoo on my grandmother received courtesy of the real "Holocaust Industry" — that of the Nazi's Final Solution for her, me and every other "undesirable," whether we lived during the 1940's or are descended from someone who did.

Was she lying about how she got that number? Did she fake the anxiety she felt every time a dog barked because it reminded her of German Shepherds the Nazis used? Was she in on some global conspiracy when she was emotionally unavailable for her children?

What about my grandfather? Did he invent stories about his first wife, infant daughter, mother, father, three of his four brothers and countless others he knew, that disappeared into the flames of Birkenau? Was he lying when he would talk about being nearly starved to death and beaten within an inch of his life? Was he plotting a Zionist conspiracy when he would often wake up in the middle of the night and jump out of bed in terror, forced back in time during yet another terrible Holocaust flashback?

Why should survivors have to tolerate efforts to de-legitimize their memories by Finkelstein, Irving and the rest of the Holocaust Denial/Minimization Industry? Whether you want to admit it to yourselves or not, de-legitimizing the survivors is precisely what Mr. Finkelstein does every time he speaks.

This is what he is doing when he refers to Nobel Peace Prize Winner and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel as a "clown" in the "Holocaust circus." There is a reason why white supremacist sites like Stormfront and neo-Nazi darling David Duke cite Finkelstein regularly — his life's work minimizes the suffering of survivors and adds to it by forcing them to live through the spectacle of seeing rooms full of college students cheering for his attacks on them.

This isn't an issue of questioning his right to criticize Israel — although a rational person would have to question why in order to criticize governmental policy someone would have to attack not the government but rather the historical, documented past itself.

Or maybe it isn't so irrational. Orwell did teach us after all that "he who controls the past, controls the future." By "vaporizing" memories, by converting the victims of the Holocaust into "unpersons," Finkelstein makes it easier for his fans to not deal with reality. This frees them to practice the kind of cognitive dissonance necessary for an American university student to support the actions of totalitarian movements like Hamas, Hizballah and others who have sworn to erase a population of six million Jews.

The fact that students gleefully welcome this distortion of history as "scholarly" is a disgrace not only to the memories of Holocaust victims but also to legitimate historians everywhere. This isn't about Zionism, it's about preserving the memories of those who perished in the Holocaust — and respecting those who survived.

It's also about the stark realization that had the Nazis succeeded, I would not be here to write this letter. And in this very real way, Finkelstein attacks us all.

Contact Liran Kapoano at lkapoano@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith a. Klinghof, November 19, 2010.

Why is it that Obama/Clinton take every opportunity to express displeasure with Israel's plans to build additional apartments in Jerusalem, its capital, but are silent about Antisemitic yes Antisemitic, incitement?

Abbas told Obama he has stopped the incitement and did not. When George W. Bush caught Arafat in a blatant lie, he cut him off. But Obama does not even find an opportunity to complain and his side kick, Hillary Clinton, is not only silent on incitement but borrows money from China to provide the inciters with and additional $150,000,000 dollars.

Is it simply because the media is uninterested? That is a contention difficulty to take seriously as all administrations has ways to focus media attention on subjects of their choice.

Yet, in his recent conference call with Jewish leaders, Dan Shapiro, the top National Security Council official dealing with Israel and its neighbors, admitted that Obama double crossed him in Indonesia. Shapiro said that 'he had helped prepare Obama's notes for his Indonesia tour, and there had not been any plans to mention any disagreement between Israel and the United States." Alas, he was "asked about Israel's announcement at a news conference and gave a "straightforward" answer."

Poor, naive, Obama he fell into a reporter's trap. But what Hillary Clinton who joined the criticism, praised the Palestinians good works and did not mention a word about incitement? Clearly, having a Jewish son in law has not made Suha Arafat's fan care more about blatant Antisemitsm.

Shapiro added that "the Obama administration is making it clear, both publicly and privately with Palestinian Authority officials, that incitement against Israel must end."

Well, it did not and the President and his administration do not even complain.

The video bellow write Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik in which a young boy says, "I don't know what he died from, but I know it was by the Jews" was first broadcast on November 10, 2009 and rebroadcast on PA TV (Fatah — Abbas)Nov. 10. 2010. They explain:

For this year's annual commemoration of Yasser Arafat's death, PA TV chose to rebroadcast video clips of Palestinian children's messages in honor of Arafat, which included hate speech against Jews.Several of the selected messages feature children repeating the ongoing Palestinian Authority libel that the Jews killed Arafat by poisoning. One boy first states that Arafat was poisoned by the Jews, but then corrects himself, saying: "Well, I don't know what he died from, but I know it was by the Jews."

The teaching that evil originates with the Jews was the basis for much of the Antisemitism throughout history. It should be stressed that these were prerecorded interviews with the children, yet PA TV chose to include the hate speech in the compilation.

None of the children in the film speaks about peace; in fact, they do the opposite. One boy praises Arafat because he was a "fighter" who "did things through [violent] struggle," and who "did not make peace." The Martyrdom (Shahada) ideal is also chosen as a message in the film, with one boy quoting Arafat: "They want me dead, they want me prisoner, but I say: Martyr, Martyr, Martyr!"

As Palestinian Media Watch reported at the time, this film was first broadcast in 2009 on the fifth anniversary of Arafat's death as part of a televised memorial ceremony.

The boy's comment quoted above, "I know it was by the Jews," and the other children's beliefs that "the Jews" killed Arafat, indicate the PA's success in teaching Palestinian children hate libels and demonization of Jews. The decision by PA TV to rebroadcast this is a further indicator that the PA continues to promote the values of hatred, violence and Martyrdom that the children have adopted.

If anyone needed more evidence that there is no difference between anti-Israel and Antisemitism, this video should provide it. Moreover, this is the way "moderate" Palestinians prepare their people for peace with Israel.

Don't you Israel should share its ancient capital with these trustworthy neighbors?

You would. Wouldn't you?!

After all, you may trust the American superpower to defend you.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Betty Misheiker, November 19, 2010.

To my mind the MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST speaks louder than all the grand speeches made.

Arab League countries in green; Israel in white, not gray.

Good Heavens! Do all those people deriding Israel and very busy carving up Israel to house poor Moslems who have been robbed of their land know what they are talking about? Have they ever seen the MAP? Do they know how many Moslems live well and freely and happily inside the little stamp-sized Israel? Do they know how many penniless refugees little Israel, with limited funds, has taken in, clothed, fed, housed, educated and rehabilitated?

Do they know that it was the Grand MUFTI himself who told all the Arabs to vacate Israel before the Six day war, because the combined Arab armies surrounding Israel were going to attack and annihilate Israel and slaughter every Jew? A great number of Arabs followed their Mufti's advice. and fled.

Fortunately the Mufti's predictions did not happen and the tiny Zionist state, with its half-untrained army of a very un-war-like people — the Jews — though outnumbered ten to one, withstood the onslaught of six Arab armies and emerged the victor,

Now the descendents of those who fled to await the slaughtering of all the Jews, have the shameless audacity to expect to return to Israel!!! And fine upstanding gentlemen on various international committees, who never as much as raised an eyebrow when Jews were being attacked, robbed of their land, property and wordly goods and expelled from various Moslem countries, are — can you believe this — are recognizing and backing the Arab refugee claim!!!

How come that with all their immense wealth, strength and vast, vast lands, no Arab state says "come my brothers, come live and prosper with us, our doors and our hearts are open, we welcome you?"

THAT MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST should be printed on all official stationary, should hang on all the walls where matters concerning Israel are discussed. If such a map hung on the wall during those scandalous anti-semitic meetings in Durban, I can bet on my life that nine tenths of those present would not know where to find ISRAEL on the map and if they did point it out, the audience would be stunned because as far as they understand the problem they see the map the other way round, in anti-apartheid terms, quite sure that the Israelis have taken away all the Arab lands,

This fact was proven to me again when a well educated and quite well-known elderly LADY from London, whom I happened to meet during her visit to Jerusalem, said to me "you know, when they told me we were going to Israel I had a hard time finding it on the map! It's so small! Why on earth do the Arabs want it" That, I thought to myself, is by and large how much the average person knows about what is going on in the Middle East. And with the general all-round anti-Semitic conditioning that prevails, they naturally jump to the conclusion that the 'clever Jews' must have out done the poor Arabs.

Why on earth am I telling you who know all this better than I do, when all I meant was to appeal to you wherever possible, to suggest that the Map of the Middle East be allowed to underline the ridiculous claims made on this tiny Land, and question the reason why another Moslem State need be carved out of ISRAEL especially since the Arabs refuse to recognize theState of Israel and at the same time keep planning how to annihilate it. Oh Kafka., Kafka! How he would have enjoyed watching this in-Human Comedy.

Contact Betty Misheiker at largo@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 19, 2010.

And let it remain so!

What is being touted as minor glitches in the negotiations between Israel and the US with regard to the "freeze" deal are actually much more. And so the talking goes on and on. All day yesterday, I had this "any minute now" sense, even as I was picking up conflicting reports that were indicative of the gaps between the two sides.

Yesterday, Haaretz reported that:

"According to a US official, 'If the moratorium deal goes through, we will continue to press for quiet throughout east Jerusalem during the 90 days,' regardless of what Netanyahu is telling his coalition partners. 'So whatever Bibi is telling [the] Shas [party] to reassure them about U.S. policy on east Jerusalem is not true.'"

Shas is said to be demanding specific commitments up front from our government in terms of Jerusalem building projects for those 90 days. May they stand strong!

Now, today, I have read that there is haggling over the issue of the stealth jets Israel is reportedly to receive — with regard to when we would receive them and whether they would be a gift or would carry a substantial price tag. (No wonder I have had difficulty in reporting.)


What I have been pondering is why the difference in interpretations: Did Hillary (a model of duplicity) actually say things to Netanyahu that the US is now backing off from, or did she imply subtly and allow him to draw inflated conclusions (perhaps not imagining that Israel would demand the promises in writing), or did Netanyahu willfully exaggerate at home in order to sell the deal (the possibility I actually consider least likely since he's demanding the deal in writing).


Netanyahu came away from his meeting with Clinton sounding like a high school cheerleader. Reading his words — Wow! this is great, we're going to be able to come to the table and make peace now, or something akin to this — made my stomach hurt. I felt then and still feel that he cannot believe this. I am absolutely convinced — unless he is sinking into a very early senility — that he knows with certainty that the Palestinian Arabs can not, do not want to, make a peace deal. So why all the eagerness?

The conclusion I drew (and please, Netanyahu-haters, don't write to me!) is that, whether it is actually the case or not (I would say, not), he believes he is being clever by playing this game of eagerness. It's not all caving, it also suggests something of that well-known Netanyahu brinksmanship. There are reasons why he may see it important to appear eager to negotiate peace: He is determined, I suspect, to demonstrate to the US and the world at large that it is the other side that is obstructionist. The problem, of course, is that the US and the world at large don't really care — they find a way to put the onus on us anyway.

However, it is very possible that Netanyahu is acting as he is at least in part because of the specter of Palestinian Arab unilateralism — which would mean the PLO requesting that the Security Council declare a Palestinian state on the '67 lines. He does not want the Arabs to be able to say that they had to do this because Israel would not negotiate. I further suspect that he might be counting on the PA/PLO to either refuse to come to the table at all, or to sabotage talks early on, so that there is no actual danger of having to negotiate away our state. Very dangerous stuff, if this is the case. But less dangerous than if he truly had reached the point at which he himself wanted to give away our state.


All this theorizing aside, I am grateful that our prime minister at least is holding out for a written deal (although in the end I fear he may settle for more ambiguity than is wise), and that he says the deal must enhance Israeli security.

I am far more grateful for the right wing, nationalist members of the Security Cabinet who know better than to trust the US and thus make the written agreement necessary — the agreement that, I trust, will never properly materialize and will make it all fall apart.


Caroline Glick, in her column today, "Facing Our Fears," echoes my supposition about Netanyahu: "According to sources close to Netanyahu, it is his fear of US abandonment at the Security Council that has convinced him to capitulate so profoundly..."

But she says this about the deal Netanyahu made with Clinton:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must have given Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu quite a reception. Otherwise it is hard to understand what possessed him to accept the deal he accepted when he met with her last week.

"Under the deal, Netanyahu agreed to retroactively extend the Jewish construction ban ended on September 26 and to carry it forward an additional 90 days.

"Clinton's demand was 'Not one more brick' for Jews, meaning, no Jew will be allowed to lay even one more brick on a home he is lawfully building even as the US funds massive Palestinian construction projects. The magnitude of this discriminatory infringement on the property rights of law abiding citizens is breathtaking."


Glick refers to the huge mistake of agreeing to start negotiations with the issue of borders (separating it out from the rest). In point of fact, this is last thing that should be negotiated, because once we should agree to certain borders that would be the point at which the PLO could walk away from negotiations and tell the Security Council that Israel has agreed to a state defined by these lines.


Glick's conclusion:

"Netanyahu made a horrible deal with Clinton.

"Leaders like Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon have acted as patriots by actively opposing it. It is true that the Obama administration could help us if it wanted to. But it doesn't want to. Happily, Israel has the power to help itself, if it dares."

Read her entire article to understand what she sees as the way for us to help ourselves.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=195919


JPost editor David Horovitz, writing today, observes, "Before we can even get to grips with the complexities of dealing with the Palestinians, we find ourselves head-to-head with Washington, locked in tense negotiating sessions where previously we were locked in step."

And Ruby Rivlin (Likud), Speaker of the Knesset, observes, "Today we find ourselves facing an American administration that does not see as a basic point of reference the moral responsibility for the existence of Israel...There is definitely a new American perception that does not see Israel as a strategic asset in the Middle East for both the United States and the free world."

These are hard realities that we Israelis, first, must accept and cope with in strength, but that American Jews and all American supporters of Israel must also deal with.

Do we have supporters in Congress? Absolutely. Magnificent supporters. But the Obama administration's approach to Israel is adversarial and hostile.


Would that I had time to discuss other issues now. But Shabbat comes in very early indeed.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 19, 2010.

This Is From A Someone In England — But It Applies Everywhere

I'm forwarding this to everyone.

Some liberals will hate it... but I'm at the age where I couldn't care less, especially after what happened on Remembrance Sunday 2010 when two miles from Whitehall in London, Muslims publicly burned a poppy and threatened death to all infidels. I say send 'em home. If they are Brits — jail them.

They have no place in our society, among decent people (including decent Muslims).

PLEASE read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

These Immigration Laws should be introduced to the UK


1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers.. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programmes. Any burden will be deported.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our prime minister or his policies. These will lead to imprisonment and deportation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Too strict?......

The above laws are the current immigration laws of the Muslim countries!

These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws to be British immigration laws??

Map of the United Kingdom

Map Of My Country: Let me make this perfectly clear!

And, because I make
This statement
Mean I'm against immigration!!!


To come through legally:
1. Get a sponsor!
2. Get a place to lay your head!
3. Get a job!
4. Live By OUR Rules!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!


6. Learn the LANGUAGE like immigrants Have in the past!!!


7. Please don't demand that we hand over our lifetime savings of welfare benefits to you.

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone,


When will BRITS STOP giving away
We've gone so far the other way...
Bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the
that's being offended!


Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, November 18, 2010.

Saudi Arabia's Iraq Policy — Confused and counterproductive.

This was written by Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. It appeared in the Weekly Standard.


Last week, the Saudi monarch King Abdullah extended a public invitation to Iraq's president and all its parliamentary coalitions to come to Saudi Arabia in order to hold talks and reach an agreement over the formation of Iraq's government. The timing of this surprising move suggests that Riyadh may have finally realized — perhaps with U.S. prodding — that its disastrous Iraq policy has hit a dead end.

The king's offer comes as a response to perceived Iranian primacy in Baghdad, especially after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's recent visit there. The Saudis' assessment of Iranian power in Baghdad is somewhat crude and simplistic. However, they are correct that the Obama administration has projected an unmistakable sense of indifference to Iraq that has allowed others to fill the vacuum. Worse yet, it is not just American adversaries, like Iran, who have taken steps detrimental to U.S. interests in Iraq, but clients like Saudi Arabia have done so as well. Blame this ugly state of affairs on the Iraq Study Group.

Long before the surge turned U.S. fortunes around in Iraq, Washington's foreign policy establishment counseled retreat. The members of the bipartisan committee chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker known as the Iraq Study Group distilled their collective wisdom into a 2006 report with several key recommendations. Among others, the ISG report advised the Bush White House to renew the Arab-Israeli peace process, engage Syria and Iran and, in order to prepare the way for an American withdrawal, reach out to regional states, and offer them a stake in Iraq's future.

What we are now seeing in Iraq is how this disastrous recommendation is playing out. With the current White House unable to chart any coherent strategy in Iraq other than to make good on a campaign promise to withdraw, the Obama administration is running on ISG autopilot.

Under this new American dispensation, where Iraq's neighbors are invited to have a say in Baghdad's political wrangling, some regional states are doing well while others are flailing. Iran has plotted a realistic Iraq strategy that has taken full advantage of Washington's flagging attention, while Saudi Arabia has failed to come to terms with the new Iraqi order and its balance of power. The Saudis are consumed by fear of Iranian expansion, and view the Iraqi Shiite political class as nothing but Iranian assets and facilitators of Iran's influence over post-American Iraq. In particular, they have been unwilling to work with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Prior to the March elections, Maliki had tried to reach out to Riyadh but was constantly rebuffed. The Saudis made it clear that they would not normalize relations with Iraq under Maliki. Instead, they sought to undermine him while backing former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. Here the Saudis made common cause with the Syrians, whose ostensible support of Allawi gave Riyadh the belief that Damascus could be enlisted to help counterbalance Iranian influence in Iraq. This hope was misguided. Syria had no political leverage in Iraq aside from the terrorism it sponsored there, and which it used to try to extract concessions from both Washington and the Iraqi government. With the Obama administration focused on withdrawal, rather than protecting the American investment in Iraq, Syria embarked on a campaign of terror in late August 2009 that was aimed explicitly at destroying Maliki's political fortunes.

Riyadh's decisions showed how badly they misread the political situation. Maliki, as the incumbent, was always the favorite to return to office, having had years to build up his power base through patronage and administrative appointments. Allawi's chances, on the other hand, were always poor. While his list barely edged ahead of Maliki's, he personally received fewer votes than Maliki, which, coupled with the fact that his list was predominantly Sunni, meant that he was a long shot. The Syrians understood as much, which is why Damascus shifted its position in September and pulled the rug out from under Riyadh. Allawi, the Syrians concluded, could not be Iraq's next premier, and the only real option was Maliki.

The Saudis had always believed that Maliki was Iran's primary choice for prime minister, but this was yet another inaccurate Saudi assessment. In fact, Maliki had irked the Iranians by refusing to join the broad Shiite umbrella coalition that included Iran's closest allies. He had sought, moreover, to marginalize his opponents — and Iran's friends — and had even moved militarily against Moktada al-Sadr, Iran's most formidable asset in Iraq. By trying to undermine Maliki, the Saudis were doing Iran a favor. A weakened Maliki, the Iranians calculated, could not risk it on his own and would be forced to come back under their tent.

In stark contrast to the Saudis, the Iranians have played their hand in Iraq pragmatically. They knew that none of their Shiite friends had a serious shot at challenging Maliki, so they figured that it was better to stick with him and find a way to plant Sadr in his cabinet. Iran sees Sadr as its long-term investment — head of a political and military movement similar to its Lebanese asset, Hezbollah — and with him in Maliki's coalition, Tehran would have a seat in the cabinet. From that perch, the Iranians believe that they would be able to pressure the government on their key issues of concern, like security appointments and U.S. basing rights in Iraq.

Either the Obama administration did not appreciate the damage the Saudis were doing, or, even worse, were not able to lean on Riyadh to fall in line. In either case, it is the end result of the magical thinking behind the ISG report. Washington's authority regarding Iraq is now diminished because ISG strategy is premised on a fundamental misconception — if all of Washington's efforts were directed toward the goal of withdrawing, none of Iraq's neighbors would take the American bargaining position seriously. If we wanted to give everyone else in the region a stake in Iraq, the region saw it otherwise — that we were abandoning our own stake and getting nothing in return.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 18, 2010.

The caring Left in Israel and their Islamofascist friends have been up in arms lately over "racism" in some smaller, often rural, Israeli communities. It seems some small communities in Israel have admissions committees, which must approve applicants wishing to reside there. Usually they seek to maintain a certain population and lifestyle for those living in the community. For example, in religiously observant communities, secularists are not admitted. And in some Jewish communities, Arab applicants are rejected. In part, this is to avoid the real-world tensions that arise so often when Jews and Arabs live in immediate proximity in Israel (like in Acre or Jaffa).

The caring Left and their friends think this is "racist." What they have never found to be racist is the fact that Jews cannot move into any Arab towns or villages or neighborhoods in Israel without fears of being murdered. As we recently reported, a Jewish student who moved into an Arab town near Haifa had to flea for his life under threat of being murdered. The caring Left also sees nothing worth criticizing in the open threats by Arabs made against any Arab who sells real property to Jews.

The caring Left is horrified. Hundreds of tenured leftists have been signing petitions denouncing the "racism" of the Jews. Not a single one protested the threats against the Jewish student who fled from 'Ibillin.

Among the most vocal attackers against "admissions committees" in Jewish communities has been pro-terror Islamofascist Knesset Member Talib el-Sana, from the Negev Bedouin town of Rahat (http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp? mk_individual_id_t=13). There are no Jews who live in Rahat and all Jews who were employed by the local municipality there were fired recently on grounds that they are a Jew (see page 6 of
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/ jtw140509.pdf).

Our tenured leftist friends had nothing to say about that either. You can get a good idea of el-Sana's devotion to tolerance and democracy from this piece: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3515338,00.html Now the Knesset recently debated whether to change the law regarding community admissions committees. El-Sana marched out of the Knesset in defiant protest against "racism." Well, this week Kalman Liebskind, the remarkable Maariv columnist, published an item about El-Sana. It can be read in Hebrew here:
http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id= 79974780b5e0d394fddbd1a00f4f21d3&id=1815

It seems that El-Sana negotiated some sort of land swap with the Israeli Lands Administration on behalf of the El-Sana Bedouin clan. It was supposedly to allot land so that Negev Bedouins could build homes. Only one itsy bitsy little problem though. Under the deal only Bedouins from the El-Sana clan could live in the area where the housing would be constructed. Bedouins from other clans would be barred. But of course THAT would not be "racism" at all.

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Tauby, November 18, 2010.

Of all the things we Jews observe in order to remember events in our historic past, surely one of the strangest must be what we read in this week's parshah. Jacob wrestles with an angel (Esau's spiritual guardian) and in the course of the struggle, his hip is dislocated. Therefore, says the Torah, to this day, the Children of Israel are not to eat the sciatic nerve (of an animal) by the hip joint--because he struck Jacob's hip-socket at the sciatic nerve. (because they are very difficult to properly remove, only cuts from the forequarters are usually available as kosher meat).

So, tell me, just because 3,500 years ago one of my ancestors had a hip dislocated I must curb my culinary cravings? Is this fair, is it logical? Why remember that--what's the point?

The 12th century French sage, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir ("Rashbam"), a grandson of Rashi, offers the following insight. The story of Jacob and the angel occurred just prior to Jacob's impending encounter with his estranged twin brother. Esau was coming with foUr Hundred Armed men, and Jacob was actually planning to flee from Esau. That was when the angel attacked him.

According to Rashbam, the reason for the angel wrestling with Jacob was so that he would be forced to stand his ground and not escape via a back route. Destiny itself was compelling Jacob to confront the enemy and overcome him. Only then would he witness the fulfillment of G-d's promise to protect him from harm.

Apparently, G-d wanted Jacob to learn that a philosophy of escapism is not the Jewish way. So the angel dislocated his hip, preventing him from running away. Now Jacob had no choice but to fight. In the end, he defeated the angel and was blessed with the name "Israel," signifying a superior stature, victory and nobility. No longer shall it be said that your name is Jacob, but Israel, for you have fought with the divine and with man and you have overcome.

Every son and daughter of Jacob must learn this lesson. Every one of us must become a child of Israel. The quality of fearlessness and courage, of strength and sacrifice, these are the hallmarks of Israel. When we stop running away from our problems and face up to them with guts and fortitude, we enter that higher state of consciousness. We move up from the Jacob Jew, who is still struggling, to Israel mode, where we finally emerge triumphant. When we are prepared to take up the challenge and go for the fight rather than flight, we move from being wrestlers to becoming winners, from humble Jacob to dominant Israel.

Escapism is not the Jewish way Of course it's never easy. Escape is usually the path of least resistance. Nor am I suggesting that we go looking for a fight. But the fact is that there will be times when we know that we really need to have that confrontation. We need to square up to a particular problem or individual in order to deal with our situation effectively. We shouldn't be confrontational people. But often we know in our heart of hearts that if we don't engage a problem honestly it will continue to plague us.

If we can move from meekness to courage, then the story of Jacob's wrestling match will live on and continue to inspire us to become the stronger personalities we really can be. The dislocated hip joint thus becomes worthy of eternal remembrance because it makes us better people. And the small sacrifices we make in avoiding those unkosher cuts of meat around the animal's hip socket are well worth the effort.

Have a great Shabbos.
From Rabbi Tzvi Tauby

Contact Rabbi Tzvi Tauby by email at tzvi@ivolunteerny.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 17, 2010.

The other day, the PA commemorated the sixth anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat. In the course of ceremonies in Ramallah, PA president Mahmoud Abbas pledged to continue in Arafat's footsteps until the Palestinians achieved an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, the refugees were able to return to their homes, and all prisoners were released from Israeli jails.

"There will be no negotiations with settlements," he declared. "The Arab city of Jerusalem, including the holy sites, is an integral part of the 1967 occupied territories.

"Everybody knows that Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and that any solution that does not include Jerusalem is not a solution."


Please note carefully that he refers to the "Arab city of Jerusalem." Jerusalem. Not eastern Jerusalem. It's the whole that they are after.

What is more, they are after everything over the Green Line, plus "return" of refugees to within Green Line Israel. There is no compromise. No intention to compromise. Actually, Abbas boasted about the fact that Palestinian goals have not changed since 1988. These goals include, of course, the ultimate destruction of Israel. There was no pretense about this in 1988, which was pre-Oslo. And now he allows for no moderating shift since the advent of Oslo.

And yet, and yet, Obama and company are seeking to get this man and his cohorts — who, in praising Arafat, are praising an unrepentant terrorist — to sit down with Israel at a negotiating table and make "peace" within a year, with much of the issue of borders resolved within three months.


My friends, if this is not both crazy and farcical, I do not know what is.

Nor is it the end of the insanity. Caroline Glick, in her piece,"What the Palestinians Buy with American Money," explains:

"Two weeks ago, a Palestinian from Bethlehem was arrested by the US-financed and trained Palestinian Authority security forces. He was charged with 'carrying out commercial transactions with residents of a hostile state.'

"No, he was not buying uranium from Iran. His purported crime was purchasing wood products from an Israeli community located beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

"Denied bail by the US-funded PA magistrate's court in Bethlehem, he has been remanded to custody pending the conclusion of his trial.

"This man's arrest is part of what the unelected, US-supported Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has touted as his 'National Honor Fund.' The goal of this project is to ban all economic contact between Palestinians and Jews who live and work beyond the 1949 armistice lines. As far as the supposedly moderate Fayyad is concerned, those Jews and Israel generally comprise the 'hostile state,' that the Palestinians under Fayyad's leadership are being compelled to boycott.

"...Fayyad's measures come on top of previously enacted PA measures like imposing the death penalty on Palestinians who sell land to Jews. Less than two months ago, the PA reaffirmed that it will continue to execute any Palestinian who commits this 'crime.'

"There is no way to credibly claim that these actions advance either the cause of peaceful coexistence or Palestinian economic prosperity. Yet it is precisely in the hope of advancing these goals that the US government funds the PA.

"Despite his campaign to boycott Israel and punish Palestinians with economic ties to the Jewish state, Fayyad is the US's favorite Palestinian. Since PA President Mahmoud Abbas appointed Fayyad to lead the rump Fatah government in Judea and Samaria after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, US aid to the PA has increased by more than 700 percent. Most of this aid has gone to propping up Fayyad.

"The US directly finances his budget. It funds and trains a Palestinian military. And it subsidizes his programs to build governmental institutions that loyally carry out his anti-Israel policies.

"Last Wednesday, during a joint press conference with Fayyad, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the US will give the PA an additional $150 million in aid to supplement the $400 million in financial assistance that President Barack Obama pledged in June. This supplement comes in response to Fayyad's claim that he needs $500 million to close his budget shortfall.

"According to the Congressional Research Service, the PA is the largest recipient of foreign assistance in the world. According to Bloomberg, it received $1.2 billion in 2009 and will receive $1.8 billion by the end of the year. (Emphasis added.)

"...Finally, the simple truth is that it is impossible to prevent US budgetary assistance to the PA from financing Hamas, in contravention of US law. Each month Fayyad transfers funds to Hamas-controlled Gaza to pay the salaries of PA employees there. Fayyad has argued that this assistance cannot be considered material aid to Hamas, since the employees are employed by the PA. But this is nonsense.

"These employees serve at the pleasure of Hamas. Paying their salaries contravenes US law as well as international law, which prohibits states from providing any assistance whatsoever to areas controlled by terrorists."
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/11/ what-the-palestinians-buy-with.php

Our "partners for peace," nobly aided by our "ally" America. Please do share this information from Glick broadly. People do not know...and they need to know.


But in the midst of all of this, there is an island of sanity, and her name is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Slated to become the Chairperson of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in January, she has already voiced criticism of the current situation:

"Sending U.S. tax dollars to the Palestinian Authority to help them cover their budget shortfall is a bailout, plain and simple.

"It is deeply disturbing that the Administration is continuing to bail out the Palestinian leadership when they continue to fail to meet their commitments, under international agreements and requirements outlined in U.S. law, including dismantling the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, combating corruption, stopping anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement, and recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

"So long as Palestinian leaders keep being financially rewarded by the U.S. unconditionally, they will have zero reason to change their ways and truly commit to peace. It is long past time to hold Ramallah accountable."


The stalemate has not been broken.

Today came and went and there was a meeting of the Security Cabinet here in Israel, but the proposed freeze was not on the agenda. Netanyahu is still waiting for something from the US in writing, and the longer it takes, the more doubts those on the fence have regarding the wisdom of counting on US promises, written or not. Shas, in particular, is under pressure in this regard. In point of fact, there is now a report — that we can only hope is accurate — from a member of Shas who says that faction head Eli Yishai has come out explicitly against the freeze and has indicated that he will inform Rav Ovadiah Yosef and other members of the Shas faction of his position.

The stumbling block for the US seems to be the verbal commitment Clinton made to Netanyahu that there would be no US request for additional freezes. The Palestinian Arabs are not exactly on board with this.


There is no guarantee what tomorrow will bring. But I close here with a look by Arutz Sheva at the lengths to which State Department spokesman JP Crowley went just yesterday to avoid saying anything on the matter of written guarantees to Israel:

"In Tuesday's daily press briefing that turned into a game of 'dodge'em,' reporters badgered...Crowley to answer, 'Are you prepared to give them [Israel] a piece of paper that outlines what you're willing to do to get them back to the table?' "Crowley replied, 'We're prepared to do everything that we can to create the conditions for both the Palestinians and the Israelis to have confidence to return to direct negotiations.'"

And so it went:

"Reporters...opened the session by asking a simple question: 'Have you sent them this proposal? Crowley replied, 'I am not going to get into specifics as to where we are. We're trying to encourage both sides to get back into negotiations.'

"...from another reporter: 'Look, the Israelis have come out and said they're not going to vote on this tomorrow in the cabinet because they're waiting for a written proposal. I fail to see how it would affect the negotiations if you say that yes, you're willing to consider giving them something in writing.'

"Crowley's' repeat performance: 'We want to get them back into negotiations. We're trying to create the conditions to do that.'

"Frustrated questioners tried again: 'A piece of paper, whether you're willing to write something down on a piece of paper is not the substance — is not substantive...I'm just asking if you are willing to give them something written down.'

"Again Crowley answered, 'We will do everything that we can to encourage the parties to get back into negotiations.'

"The journalists made one last college try: 'Do you think you can do that without giving them a piece of paper?'

"Crowley's answer was different this time. He said. 'It's a very good question,' as everyone laughed.

"In Jerusalem, no one is laughing."

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 17, 2010.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://denjanewhome.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 17, 2010.

This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA.

Fact: UNIFIL has been a total and complete failure in South Lebanon in preventing Hezbollah from building a tremendous military infrastructure of underground bunkers, missile launching sites, armories, etc. Their desire to avoid conflict is so great that when a Hezbollah weapons store blows up they patiently wait at a respectful distance to allow Hezbollah to transfer the weapons from the location before inspecting the site.

Question: Given the above, who does Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu want to rely on to take over responsibility for Ghajar?

Answer: UNIFIL.

Question: What's the logic

Answer: Israel will get UNIFIL to agree to security arrangements that address the failure of UNIFIL in their current mission.

Question: Is that a reasonable assumption?

Answer: Hint: The IDF is being assigned the task of working out the details. Question: Is it good or bad that the IDF is responsible for the details?

Answer: It depends on the operative assumptions that IDF uses as its basis. For example, if they assume that UNIFIL will deliver the goods then the arrangements will be just as worthless as UNIFIL's current operation. And the politicians can then sign off knowing that when the program fails that they can blame the IDF.

Question: Why is there reason to believe that the IDF might negotiate based on false assumptions?

Answer: Hint: Let's not forget that there are many IDF brass who argue that we can leave the Golan because once Syria has the Golan it will never be a threat to Israel. These guys may be great on military matters but when analysis requires thinking beyond that there are grounds for concern.

Question: So what is PM Netanyahu really up to?

Answer: Two possibilities depending on what you think about him:

Netanyahu the grand chess master: The IDF will be given marching orders regarding the negotiations with UNIFIL that will lead to security arrangements that UNIFIL rejects — with Israel being able to then explain to the world that UNIFIL is to blame.

Netanyahu the tic-tac-toe player: Mark a "v" in the do list for now. ]


Cabinet set to approve unilateral withdrawal from Ghajar
By Jerusalem Post.Com Staff, 11/17/2010 07:41

According to proposed plan Israel will leave northern part of village on Lebanese border; UNIFIL to be responsible for preventing infiltrators, terrorists, criminals.

The cabinet on Wednesday is expected to approve a plan whereby Israel will unilaterally withdraw from the northern part of Ghajar, placing that part of the village in Lebanese hands as mandated by the United Nations, Army Radio reported.

According to the proposed layout, the IDF will secure the Israel-Lebanon border south of Ghajar and UNIFIL have the responsibility of preventing the entry of infiltrators, terrorists and criminals in the northern part of the village.

The cabinet is expected to instruct the IDF to accelerate discussions with UNIFIL with the aim of formulating security arrangements within the next month.

The village sits in area where the boundaries between Israel, Syria and Lebanon are in dispute.

Israel captured the village of some 2,000 people from Syria in 1967. In 2000, after Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, UN surveyors placed the border in the middle of the village, leaving Israel in control of the southern half. The IDF reoccupied the northern half in the 2006 war. After the fighting, Israel pledged to withdraw from that section, but has yet to do so.

Ghajar's residents are members of Islam's Alawite sect, whose followers include many members of Syria's ruling elite. Most of the villagers have said they want the village to remain united, regardless of who controls it.

Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Don Feder, November 16, 2010.

As a Jew, I don't ask Christians to support Israel because of God's promises to the Patriarchs, affirmed by the Prophets.

There are millions of Christians who believe as I do that His promises to the Jewish people are eternal and that the land of Israel was given to them in perpetuity.

Other Christians believe that by refusing to accept Jesus as the messiah, the old covenant was nullified, the Church became the new Israel, and Jewish claims to the land are no more valid than Arab claims to Andalusia — perhaps less so.

While I may not agree with these Christians, I'm not about to tell them what to believe. Instead, I remind them that my enemies are their enemies, and that what starts with the Jews never stops with the Jews.

A recently concluded Vatican synod of 185 bishops from the Middle East went further than the boilerplate calls for an "end to the occupation of Palestinian lands."

Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, head of the Synod, said the idea of a land promised to the Jews was preposterous. "For Christians, one can no longer talk about the land promised to the Jewish people. There is no longer a favored people, a chosen people; all men and women of every country have become the chosen people."

Does that mean Swedes and Samoans get a piece of the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? BTW, as far as the precious Palestinians are concerned, Tel Aviv, Haifa and West Jerusalem are as much occupied territory as Ramallah and Hebron.

The Archbishop's pronouncement (also known as replacement theology) caused WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joe Farah (like Bustros, a Lebanese-born Christian), to wonder "what version of the Bible Bustros is reading." Farah observes, "Without the fulfilled prophecies (of a Jewish return to the Promised Land), the Christian faith itself is neutered."

Repeatedly, throughout what's called the Old Testament, God promises all of the Holy Land to the Israelites and their descendants. When Abraham first appears in the Biblical narrative, God tells him to "go to the land I will show you." Later, He tells the father of the Jewish people, "All the land which you see I give to you and your descendants."

The same pledge is made to each of the Patriarchs in turn, and periodically repeated throughout the Five Books of Moses. One Bible scholar says the promise is made 69 times in Deuteronomy alone.

The refrain is then taken up in by the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, Obadiah and Zephaniah) — God will "have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land," "will bring them out from the people and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land," and "will plant them upon their land, and shall no more be pulled out of their land which I have given them."

Did God change his mind? Sometime in the first century, did He say, "Hey, that's it; I've had it with these stiff-necked Jews. I promised Israel to them for all time. But now they've lost it. Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize, they get Grosse Pointe and Scarsdale?"

I wonder if Bustros ever wonders why every ancient people has vanished from the face of the earth, except the Jews. (Try programming Babylonia or Assyria into your GPS.) Does he think it's a coincidence that the Jews — and only the Jews — returned to their land after 2,000 years of exile?

As I said, I don't ask Christians to accept my interpretation of the Bible — even though it's the only one that makes sense.

I do ask that they think long and hard about what's going on today — that there's a religious/political movement aimed at global domination. For every Jewish victim, it produces a mountain of Christian corpses. As Israel goes, so goes Italy, Britain and the United States.

On November 11 (as the Brits observed what's still called Armistice Day over there) in London, a Moslem mob — protesting the "illegal and unjust war in Afghanistan" — shouted insults and carried signs that read "British Soldiers Burn in Hell!" and "To Hell With Democracy."

This attitude, so typical of the religion of peace, would not have surprised a British statesman of another era, who warned almost a century ago: "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it." Churchill added: "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

The Turkish slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians (1914-1918) wasn't in response to the Israeli "occupation of Palestinian land." (There was no state of Israel until 1948.) The Moslem conquest of Constantinople (accompanied by rape, pillage, slaughter and enslavement), was not precipitated by a Zionist conspiracy to seize Arab lands. The genocide in the Sudan — whose Moslem militias have been playing Nazis and Jews with Christians in the south for two decades now — isn't a protest against what the left calls Israeli apartheid.

I wish the Vatican would think about this: When Jews are insulted, they whine about it. (We call it kvetching.) When Moslems are offended, people die.

The Synod may recall the reaction to Benedict XVI quoting an obscure 12th century Byzantine emperor in a 2006 speech at Regensburg University. ("Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.")

The pontiff's historical reference led to rioting across the Moslem world, the firebombing of West Bank churches, a condemnation by Pakistan's parliament, calls for the Pope's death ("We will smash the cross!"), forecasts of the fall of Rome, and the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. And this was after Benedict apologized. Australia's Cardinal George Pell said the "violent reactions ... showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."

Seven centuries after Manuel II Palaiologos, the emperor's observation regarding Islam's fondness for the scimitar were seconded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's terror state and arguably the Moslem who had the greatest impact on the 20th century.

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world." Moreover: "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!" Barack, your madrassa is calling.

In the Third World, that edict is written in blood:

  • Moslems killed four more Christians in a string of bombings in Baghdad last week. That's in addition to the 58 worshippers killed when gunmen invaded Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Church on October 31. Iraq's Christian community has suffered eight years of this. It's now less than half the pre-war total of 800,000.

  • On October 20, Dr. Monir Dawoud, president of the American Coptic Association, had a rally in front of the United Nations building in New York to protest the ongoing persecution of one of the world's oldest Christian communities, comprising an estimated 10% of Egypt's population. On January 6, six Copts were murdered leaving a church after services for Orthodox Christmas. Christian girls are often kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam — a quaint custom practiced throughout the Moslem world. There are regular death threats against the religious leader of the Copts, Pope Shenouda III. As a justification for the next round of violence, the ex-secretary general of the International Union of Moslem Scholars recently appeared on Al Jazeera, claiming the Copts were stockpiling weapons (supplied by Israel, naturally) in preparation for an attack on Moslems — who outnumber them nine to one.

  • In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, has been sentenced to death under the nation's law against blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed — one of the tactics employed by Moslem clerics to terrorize Pakistan's 3 million Christians.

  • In March, between 200 and 400 Christian villagers were killed by machete-wielding Moslems in Nigeria. Victims included women, children and a 4-day-old baby. MSNBC reported: "On Sunday, the bodies of children tangled with each other in a local morgue, including a diaper-clad toddler. Another young victim appeared to have been scalped, while others had severed hands and feet." This was probably to protest the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Zionist imperialism and George W. Bush.

In 1914, Christians represented an estimated 26% of the Middle East's population. Now, they're down to around 6%. Once 60% of the population, Bethlehem's Christians now comprise no more than 15%.

Interviewed by a German journalist, a young Christian in the city of Jesus' birth said he would speak of persecution only if his name wasn't used, or he would be "a dead man."

"Either they would blow my brains out or accuse me of collaboration with Israel. Then I would also be tortured." Crimes against the Christian minority range from rape and murder to shakedowns — tactics intended to make Bethlehem Christian-rein. You might call it Moslem displacement theology.

"Our church leaders and the Christian politicians also are afraid and don't want to make things worse. That's why they remain silent," the anonymous Christian discloses.

Can you guess the only place in the Middle East where Christians can practice their religion in peace? It's also the only place in the Middle East where the Christian population is growing, as well as the only place where Christian holy sites are treated with respect. When Jordan controlled the West Bank, they were closed to tourists.

Give up? It's the country whose legitimacy Archbishop Bustros seeks to undermine.

The persecution of Christians in the Moslem world is another result of the Islamic resurgence, which started in the '60s, spurred by oil wealth, a surplus population, and a return to the religion's glorious roots. Absent Israel, none of this would change. It would only free up resources and fighters for other fronts in the international jihad.

In the 1950s, the Moslem Brotherhood had a saying: "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people." But thoroughly modern Moslems can't hardly wait.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ivor Silverman, November 16, 2010.

A debate in Cambridge took place recently; the proposition: "Israel is a rogue state". Gabriel Latner is the Cambridge University law student who was assigned by the Cambridge Union debating society to argue the affirmative side of the proposition. He used the opportunity to take on others on his side and argue in favour of Israel. His conduct earned him a lifetime banning from the Cambridge Union. You might want to know that Lauren Booth was on the proposing side too — no surprise there then! I know it's incredibly long, but just imagine the scene. Most of the room are obviously NOT Jewish and time and time again these debates will never go in our favour. However Gabriel won this for the opposing side. He received a standing ovation from the majority of the room, obviously not from Lauren Booth!! Please pass this on as it truly is an amazing speech from a young boy, 19 years of age, swigging from a hip flask for Dutch courage!!!

Why Israel is a rogue state [Gabriel Latner]

The Cambridge Union Society held a debate on the motion that "Israel is a rogue state" on October 21st.

The debater, Gabriel Latner, gave a copy of his speech to Mondoweiss
(http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/more-about- tricksterdebatercanadian-gabriel-latner-19.html) with the request that it not be edited. I am reproducing it here, only by adding paragraph spacing and slight grammatical corrections where it seemed appropriate. The square bracket comments were his, written afterwards.


This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening — to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the 'Aye' door. I face a singular challenge — most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds.

This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do — simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel.

It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international 'laws' to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalised stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues.

But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state' rogue'. If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain's treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigour.

More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech — I will have presented 5 pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a 'rogue state' than at least 'rogueish'.

Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is 'bad'. I will not be arguing that it doesn't deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is 'rogue'.

The word 'rogue' has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as 'Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time ', while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition 'behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way '. These definitions, and others, centre on the idea of anomaly — the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.

The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051%. In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least &euro:10 is 0.017% — more than twice as likely. Israel's Jewishness is a statistical abberation.

The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular, Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis — for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that — but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. [I actually hoped that Mr Massih would be able speak about this — he's actually somewhat of an expert on the Crisis in Darfur, in fact it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former Dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.]

There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt — where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion — they are treated as the refugees that they are — and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.

But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US's reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst — and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement.

My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns — it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands — they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP — an organisation of 'freedom fighters' that, under Abed Rabbo's leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA — the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing — and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue — behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.

Another part of dictionary definition is behaviour or activity 'occuring at an unexpected place or time'. When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East — except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality.

In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.

Israel's protection of its citizens' civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as 'Free' 'Partly Free' or 'Not Free'. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a 'free' country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon — a country designated 'partly free', where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. [I'm hoping Ms Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a 'journalist' for Iran,]

Iran is a country given the rating of 'not free', putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, [as Ms Booth I hoped would have said in her speech], there is a special 'Press Court' which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the 'foundations of the Islamic republic', using 'suspicious (i.e. western) sources', or insulting islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. [I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that]

I guess we can't really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and Autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.

I have one final argument — the last nail in the opposition's coffin — and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible.

Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was 'This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world', that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan ? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr Ran Gidor to argue tonight against [a 'journalist' come reality TV star, and myself,] a 19 year old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.

Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now — because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.

That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you — Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed OSIRAK — Sadam Hussein's nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq.

That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. [Except Ms Booth]

Contact Ivor Silverman by email at ivorsilverman@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Irwin N. Graulich, November 16, 2010.

Do you think you can start 4 wars with Israel, lose them all badly, and then say, "We lost--but give us all the land back and then some, and we will sign a peace treaty." Well guys, you lost--now you cannot come crying to us like little babies, who want their toys back. Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

In 1948, the UN completed disregarded the Balfour Declaration, the decisions of the League of Nations and the historical rights of the Jewish people to Israel/Palestine. Instead, they unfairly split, or partitioned the land of biblical Israel into a Jewish state and a Muslim/Arab state. The Jews said, "It is not fair, but we will take what we can get." The Arabs said, "No, we want it all."

And so those big macho Arab armies attacked a bunch of weak Holocaust survivors, who were joined by some energetic Jewish boys and girls whose only military experience was working with plowshares and axes. Miraculously, this rag tag Jewish army must have had God behind them, because they won big--and the Arabs lost big. Well my friends, there are consequences to your actions, and the consequences are--Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

Again in 1956, 1967 and 1973, more Jewish mothers and fathers lost their sons. And so, my dear Arab brothers, when you lose, you lose. This is not a game. You tried to annihilate the Jewish state numerous times, and you thought there would be no consequences? You could have had East Jerusalem, Judea and Sumaria, but you wanted Tel Aviv, Netanya and Haifa. Learn a lesson because now you will see the consequences of your actions. Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

The Saudi/Arab Peace Initiative calls for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, among other things, in exchange for a "true peace." I mean, is that a joke? If pre-1967 borders were truly the problem, how come there was no peace in 1966--which was a time with the most tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors. How come? Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

In 1967, King Hussein, who at the time had East Jerusalem in his possession, went to war with Israel. If someone has East Jerusalem and goes to war, then it is obvious he wants West Jerusalem as well. Hussein lost. Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

There is one tiny, tiny Jewish state and 55 Muslim states. Virtually each of these states dwarfs Israel in size. There are natural borders to Israel with the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, the Dead Sea and Jordan on its East coast, and the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt on its West coast. Look at any map and you will see that most countries in the world have natural borders, and do not have the heart of their country cut out, making it only 7 miles wide in certain parts. That is just totally ridiculous. Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

For 2000 years, the Jewish people were persecuted, murdered, forced to convert, crucified, shot, buried alive, tortured and most recently gassed and burned. We became accustomed to suffering and dying--to being defeated. Today, because of Israel, we are winners--big winners on the world stage. And people hate winners, especially strong winners. The UN, the EU, much of the world including Obama, Hillary, George Mitchell, J Street, Peace Now and of course the Israeli and American Left have great sympathy for losers--even evil losers. And losers who have excellent pr are especially loved by these groups. For the sake of the Jewish people, it is better to have an Israel that is hated by most of the world, than an Auschwitz that is loved with gorgeous obituaries. Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!

There was a Jewish dream for 2000 years, where our grandparents, and great grandparents, and great great grandparents suffered with pogroms and terror and humiliation, while constantly praying nightly for this dream to come true--to go to a Jewish homeland called Eretz Yisrael. A place where they won't be afraid anymore and a place that will protect all Jews worldwide--and be a safe haven for any Jew with a dream.

However, leftist and liberal Jews turned that dream into a nightmare--by having misplaced compassion for the people who invented terrorism, first sending suicide bombers into pizza parlors to murder mothers with their babies and then shooting Jewish schoolchildren in Israel; by ignoring the group in Gaza whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel; by saying that the Arabs really do not mean it when they call May 14th, Nakba Day--The Catastrophe called Israel; by disregarding the Palestinian majority vote for Hamas; by criticizing Israel for responding to thousands of rockets shot at civilian population centers. Those sick, sick Jews must learn to "Read My Lips--No Palestinian State!"

Irwin N. Graulich is a motivational speaker on morality, ethics, Judaism and politics. He is also President and CEO of a marketing, branding and communications company in New York City. He can be reached at irwinggraulich@optonline.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 16, 2010.

True anti-Semitic Bigots Never Rest

Desmond Tutu may have officially retired from public life, but he hasn't gone far from the spotlight. The former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town and Nobel Prize laureate called on the Cape Town Opera to cancel an upcoming trip to Israel. He said it would be "unconscionable" for the group to perform "Porgy and Bess," the groundbreaking Gershwin opera in Israel. (Jewish composer who wrote about life of blacks in Charleston, S.C., in 1920)

Tutu's campaign is not limited to the Cape Town opera. Last month, Tutu joined a campaign urging the University of Johannesburg to sever its links with Israel's Ben-Gurion University, a move that was supported by a number of high-profile South African writers and academics. (I wonder who would suffer from lack of scientific and cultural contacts with Israel more?)

Note: South Africa has a significant Jewish population, numbering about 70,000 people, and many Jews played important roles in the struggle against apartheid. (Many anti-Semites are only too happy to use Jewish doctors, lawyers, tailors, educators etc, to get good service and value for money. There are still some Jewish leaders who falsely, or naively still believe that by bribing bigots with more charity, Jews would be able to bribe immoral the nature of Jew-haters! For centuries anti-Semites have never expressed true appreciation for Jewish personal, moral and financial participation in non-Jewish endeavours. When will we learn self-respect?)

Time to Worry: Obama Calls Latest Israeli Plan Promising

President Barack Obama hailed the prospect of a new settlement freeze in the disputed West Bank as a promising step toward peace, urging Israelis and Palestinians to get back into (useless) negotiations quickly. (Netanyahu is selling out Jewish national dream!) In an effort to convince the Netanyahu government to impose another three-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank, the Obama administration offered Israel a long list of security and diplomatic benefits, including 20 F-35s for free. (Obama is bribing Israel in the direction of self-destruction!)

The Middle-East conflict in 5 minutes
click here.

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Islam, like Nazis and unscrupulous politicians of many European countries, has been using well-ingrained anti-Semitism of 'unchristian' world mentality to destroy Israel first and Christianity later in order to conquer the world!

Nasrallah Called for Boycott of Hariri Tribunal

The leader of Hizbullah called on all Lebanese to boycott the UN tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of a former prime minister. A crowd of women attacked two UN investigators and a Lebanese interpreter as they gathered evidence. (Israel must learn from Arabs how handle the UN, and its anti-Israel bias and bogus investigations and resolutions!)

Live in a State of Readiness

Surrounded by enemies under the constant threat of attack, Israel is the only nation in the world that must continuously be prepared for imminent war and fight for its survival. (If Israel has not succumbed to pressure from the 'peace loving', Jew-hating idiots in the West, who refuse to recognise that Islamic expansionism will crush them and all the democratic values they love so much, the Arab-Israel conflict would have been resolved long time ago!)

What Financial Crisis?

The United States will give an additional $150 million to the Palestinian Authority as Washington seeks to boost the fledgling terror infested PA entity amid an impasse in peace talks with Israel, which produced nothing but a photo op for Rabin and Arafat. (With the US dollar severely dropping down, trillion of dollars of national debt, Americans loosing their home and living with no health cover — why is Obama administration supporting the fake terrorist nation so generously? PA/PLO/Fatah/Hamas, like any 'decent' Islamic/Arab movement, are all dedicated to eliminating Israel in any way possible and they hate all "infidels" of the free world!)

Withdrawal without Peace Agreement is Madness!

Under a United Nations plan, Israel will reportedly remove its troops from the town of Ghajar on the Lebanese border — and thus remove a bone of contention with Hezbollah. (Russia is still occupying Japanese Kuril islands.)

In the Climate of Hate and Intolerance

Iraqi Christians under siege by Islamic militants are welcome in the country's north, controlled by Kurds. In the past, the regional government has opened its doors to other minorities persecuted by Muslims. Many Christian families said they feared for their own safety and wanted to leave Iraq, same as Christians of Lebanon and other Muslim states.

No International Outcry for Poor Israelis

The National Insurance Institute report showed the number of people living in poverty hit 25 per cent of the population in 2009, up from 23.7 per cent the year before. Among children, the percentage was 36.3. It is 1.7 million people, among them 850,300 children, were living below the poverty line. (Due to existential threats from Muslim neighbours and constant terror attacks by so-called Palestinians, the small country of Israel is forced to spend a big part of its budget on weapons and security rather than caring for the social needs of its population!)

Burning Olive Trees to Blame 'Settlers'

Foreign anarchists and Palestinian Authority Arabs were caught on film Sunday setting fire to a wooded area outside the Jewish town of Bat Ayin, between Jerusalem and Hevron. The fire damaged many plants, including olive trees.

Quote of the Week:

"The negotiations (with Israel) have ended and there's no alternative to jihad and resistance. The present leadership of the Palestinian Authority is not authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. If Mahmoud Abbas can't adopt the option of Yasser Arafat, resistance, we recommend another option which is more honorable: to quit and sit at home." — Ramadan Shallah, leader of Islamic Jihad — Similar advice is appropriate to give political leadership of Israel and Jewish communities world-wide. Israel never had and will never have true peace partner among Arab and Muslim states, including Egypt and Jordan! Abbas, like Arafat before him, only pays lip service to a fake peace process.

They are not Serious about Peace

Speaking in Damascus, Fatah leader Azzam al-Ahmad said that Hamas was not serious about reaching a reconciliation agreement. Hamas delegation refused to discuss certain issues related to security. (Israel does not even have a partner to negotiate peace with!)

No More Wimping Around

National Union chairman MK Yaakov "Ketzaleh" Katz said that his party's promise to serve as a safety net for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is valid as long as no new construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria is declared. (It is time for Jewish patriots to take control over Israel's destiny — No more political posturing!)

Racism the World does not Want to Know About!
by Steven Plaut

Allow us to introduce you to young Kochav Segal Halevi. The life of the Israeli 26 year old is in danger and he is receiving death threats. In fact he had to go into hiding. His offence? He purchased an apartment in the Arab town of Iblin not far from Haifa.

The Arabs of the town do not like the idea of their town being polluted by the presence of a Jew. I mean, one Jew and there goes the neighborhood. The left-leaning Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot (Nov. 7, 2010) described the threats he has been receiving and how he fears for his life. He is now in hiding. Arabs who sell property to Jews have similarly been threatened and attacked. And of course the moderates from the Palestinian Authority routinely torture and summarily execute Arabs who sell property to Jews.

Now I mention all this because the leftist media in Israel and in the world are — as usual — up in arms over supposed Israeli Jewish "racism" against Arabs. There are some Jewish closed communities in Israel, some of them religiously observant, in which one must be accepted as a member by an admissions committee in order to live there, and these tend to refuse membership to Arabs "to preserve the character of the community." (In religious communities, non-religious Jews get barred as well. Other communities, including kibbutzim, have age and marital status restrictions.) There have also been calls in recent days, including from some local public officials, in Carmiel and in Safed in the Galilee, to restrict the movement of Arabs into those towns. (Due to justifiable fear for the safety of Jewish residents!)

But of course the reality is that, by and large, Israeli Arabs may move into and live in just about any Jewish area in the country, while Jews cannot move into any Arab town or village or neighborhood. Jews cannot move into the Arab areas because they will be murdered if they move there.

Every single Israeli understands these unwritten "rules of the game." In fact, Jews often risk their lives just passing through Arab areas, as a group of four Hebrew University Jewish students discovered over the past weekend when they were almost lynched after making a wrong turn into an Arab neighborhood next to the campus. (I myself have made that same wrong turn, the signs being unclear at that intersection.) Jews are also attacked when holding political marches in Arab towns, in contrast with the anti-Jewish marches regularly conducted by Arabs in Tel Aviv and other Jewish areas.

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 16, 2010.

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post,
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=195474
Contact her at caroline@carolineglick.com


In funding the Palestinian Authority, the US contravenes its own laws; most aid to the PA has has gone to propping up Fayyad.

Two weeks ago, a Palestinian from Bethlehem was arrested by the US-financed and trained Palestinian Authority security forces. He was charged with "carrying out commercial transactions with residents of a hostile state."

No, he was not buying uranium from Iran. His purported crime was purchasing wood products from an Israeli community located beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

Denied bail by the US-funded PA magistrate's court in Bethlehem, he has been remanded to custody pending the conclusion of his trial.

This man's arrest is part of what the unelected, US-supported Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has touted as his "National Honor Fund."

The goal of this project is to ban all economic contact between Palestinians and Jews who live and work beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

As far as the supposedly moderate Fayyad is concerned, those Jews and Israel generally comprise the "hostile state," that the Palestinians under Fayyad's leadership are being compelled to boycott.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinian Labor Minister Ahmed Majdalani said the PA hopes that by the end of the year all the thousands of Palestinians who are employed in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria will quit their jobs. What he didn't mention is that if they don't quit, they will be arrested.

According to PA Economics Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh, since the start of Fayyad's campaign, the PA has confiscated $1 million worth of Israeli products including foods, cosmetics and hardware from Palestinian stores.

Fayyad's measures come on top of previously enacted PA measures like imposing the death penalty on Palestinians who sell land to Jews. Less than two months ago, the PA reaffirmed that it will continue to execute any Palestinian who commits this "crime."

There is no way to credibly claim that these actions advance either the cause of peaceful coexistence or Palestinian economic prosperity.

Yet it is precisely in the hope of advancing these goals that the US government funds the PA.

DESPITE HIS campaign to boycott Israel and punish Palestinians with economic ties to the Jewish state, Fayyad is the US's favorite Palestinian. Since PA President Mahmoud Abbas appointed Fayyad to lead the rump Fatah government in Judea and Samaria after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, US aid to the PA has increased by more than 700 percent. Most of this aid has gone to propping up Fayyad.

The US directly finances his budget. It funds and trains a Palestinian military. And it subsidizes his programs to build governmental institutions that loyally carry out his anti-Israel policies.

Last Wednesday, during a joint press conference with Fayyad, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the US will give the PA an additional $150 million in aid to supplement the $400 million in financial assistance that President Barack Obama pledged in June.

This supplement comes in response to Fayyad's claim that he needs $500 million to close his budget shortfall.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the PA is the largest recipient of foreign assistance in the world. According to Bloomberg, it received $1.2 billion in 2009 and will receive $1.8 billion by the end of the year.

The US provided the PA with $500.9 million in 2009 and, before Clinton's announcement, was scheduled to provide it with $550 million in 2011.

This assistance does not include US financial support for UNRWA, an agency devoted exclusively to providing welfare benefits to Palestinians while subordinating itself to a Palestinian political agenda. The US is the single largest donor to UNRWA. Last year the $268 million US taxpayers gave the UN agency constituted 27 percent of UNRWA's budget.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is expected to become the chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee in the next Congress, responded negatively to Clinton's announced expansion of US aid to the PA.

In a statement released by her office last Thursday, Ros-Lehtinen derided the assistance as a "bailout."

She further commented, "It is deeply disturbing that the administration is continuing to bail out the Palestinian leadership when they continue to fail to meet their commitments, under international agreements and requirements outlined in US law, including dismantling the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, combating corruption, stopping anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement and recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."

Ros-Lehtinen authored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which conditioned US assistance to the PA on, among other things, "publicly acknowledge[ing] the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist."

While on the mark, Ros-Lehtinen's statement only scratches the surface of how contrary to US law and the goals of Palestinian economic development and peace US financial assistance to the Palestinians truly is.

Take US security assistance to the Palestinians. The US responded to the Hamas takeover in Gaza by massively increasing its military assistance to Fatah.

According to the CRS, between 2007 and August 2010, US assistance to the PA security services totaled $400 million.

They received $100 million in 2010 and are set to receive $150 million in 2011. This assistance has paid for the training and outfitting of 400 Presidential Guards and 2,700 soldiers in the National Security Forces. The US plans to train five additional 500-man NSF battalions.

The CRS report acknowledged these forces have improved the law and order situation in Judea and Samaria. But it also asserted that "uncertainty remains over the durability of these improvements and their connection with broader Palestinian economic and civil society development and with progress on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as well as over the willingness and ability of the forces to incapacitate militants."

Indeed, there is little reason to believe that these US-trained forces will not join forces with Hamas and turn their guns on Israel in the future. Since 1996, PA security services have taken a leading role in the terror war against Israel.

Concerned about the threat these forces pose, particularly in light of Fayyad's rejection of Israel's right to exist, earlier this year OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi warned that these US-trained forces constitute a qualitative jump in the Palestinians' war fighting capabilities against Israel.

As he put it, "This is a well trained force, better equipped than its predecessors and trained by the US. The significance of this is that at the start of a new battle [with the Palestinians] the price that we will pay will be higher. A force like this one can shut down a built-up area with four snipers. This is deadly. These aren't the fighters we faced in Jenin [in 2002].

This is an infantry force that will be fighting us and we need to take this into account. They have offensive capabilities and we aren't expecting them to give up."

Then there is the US direct assistance to the PA's operating budget. The US has provided $350 million in direct budgetary assistance to the PA in the past two years. There are three problems with this aid.

First, it is far from clear that the PA needs this assistance.

According to the International Monetary Fund and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2009 real GDP in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip grew by 6.8 percent, (8.5% in Judea and Samaria). The report also claimed that unemployment declined.

So if things are going so well, why is it necessary for foreign donor countries to increase their direct assistance to Fayyad's budget?

Second, given Fayyad's rejection of free trade principles, particularly as they relate to Israel, the PA's largest trading partner, it is hard to see how his economic leadership is credible.

As the failed stimulus packages in the US have shown clearly, government bureaucracies do not create jobs. That is the work of the private sector. And yet, Fayyad is barring Palestinians from having trade ties with their most important business partners and commercial market. This is not the behavior of a leader who is interested in facilitating sustainable economic growth.

Finally, the simple truth is that it is impossible to prevent US budgetary assistance to the PA from financing Hamas, in contravention of US law.

Each month Fayyad transfers funds to Hamas-controlled Gaza to pay the salaries of PA employees there. Fayyad has argued that this assistance cannot be considered material aid to Hamas, since the employees are employed by the PA. But this is nonsense.

These employees serve at the pleasure of Hamas.

Paying their salaries contravenes US law as well as international law, which prohibits states from providing any assistance whatsoever to areas controlled by terrorists.

This is true even if the actual money he transfers to Gaza comes from other income sources. Without the direct US budgetary assistance, he wouldn't be able to funnel money to Gaza.

PROVIDING DIRECT budgetary assistance to Fayyad isn't the only way the US finances Hamas.

It also contributes to Hamas by funding UNRWA. US assistance to UNRWA has doubled in the last four years, largely as a way of avoiding providing direct aid to Hamas. Yet the CRS report notes, "In Gaza, most observers acknowledge that the role of UNRWA in providing basic services (i.e., food, health care, education) takes much of the governing burden off Hamas."

In defending its assistance to UNRWA, the State Department told Congress that the aid "directly contributes to the US strategic interest of meeting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians, while promoting their self-sufficiency. UNRWA plays a stabilizing role in the Middle East through its assistance programs, serving as an important counterweight to extremists."

But the fact of the matter is that UNRWA employees are Hamas members and sympathizers.

And despite the State Department's claim that it has adopted safeguards to ensure that US assistance is not transferred to individuals and groups with links to Hamas and other terror groups, UNRWA's checks against terrorism are restricted to checking a UN list of banned terror groups that includes only al-Qaida and the Taliban.

As the CRS report noted, UNRWA's terror screening list "does not include Hamas, Hizbullah or most other militant groups that operate in UNRWA's surroundings." In other words, UNRWA continues to employ terrorists, and its current procedures do nothing to prevent that.

A Framework of Cooperation agreement signed this year between UNRWA and the US sets out 15 steps for UNRWA to expand its terror screening.

But the agreement is nonbinding. Moreover, its provisions in no way block terror-linked individuals or groups from receiving aid from UNRWA.

In truth, given the PA's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist or take sustained, decisive action against terrorism, there is really no way for the US to continue funding it without breaking its own laws.

But acknowledging this state of affairs would involve admitting that the peace process is a lie and that any Palestinian state that is formed today will be a terrorist state at war with Israel.

The incoming Congress might want to consider these basic truths before it approves further aid to Fayyad and his moderate government.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 16, 2010.

I wish to thank everyone who yesterday contacted those members of the Security Cabinet who are tending towards either voting for the renewed freeze or abstaining, but might still be convinced otherwise.

If you haven't sent your messages yet, please do so! And emphasize the need for the US promises to be in writing — especially when contacting the Shas ministers. (More on this below.)

There seem to have been some problems with the e-mail address of Eli Yishai (of all people!) and I had hoped by today to have secured a new address, but have not been able to. Please, even if you are in the US, if you have access to a fax machine, fax him: 02-666-2909.

Additionally, I have been provided with a new fax number for Yuval Steinitz that may be more effective than the one I had yesterday: 02-569-5335. (With thanks to Judith N.)

One last "housekeeping" matter. Whatever your sincere passion for these events (and that passion is acknowledged!), I ask, please, that you never include my original posting in the e-mail message you send to members of the government. It undermines the purpose of your message, rather than strengthening it.


The title of today's post is most appropriate because the current situation has spun out into a situation that is unreal. I do not intend to belabor it all: we'll see what happens in due course. But what we've got now is the following:

[] The Israeli government is waiting for the US government to put in writing what Clinton told Netanyahu verbally. I suggest that Israel might have to wait a long time.

Yesterday, when State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked about the commitment (made by his boss!) to provide Israel with an additional 25 fighter jets, he said:

"We are committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge in the region — but beyond that, I'm not going to comment.

"I would just always caution that any time you have reports about specific things, some details may be right, some details may be wrong."

Not an encouraging sign of US sincerity. But then, to expect US sincerity would be foolish. (More on this follows.)


Perhaps US officials were under the impression that Netanyahu and company were gullible enough to simply take Clinton's word for whatever was said. But this is not the case. Netanyahu said clearly that he would not bring the proposal to the Security Cabinet until it was finalized in writing. What is more, what is written must "reflect the understandings reached during...talks with Hillary Clinton in New York."

Trying to pass this through the Security Cabinet on the basis of a verbal commitment only would likely be a losing proposition, in any event. Yishai spoke about abstaining if there were written promises from Obama. And the more MKs and ministers opposed to the freeze have focused on ways in which the US has reneged in the past on guarantees, the more uneasy the government has become with regard to proceeding without everything in writing.

[] At the same time, the PA is screaming, "It's not fair!" If they agree to come back to the table even though we won't freeze building in Jerusalem, they say, they want guarantees and a package of additional assistance from the US as well. According to YNet, Palestinian Arab sources told al-Quds al-Arabi in London that commitments from the US would be forthcoming, and that they are waiting.

Of course, the fact that the Palestinian Arabs say so, does not make it so, and we must keep this in mind. But there seems no doubt that their feathers are ruffled by what it has been reported the US is ready to promise Israel, and there is every reason to believe that they are demanding something additional of the US.

At any rate, what is being said is that there would be diplomatic and financial aid provided to the PA by the US, as well as a promise that borders would be set in three months. That, of course, is an impossible promise to make.


With it all, it is also being said that the Palestinian Arabs don't feel confident that they'll get enough additional from the US, and thus they want to consult with the Arab League — with the idea of going to the Security Council still on the table. Abbas apparently cancelled a meeting with a US diplomat yesterday. What is more, while US diplomats say they are keeping the PA apprised of the "freeze proposal," PA officials are saying they're being kept in the dark.

A charge has been made by one Israeli official that the discontent on the Palestinian Arab side is keeping the US administration from finalizing the proposal to Israel. Tension between Israel and the US has been reported with regard to the Israeli demand that everything be in writing. According to this official, the US would like to water down the original understanding — removing the promise that no further freeze would be expected of Israel — in deference to Palestinian Arab demands.

And it has gone even further: According to the JPost, "sources close to the issue" are reporting that the Palestinian Arabs are refusing to come to the table even if Israel extends the freeze. The Palestinian Arabs don't want to come to the table — they want everything handed to them without concessions — and they cannot be happy with a situation that entices Israel to smooth the way to that table.

How convoluted this all is! Has Obama figured out yet how far over his head he is? Probably not.

I make only one prediction here: However this ends up, Israel will be blamed, somehow.


Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) is one of the clearest-thinking and most straight-talking people in the government. I want to share, straight from Arutz Sheva, what he said in an interview today with regard to this whole mess:

"...the United States doesn't just want a three month extension, said Landau. When asked why he was opposed to so much benefit for 'only' three more months of a building freeze, Landau responded, 'Israel has failed to learn from the past. President Obama is ignoring previous promises, also written in a letter, that President Bush presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Those promises, too, were portrayed as a great diplomatic achievement.

"'All the American promises share a similar characteristic — they lack specifics, and are not carried out if they are found to be damaging to American interests.' That was the case with the 2003 letter Bush presented Sharon, ostensibly recognizing Israel's right to retain the 'settlement blocs' in the event of a deal with the PA; in the end, that American promise has been rescinded by President Barack Obama because he has decided it is in American interests to do so.

"'Here too, with the Obama promises, we must see the structure of the deal — and you see that the Americans are demanding that we come to a full agreement with the PA in order for the benefits to kick in,' Landau explained. 'You only get the benefits in the event of a final-status agreement — only when everything is over.' Given the history of Israel-PA negotiations, the likelihood of that happening is 'very low,' he added.

"Perhaps even worse, Landau said, the understandings between Israel and the United States — which included American opposition to a unilaterally declared PA state — are apparently no longer extant, and have instead been turned into a 'sword of Damocles,' to be held over the head of Israel.

"'Until now, it was understood that the U.S. would veto' sanctions against Israel, or a non-negotiated settlement of the Middle East conflict. Apparently that has changed, Landau said. 'the veto was promised and taken as a matter of fact, as long as progress was being made and negotiations were continuing. No "gestures" were required to expect it. Now, the American veto is being used as a threat against our negotiators, pressuring them to surrender our positions. If in a year there is no deal — and it's unlikely there will be — the threat will descend like a sword on our heads, and the U.S. will blame us' and vote against Israel, Landau said."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/140681

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Bernard J. Shapiro, November 15, 2010.

Israel has been swept with Arab violence and terrorism since the late 19th century. Israeli Prime Ministers have tried but failed to stem the tide. Ariel Sharon, well know for his tough tactics in quelling terrorism in Gaza in the 70's, has also failed.

Back in 1965, in a small meeting room in Tel Aviv, former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gave a pep talk to a group of RAFI (Rishimat Poalai Israel) volunteers, myself included. At that time, RAFI, a breakaway faction of the Mapai Party, included such notables as former Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and former Defense Minister Shimon Peres. Peres and Dayan had been considered the "hawks" of Mapai and it was no accident that in the 1965 election they supported a strong defense and security policy.

Dayan was always interesting to listen to, but this talk was something special and we paid attention to every word. "The essence of Israel's security in this region (Middle East) is deterrence," he said. "When we formed the State in 1948-9, we were very weak. The Arab States had planes, tanks, heavy artillery and many more soldiers than us.

We had very little heavy military equipment. In the period 1949-55, we absorbed almost a million immigrants. Tent cities sprung up all over the country. We were totally disorganized. Had the Arabs mounted another major invasion, we could have lost. We devised a solution to this problem. It was deterrence. Think about being lost in a forest and surrounded by hostile animals. If you light a torch, boldly approach them showing no fear — they will retreat. But, if you show fear — they will attack and you are lost. We used this principle to save Israel during those early years. Every time we were attacked, we retaliated ten fold. We showed daring and penetrated deep within their borders to attack our targets. We were fearless, brave, and even a bit bloodthirsty. You know the result. The Arabs were afraid and never attacked. Deterrence worked. By 1956 when we invaded Sinai, the Israel Defense Force was not just strong, it was invincible."

The story above was not told just for nostalgia. The lesson is extremely important for the survival of Israel today. Unfortunately Israelis are daily witnessing the consequences of seven years of declining deterrence vis a vis its Arab population. In 1987, the intifada presented Israel with a new challenge. It was a new kind of war, but with the same aim of driving the Israelis out of their country. The Israelis fought the intifada with many handicaps, not the least of which were their own rules of conduct. Israeli soldiers failed to cope with attacks by teenage Arab boys. In the course of several years, the Arabs learned that the soldiers would not aggressively retaliate for their attacks. They became emboldened.

The Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza showed great fortitude, enduring thousands of attacks and still tripling their numbers. The serious security failure developed as Arabs became accustomed to attacking Jews and Israeli soldiers. By trying to remain humane in the face of massive attacks, Israel emboldened the Arabs to more and more attacks. Throwing concrete boulders, Molotov cocktails, and then using firearms at Israelis became the norm of behavior among the Arabs. The Israeli government allowed its citizens to be attacked solely because they were Jews. In no other country of the world would such a policy be tolerated. Just two weeks ago a reserve officer of the Israel Defense Forces made a wrong turn and ended up in the center of Ramallah, a Arab city. He was immediately attacked by a vicious mob of Arabs, murder in their eyes, who almost beat him to death. Deterrence had vanished.

While the Jews may not have been afraid like the man in the forest, the affect of multiple restrictions on the Israeli right of self defense had the same result. That result was to increase the bloodlust of the Arab population and to multiply the Jewish casualties.

In 1991, the Persian Gulf War, with its SCUD attacks on Israel, further undermined Israeli deterrence. Having to depend on United States Forces instead of her own had a deleterious effect on Israeli self-confidence. It is notable that the Arab population of Judea and Samaria danced on their on their roofs and cried, "Gas the Jews" as the SCUD's headed for Tel Aviv. The self-assurance of the Israelis also declined immensely as a result of their cowering in sealed rooms during the missile attacks.

After the Gulf War, Shimon Peres and his associates began to search for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that did not require deterrence. The answer, Peres thought, was to be found in the growing influence of the extreme left (Meretz Party) in Israeli's ruling Labor elite. For many years, the left in Israel and its supporters in America have promoted the doctrine of "Israeli guilt" for the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict.

The leftists accepted the Arab propaganda version of Middle Eastern history and see their role as making amends for alleged "wrongs" committed against the Palestinian Arabs. When the Labor Party formed a coalition with Meretz, it was assumed that Meretz would be the junior partner. What we have witnessed is the virtual infusion of extreme left-wing philosophy into the body of Labor.

Peres took this "Israeli or Jewish guilt" and developed it into a "peace" policy based on rectifying "wrongs" committed against the Palestinian Arabs. The leftists saw the most serious "wrong" as being the occupation itself. Jewish rule over a minority of Arabs was considered so immoral, in and of itself, as to cause a destructive decline in Israeli democracy and public morality. The details of maintaining the occupation, like reserve duty in Gaza, were said to cause everything from violence in the home to reckless driving.

Divorcing Israel from the territories was seen as a goal for Israel and not just a victory for the Arabs.

I describe the Peres "peace" policy as the "dhimmization of Israel." It was based on virtually giving the Arabs everything they wanted: a PLO state in most of the territories, control of land and water, return of refugees, and a shared status for Jerusalem. His belief was that by Israeli actions and concessions, he could terminate Arab hostility to Israel. Peres exhibited the fallacy of believing that anti-Semitism is caused by the "bad behavior" of Jews. He failed to understand that there are major forces of religion, history and psychology in the one billion strong Islamic world that can not be manipulated by anything that Israel does.

Would the Holocaust have been prevented if the Jews of Europe had been "nicer" to the Nazis? By shrinking Israel to a size that was non-threatening to the Arabs, Peres hoped to achieve for Israel the status of a dhimmis-nation in the Islamic world. Dhimmis status, you will recall, is the inferior third-class status afforded Jews in Arab countries throughout the centuries.

Now Prime Minister Barak was willing to give the Golan Heights to Syria despite the full knowledge that this would weaken Israel and make it more vulnerable to attack. The concurrent loss of one third of Israel's water resources would further weaken Israel. What is hard for rational Jews and Israelis to understand is that weakening Israel is precisely the purpose of the 'peace process.'

Israel, with its powerful military and independent citizens, had always been an affront to Moslems everywhere.

Therefore, Jews should be made subservient, weak and dependent on the approval of their Moslem overlords. Peres understood that Israel in its present borders was too strong to be destroyed. He also understood that the Arabs were offended that they could not destroy Israel within its defensible borders. The Peres solution seems to involve making Israel weak, creating a PLO state, and even groveling before Arab rulers. Such an emasculated dhimmis-like Israel, would now win the approval of the Islamic world. He would call it "peace." Some would call it appeasement. Some would cheer. Some would protest. Freeman Center members (and real Zionists) see the Peres/Barak/PLO/Syria plan as a nightmare and pray that Israel's leaders will come to their senses and return to a policy of deterrence, security and defense of Israeli interests.


Israel must preempt the threats described in the article below and NOT ACCEPT A FIRST STRIKE AS INEVITABLE. Survival depends on it. Ein Brera


Israel Braces For The Iranian Rain Of Fire


November 5, 2010: The head of Israeli military intelligence warned his political superiors that the next major war Israel encountered would likely result in much higher Israeli casualties, especially to civilians. There is also growing concern about Russia selling advanced anti-aircraft systems to Syria, which could pass them on to Iran.

All this could be traced back to preparations Iran has been making for over a decade. Using their oil wealth, and weapons smuggling network, Iran has armed Syria, Hezbollah (the Shia militia in southern Lebanon) and Hamas (the Palestinian terrorist group that runs Gaza) with over 50,000 rockets, plus numerous other weapons. Most of the rockets are short range (about 10 kilometers), but several thousand have a much longer reach, and can hit targets throughout Israel.

The Iranian master plan is for Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran to simultaneously fire as many missiles and rockets into Israel as they can. Even if there are no ground forces to follow up such an attack, the casualties (civilian and military) in Israel would be seen as a great Islamic victory, and would demoralize the Israelis. While Israeli defensive moves could do great damage to Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, Iran considers it a reasonable plan. Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas are not so sure, but Iran already has all the rockets and missiles in place.

Israeli military planners have seen this coming. Over the last three years, Israel has been revising its civil defense plans, and how to deal with the growing arsenal of rockets and ballistic missiles aimed at it. The latest change is the announcement that the military is dispersing its stocks of supplies, equipment and spare parts to a larger number of (better protected) locations.

The basic defense plan assumes a future war with Syria, and gives the local officials an idea of what to expect. Currently, the Israelis estimate that there would be as many as 3,300 Israeli casualties (including up to 200 dead) if Syria tried to use its long range missiles against Israel. If the Syrians used chemical warheads, Israeli casualties could be as high as 16,000. Over 200,000 Israelis would be left homeless, and it's believed about a 100,000 would seek to leave the country.

Israel now assumes that Iran would also fire some of its ballistic missiles as well, armed with conventional warheads. But the big danger is Syria, which is a client state of Iran. Syria has underground storage and launch facilities for its arsenal of over a thousand SCUD missiles. Armed with half ton high explosive and cluster bomb warheads, the missiles have ranges of 500-700 kilometers. Syria also has some 90 older Russian Frog-7 missiles (70 kilometer range, half ton warhead) and 210 more modern Russian SS-21 missiles (120 kilometer range, half ton warhead) operating with mobile launchers.

There are also 60 mobile SCUD launchers. The Syrians have a large network of camouflaged launching sites for the mobile launchers. Iran and North Korea have helped Syria build underground SCUD manufacturing and maintenance facilities. The Syrian missiles are meant to hit Israeli airfields, missile launching sites and nuclear weapons sites, as well as population centers. Syria hopes to do enough damage with a missile strike to cripple Israeli combat capability.

Israel has long been aware of the Syrian capabilities and any war with Syria would probably result in some interesting attacks on the Syrian missile network. The SCUD is a liquid fuel missile and takes half an hour or more to fuel and ready for launch. So underground facilities are a major defensive measure against an alert and astute opponent like Israel.

But Syria has been adding a lot of solid fuel ballistic missiles to its inventory, and recently transferred some of these to Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Hezbollah and Syria would likely coordinate an attack on Israel. Hamas, in Gaza, is a semi-client of Iran, and might be persuaded to join in as well.

No unclassified government planning documents have discussed what Israel would do in response to such an attack, but in the past, Israel has threatened to use nukes against anyone who fired chemical weapons at Israel (which does not have any chemical weapons). But current plans appear to try and keep it non-nuclear for as long as possible.

Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of The Maccabean Online and the Freemanlist. Contact the Center at Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, P.O. Box 35661, Houston, Texas 77235-5661. Phone or Fax at 713-723-6016

This article is archived at
http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/ index.php?/archives/454-PREEMPTION-OR- DESTRUCTION-Which-Should-Israel-Choose.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Natan Nestel, November 15, 2010.

While everybody at the GA was talking about fighting the anti-Israel delegitimization campaign, a Hillel group has been collaborating with it during the last two years.

The young Jews who organized the disruption of the Israeli PM at the GA Conference are members of the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), an organization that is on the ADL's list of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in the US (see here). These young Jews are the product of an insidious strategy of the anti-Israel delegitimization network to penetrate mainstream Jewish organizations and co-opt impressionable, young, and uninformed Jews, turning them into anti-Israel activists.

Eyal Mazor, 22, who recently graduated from UC Berkeley and who is a member of the group (see here) that disrupted Netanyahu's speech, is a case in point. As a student at Berkeley, he got involved, at Hillel, with Kesher Enoshi (KE), a front group of the Students for Justice in Palestine there (SJP is also one of the groups on the ADL's top-10 list). Hillel's Kesher Enoshi, SJP and JVP have organized events defaming Israel, repeating the false accusations that the IDF is guilty of war crimes and that Israel is an apartheid state committing "crimes against humanity." They have also co-sponsored events where Israelis were compared to Nazis. As a result of Hillel's Kesher Enoshi activities, many Jewish students have become anti-Israel activists.

After turning an anti-Israel activist by Hillel's Kesher Enoshi, Eyal Mazor is now involved with Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the organization that organized the disruption of the Israeli PM at the GA Conference (see video of the disruption that the JVP is distributing HERE).

The enclosed article (see here) shows an example of an effective brainwashing method to which Eyal and the other Hillel students have been exposed. Eyal is shown in the attached picture sitting, at the Hillel event, across from Yaman Salahi, the leader of the SJP. Avital Aboody, who sits next to Eyal, was also co-opted. She is now signing petitions calling for sanctions against Israel, working with Breaking the Silence and is a fellow of the New Israel Fund.

The defamotry events organized by Hillel's Kesher Enoshi together with the anti-Israel groups have served as a driving force for the divestment bill at Berkeley last spring. The formerly pro-Israel Jewish students played a key role in the delegitimization campaign at Berkeley (i.e Terri H.). At the student government (ASUC) meetings, Hillel's Kesher Enoshi students were conspicuously active in advocating the adoption of the anti-Israel divestment resolution before the Senate (see Eyal and Terri). Consequently, after hearing Hillel's student leaders speaking in support of the divestment bill, several independent senators were convinced to vote for the anti-Israel measure.

The divestment bill, which the Berkeley student government (ASUC) passed by a majority of 16 to 4, was subsequently vetoed by the ASUC President. Although the veto was sustained, by only one vote, the divestiture coalition succeeded in defining the terms of the debate while simultaneously advancing their narrative. The Berkeley divestment bill has jump-started a national (see see here.) movement to delegitimize Israel and turn her into a pariah state on campuses across the country. The JVP, SJP and the rest of the delegitimization network are now working, with the help of all too many co-opted Jewish students, to move their divestment/delegitimization campaigns from the campus to the general community.

The JVP was founded in Berkeley in 1996. It has become a national organization with over 100,000 members. One of the gravest dangers of the JVP is its strategy to penetrate mainstream Jewish organizations in the community and on university campuses and co-opt impressionable, young, and uninformed Jews, turning them into anti-Israel activists.

Enclosed is a two-part video exposee (see HERE), which we produced last year for the campaign to ensure that the San Francisco Jewish Federation would stop funding Israel demonizing events and groups such as the JVP. Daniel Sokatch, the then CEO of the SF Federation, resigned after the release of the video and became the CEO of the New Israel Fund (NIF).

The very same "leaders" who were involved in the efforts to whitewash the SF Jewish Federation funding of the flagrantly anti-Israeli Rachel event (see here) and the JVP are among those involved in the attempt to cover-up the Berkeley Hillel scandal.

The leaders of the anti-Israel coalition are savvy. They know that the the 400,000 Jewish students on US campuses are the Jewish community's future, future leaders, and are the ones who will determine the American Jewish community's future attitudes toward Israel. They also realize that the immense number of Jewish students on US campuses could potentially become a pro-Israel force that could completely undermine and neutralize their anti-Israel delegitimization campaigns

While our adversaries are effectively focusing on and adversely affecting the vital future generation on the campuses and especially the Jewish students there, we are neglecting this key battleground, and those responsible for Hillel scandal are using their resources to cover it up.

Contact Natan Nestel by email at natannestel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 15, 2010.

This is getting to be a pretty common kind of story. The mayor of Frankfurt invites a Jewish intellectual whose family left Germany in 1932 to speak on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. The problem is that this man, Alfred Grosser, is a ferocious critic of Israel.

Grosser claims the Gaza Strip is a concentration camp (possibly true, but if so it is a concentration camp owned and run by Hamas); calls for ending Israel as a Jewish state; urges Germany to be more critical of Israel; and blames Israeli policies (rather than the deliberate lies about them) as being responsible for increasing antisemitism (isn't that what George Soros said?)

All of this is interpreted by the Christian Science Monitor, and many others, as merely rejecting:

"...the notion that criticism of Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism. If Germans want to criticize the blockade of Gaza or treatment of Palestinians, they should be able to without guilt, many say."

This is the usual absurd response.

But one can criticize Israel's "blockade" of Gaza (I won't explain here why it is needed and, no doubt, the people who criticize it have never read these reasons) without calling it a "concentration camp," which implies deliberate mass murder.

But it is possible to criticize Israel without calling for its extinction-since that is, in fact, what abolishing the existence of a Jewish state means.

But one can say that Israeli policy is an element in growing antisemitism while also listing other elements, including the lying demonization of Israel so prevalent today. Of course, one would then have to talk about all the concessions and risks Israel has taken on behalf of peace in the last twenty years.

And when someone systematically uses such exaggeration, obsessively promotes such hatred, seeks such extreme solutions, sympathizes with those using violence to murder Jews, and leaves out so many facts...it is possible to speak of antisemitism as an element in that overall approach, isn't it?

At times, I reflect, one hears echoes in such rhetoric and activity of a brave, new slogan: Kill the Jews! They really deserve it this time!

Often, however, this kind of talk is actually a result of naiveté and ignorance. This is equally true for Jews who say such things. Being Jewish doesn't make them experts on Israel. But there is also a strong element of opportunism in taking such highly rewarded positions. No Jew need ever starve since he can always make a career bashing Israel.

Yet there is also a remarkable detachment from the facts on the ground.

In an interview, Grosser explains:

"The Palestinians are despised, are occupied and I think that the majority of Israel's citizens despise Palestinians....The central theme of my book [is] that any human being should be respected....As a Jewish boy in a Frankfurt school, I was despised, and even beaten. I can't understand how Jews can scorn others."

But does this have anything much to do with the way Israelis think and behave? Israelis don't "despise" Palestinians in the way Grosser means. Nor are Palestinian (Israeli Arab) students set on and beaten in school or insulted in the streets. On the contrary, such an idea wouldn't even occur to any Israeli but the tiniest minority of most extreme people, who are themselves pretty despised by other Israelis.

What is happening here is that Grosser (and many others) imagine how Israelis behave, then attribute that behavior to them. Often, this means imagining that Israelis behave like Nazis, even though there is no evidence that this is true.

Obviously, there is a decades-long war between them and most Israelis don't love Palestinians (though a remarkable percentage goes out of their way to seek peace and conciliation). Yet compared to other countries at war with each other, Israelis sentiments are definitely at the lowest part of the spectrum concerning hatred or despising.

Anyone can easily ascertain that there is no despising or hating being taught in Israeli media-TV, radio, newspapers, films-or in schools, or in government statements or in the armed forces. Such statements can be found from individuals or at the political extremes, sometimes by radical rabbis, yet it is far less common than the level of despising in a country like Germany against immigrants there or racism in America, or many other such cases. And when incidents of hatred do appear they are widely and officially denounced.

Of course, people like Grosser never consider the behavior of the other side, the relentless, official hatred and despising of Israel (and often Jews) which appears in almost all the media, all the statements of politicians, all the sermons.

Speaking of Gaza as a "concentration camp" this is an appropriate place to mention how the relentlessly anti-Israel Sydney Morning Herald in Australia pubished an article about how wonderful the Hamas regime is in Gaza and extolling its new luxury prison. But buried in it is the following passage about a prison there that the author just let slide by:

"[Prison director Naser] Suleiman is quick to absolve his own institution of such practices. ''We do not practice any torture here,'' he says. 'That takes place at the interrogation centre, before people are convicted.'''

Moreover, the one-sided focus on Israel worsens real oppression, hatred, and bloodshed by giving the terrorists and extremists an excuse. The above-mentioned article's author actually blames any mistreatment in Hamas prisons on Israel:

"Just as Hamas struggles to keep order in this restive strip of land of 1.5 million people, Mr Suleiman is trying to do the same inside Gaza's prisons. And just as Israel's blockade of Gaza stunts economic growth and curtails the ambitions of everyday Gazans, it also impairs Mr Suleiman's ability to operate prisons."

Talking about how the terrible nature of the opposition (in Hamas's case, openly antisemitic and preaching genocide against Jews; practicing terrorism; deliberately targeting civilians, etc.) isn't intended to excuse any shortcomings in Israel, but one has to have some way to measure the potential level of hatred and despising going on.

If your enemy is intent on using civilians as human shields and massacring all of yours, this sometimes requires different measures for self-defense. And if the other side is projecting 90 percent hate and Israel 5 percent-the numbers are somewhat arbitrary but also reasonable-that conveys something important. It's funny that Israel is accused of "excessive force" but not credited for its proportionately low level of hatred.

When, for example, two Israeli reservists lose their way on the West Bank and are torn apart (literally) by a Palestinian mob and there is not a single case of retaliation or incitement to violence among Israelis that tells something. Now multiply that by ten thousand incidents.

Western media, academics, and activists often act as if even a single incident by a single Israeli (even if denounced by other Israelis and punished) somehow "proves" that Israel is demonic and worthy of execution. Even the deity only demanded that ten good people out of many hundreds need be found to spare wicked Sodom and Gomorrah. Israel's critics reverse the equation and think finding ten bad ones condemns seven million others.

Of course this doesn't mean Israel is perfect but that's precisely the point: it is unreasonable to expect perfection and once that standard is jettisoned Israel's record can be seen to be remarkably good given the conditions it has faced or even how other democracies have responded to far lower levels of threat.

Come to think of it, when it comes to being "despised" and "scorned," Israel and Israelis aren't the perpetrators, they are on the receiving end.

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
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/11/ hour-of-hanging-judges-demonizing

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, November 15, 2010.

This appeared in the Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in- national/christians-murdered-and-persecuted- middle-east-but-obama-silent


Thousands of Christians from Europe began a demonstration in Brussels on Saturday to protest the escalation of violence against Christians in Iraq and other nations in the Middle East. Unfortunately, when President Barack Obama visited the region, he was silent about the murder and persecution of Christians in Muslim and communist countries.

Syriac Christians have lived in the Muslim-dominated region for centuries and are but a small minority in countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Turkey. The protest march was organized in the wake of several violent attacks against the Christian community in Iraq, a segment of the population that fell from about 1.5 million to only 400,000 over the past decade. As if the United Nations' failure to address the persecution of Christians weren't bad enough, that international body's resolution called "Defamation of Religions" will lay the legal ground work for a country to legalize persecution of their citizens if they believe in a different religion than the state. Such a resolution would be of great assistance to Muslim, communist and socialist nations who view the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible impediments to their political or theological goals.

Few should be surprised that the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization of 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has been working for several years through the United Nations system to justify and advance the Defamation of Religions Resolution. The Resolution, introduced in the UN, seeks to criminalize words or actions that are deemed to be against a particular religion, especially against Islam.

Also, the campaign to demonize and de-legitimize Israel in every UN and international forum was initiated by the Arab states together with the Soviet Union, and supported by what has become known as an "automatic majority" of Third World member states. At the same time, it instituted a series of related measures that together installed an infrastructure of anti-Israel propaganda throughout the UN, according to the UN Watch web site.

Although proponents justify the "defamation of religion" concept as protecting religious practice and promoting tolerance, opponents say it really promotes intolerance and human rights violations of religious freedom and freedom of speech for religious minorities in these countries.

The Defamation of Religions Resolution has the effect of providing international legitimacy for national laws that punish blasphemy or otherwise ban criticism of a religion.

The Muslim members of OIC are expected to propose to the UN General Assembly another "defamation of religions" resolution to be voted on late November/early December of this year.

According to critics of the United Nations, officials in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea continue see Christianity as a threat to their philosophy of state control. While North Korean authorities deny imprisoning, torturing and killing Christians — in the same way they denied working on a nuclear weapon — Christians living North Korea have suffered government-sanctioned persecution since the brutal communist regime came to power.

The Christian human-rights group Open Doors reports that North Korea is number one on its annual World Watch List (WWL), which "ranks countries by the "intensity of persecution that Christians face for actively pursuing their faith." However, North Korea and Iraq are not the only countries whose Christian population are mistreated, abused and killed on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, as previously reported in NewswithViews.com, at least 52 Iraqi Christians were killed and over 60 injured in a terrorist inspired bloodbath at Baghdad's Our Lady of Deliverance Catholic Church. U.S. special forces troops, together with Iraqi security forces, launched a deadly attempt to free the Christian being held hostage by the terrorist captors.

The Al Qaeda-linked "Islamic State of Iraq" claimed responsibility and threatened to "exterminate Iraqi Christians." This shadowy jihad terror network justified the savagery on religious grounds, claiming that the church was an "obscene nest of the polytheists [infidels]" and a "base for their struggle against the religion of Islam."

Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, more than half of Iraq's Christian population has been forced by targeted violence to seek refuge abroad or to live away from their homes as internally displaced people.

While President Barack Obama is visiting India, he's careful not to mention the ongoing persecution of Christians. Few Americans know about the growing violence against Christians in places like India today and U.S. political leaders fail to address the brutality and persecution Indian Christians are enduring.

Believers are cut off, out of sight, and forgotten, according to Open Doors officials. "It's time for Christians in the United States to help in protecting their brothers and sisters overseas," says political strategist and Christian Mike Baker. Now the officials at Open Doors — a Christian ministry that reaches out to those in prison, helps defend those without advocates and protects defenseless Christian families — has initiated a campaign to halt the U.N.'s threat to religious freedom and tolerance.

Called Free to Believe,its goal is to generate support against the anti-Christian U.N. resolution that will lay the legal ground work for a country to legalize persecution of their citizens if they believe in a different religion than the state.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Albert Wendroff, November 15, 2010.

This was written by Elad Benari.


A report which documents the United States government's Nazi-hunting operation has concluded that intelligence officials created a "safe haven" in the United States for Nazis and their collaborators after World War II.

The New York Times reported this past weekend about the 600-page report, which was written four years ago but which the U.S. Justice Department has tried to keep under wraps. The report, which catalogs the work of lawyers, historians and investigators at the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations (O.S.I.), which was created in 1979 to deport Nazis, provides new evidence about more than two dozen of some of the most notorious Nazi cases of the last three decades.

Talking about "the government's collaboration with persecutors," the report goes into detail about previous acknowledgements made by scholars and previous government reports that the C.I.A. used Nazis for postwar intelligence purposes. According to the report, O.S.I investigators learned that some of the Nazis "were indeed knowingly granted entry" to the United States, despite the fact that government officials were aware of their pasts. It concludes that the number of Nazis who entered the United States was almost certainly much smaller than 10,000, a figure which is widely cited by government officials.

Among the Nazis who were aided by American intelligence officials and whom the report discusses is Otto Von Bolschwing, an associate of Adolf Eichmann who had helped develop the initial Nazi plans to eliminate German Jews. Von Bolschwing later worked for the C.I.A. in the United States. The C.I.A. was aware of his Nazi past, as is evident in a chain of memos in which they discuss what to do if he were confronted about his past.

Another case mentioned in the report is the case of Arthur L. Rudolph, a Nazi scientist who ran the Mittelwerk munitions factory. Rudolph was brought to the United States in 1945 as part of an American program that recruited scientists who had worked in Nazi Germany. A 1949 memo written bythe Justice Department's No. 2 official and cited in the report urges immigration officers to let Rudolph back in the country after a stay in Mexico. The official says that failure to allow Rudolph re-entry "would be to the detriment of the national interest."

The Justice Department has resisted making the report public since 2006, but under threat of a lawsuit recently agreed to turn it over to a private research group, the National Security Archive. However, the version that was handed over had many sections missing, including a chapter on the case against John Demjanjuk. The chapter is missing part of a 1993 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that raised ethics accusations against Justice Department officials.

Also omitted are references to Dr. Mengele, including how a director at the O.S.I. kept a piece of scalp that was thought to belong to Mengele in his desk, in hopes that it would help establish whether he was dead. The chapter describes the efforts by the O.S.I. to determine whether Mengele had fled to the United States and might still be alive.

Documents that have long been available to the public are also omitted. These include court decisions, Congressional testimony and front-page newspaper articles from the 1970s. The version reported on in the New York Times, however, is a complete version obtained by the newspaper.

The Times quotes the Justice Department as saying that the report was never formally completed and did not represent its official findings. The Departments added that the report included "numerous factual errors and omissions," but would not say what they were

Contact Albert Wendroff at wendroff39@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, November 15, 2010.

This article appeared today in The Atlantic and is archived at
http://schanzer.pundicity.com/8336/how- egypt-is-helping-iran-to-circumvent-sanctions


If you ever find yourself in downtown Tehran, it's hard to miss the five-story-tall mural commemorating Khaled al-Islambouli, the man who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in October 1981. The mural has long been a symbol of Iran's deep disdain for Egypt's secular rulers, particularly their peace with Israel and their alliance with the U.S. The mutual animosity has endured over the years, from Egyptian support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War to the 2009 arrest of 26 members of an Iran-backed Hizbullah cell in Egypt. In recent years, Cairo has also expressed its staunch opposition to Iran's nuclear program, which Egypt and other Arab states view as a threat.

But Egypt-Iran relations are not as black-and-white as they may seem. Egypt is expanding its financial ties with Iran through a jointly owned financial institution: the Misr Iran Development Bank. MIDB was founded in 1975, four years before Iran's Islamic revolution, and has somehow endured the tumult since. Today, the MIDB may have become a vehicle for Iran to circumvent economic sanctions with extensive help from Egypt, one of America's closest allies in the region. It is a testament to how difficult it can be for the U.S. to enforce international sanctions, even among countries that appear to be natural allies in the effort to deter Iran.

Egypt controls 59.86 percent of MIDB, split evenly between the state-owned National Investment Bank and Misr Insurance Company, which is partially owned by the state. Iran's 40.14 percent share in MIDB, worth about $80 million, is held by the Iran Foreign Investment Company. The IFIC is the investment arm of Iran's Oil Stabilization Fund, a sovereign wealth vehicle that generates profits for the Iranian government, with investments in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and beyond.

Tehran created the stabilization fund in 1999 to help insulate it from the gyrations of the oil market. When oil was up, the regime threw money into the fund and invested it through the IFIC. When oil was down, Iran withdrew money from the IFIC's investments to make up the shortfall. In the face of severe international sanctions, Iran has been withdrawing heavily of late. This August, when it became clear that the stabilization fund enabled the Iranians to resist international sanctions, the U.S. Treasury Department placed it on the Iranian Transactions Regulation (ITR) list, an administrative designation that made it unlawful for Americans to do business with the company because it is "wholly owned by the Government of Iran."

The Iranian regime looks to exercise similarly direct influence in the MIDB. The bank's website reveals that one of four members Tehran named to the board is "Dr. Davood Ebrahim Danesh Jafari." More commonly known as Davud Danesh-Jafari, he was Iran's minister of economy and finance affairs under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from 2005 to 2008.

The IFIC may now be positioning the Egyptian bank as a vehicle to circumvent international sanctions. In 2009, as the international community began to discuss ways to punish the Islamic Republic for its illicit nuclear program, the bank transferred $50 million to Iran, according to the government-controlled Tehran Times.

Then, as the U.S., European Union, and UN enacted sanctions on Iran in July of this year, the same state-owned paper reported IFIC managing director Mehdi Razavi announcing that the MIDB would open its first official branch in Iran. This enables Iran to make unfettered transfers. Egypt's cooperation implies that the two nations' economic ties are only going to deepen, despite the clear U.S. and UN desire to stop exactly these kinds of deals.

Egypt, one of America's closest allies in the Middle East and the recipient of more U.S. foreign aid than any country in the world save Israel, is certainly not planning on becoming a rogue state allied with Iran. If nothing else, the quiet nature of this economic cooperation suggests Egypt would prefer to remain in good U.S. graces. But Egypt is clearly hedging between Iran and the U.S. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime is likely concerned about growing Iranian influence in the region. Perhaps the decision makers predict that U.S. influence will wane after leaving Iraq, or perhaps they simply see an opportunity for a profitable joint venture.

Whatever motivates Egypt's deal making, the U.S. will need to address both the MIDB and the Egyptian leadership if the international sanctions regime against Iran is to remain intact.

President Obama's first choice will probably be to dispatch State Department diplomats to quietly coerce Egypt to divest from its Iranian joint venture. However, that could take a while. When Hamas began importing weapons from the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip through smuggling tunnels Tehran was financing, it took six years for the State Department to convince Cairo to crack down. And that was when the threat was right on Egypt's doorstep.

The White House could also handle this through the Treasury Department (where I used to work as an intelligence analyst). According to a report on Iran's global banking network by Red Cell Intelligence Group, a company owned by a former U.S. Treasury official, the MIDB has correspondent relationships with three U.S. banks: New York Mellon, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase.

If Treasury were to place the MIDB on its list of Iran-controlled institutions with which Americans are banned from doing business, it would effectively sever all ties between MIDB and these American banks. This could be done relatively quietly, allowing Iran and Egypt to haggle over the bank behind closed doors.

Whatever path the U.S. takes to the MIDB, the White House (and perhaps Congress) will need to look at the bigger picture of Iran-Egypt collaboration. Shutting down the MIDB is one thing, but it will be quite another to determine--and, hopefully, to correct--the economic, political, or military concerns that led Egypt to expand this disconcerting joint venture.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at js@defenddemocracy.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, November 15, 2010.

This was written by Prof. Eugene Narrett, the author of five books about cultural history and Israel related issues. His latest book is Culture of Terror: The Collapse of America (May 2009). Dr. Narrett blogs at www.israelendtimes.com. He is available to lecture and his services are available as an editor or co-writer of fiction or non-fiction projects. For more information please contact Dr. Narrett at http://israelendtimes.com/contact.


Many cultural, moral, economic and strategic principles and events bind America uniquely close to Israel. Each is a unique nation, America being unique in the West for the degree of tolerance it has extended to Jews, a situation perhaps stemming from the strong respect for and knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures by those people who gave America its character.

Now the two nations, specifically the soldiers of these two nations share another bond: each is targeted by internationalist academic 'peaceniks' as being in the unifier of an army filled with imperialists and rapists.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a premise among the world's major media that Israel is an imperialist power: perhaps this is why the core of the "peace process" is the expulsion of Jews from Judea and the rest of the historic heartland of Israel. Ethnic cleansing of Jews for "peace" shows the hypocritical and vicious character of this process and of those professing pacifism and justice.

To bolster their position, and in a combination of denial and projection, these 'scholars' accuse Israeli soldiers, whose restraint in the face of Arab violence is startling and perhaps absurd, of ethnic cleansing and rape. When no evidence of rape is found, academics in Israel concoct theories that Israeli soldiers do not rape Arabs because they are "racists."

Being thrust into such a double-bind is familiar to American conservatives whose support for Israel, for many good reasons, remains high despite the drift of major media bias.

The Jews of Israel, not least its settlers and soldiers truly are in a no-win situation. If the settlers join the army and fight alongside those commanded by regimes that vilify them, prohibit them from building homes or even expel them from their homes they are accused of trying to take over the army. If they occasionally are less eager to re-enlist or serve (as is routine among many critics of Jewish "occupation" of Judea), they are accused of being hostile to the State and sluggards. In any case, it is their 'intransigence' for wanting to live in their homes that is responsible for jihad ongoing now for fourteen centuries.

Similarly, if Israelis soldiers don't rape, it's because they are racist.

Now American soldiers have been slandered in the same way. Penelope Blake, a Professor at Rock Valley College, appearing on FOX exposed an a-historical and vicious anti-American agenda at an NEH-funded conference. America was blamed for the attack on Pearl Harbor, for World War Two in the Pacific and American soldiers were charged with being rapists. According to Professor Blake, when she confronted one of the participants after a panel he insisted that the American military was similar in its behavior to the Japanese in World War Two. Americans, especially in the military, were charged with formulating self-serving propaganda about the War presenting themselves as good guys.

Try convincing Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans or others in East Asia that American soldiers behaved like the Japanese during World War Two or afterward...

The facts, once fairly well known when history still was taught in American public schools, are that during World War Two the Japanese army had an ugly record of wholesale and violent rape and pillage. The use of scores of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of "comfort women" from countries they overran in the field or their export to Japan for similar service was well known.

There is nothing remotely like this in the history of the American armed forces. The tendency of academics and a certain political party to deride and vilify American tradition, principles and Americans shows a deeply perverse spirit, ignorance and, in some cases perhaps service to those funding the take-down of America, great bulwark against global collectivism. It is similar with Israel whose founding tenets make national sovereignty a distinctive feature of identity.

In any case, now the American people and military and Israelis, most of whom still serve in what remains a citizens' army have yet another bond in common: not for the first, or even the hundredth time they find themselves castigated and slandered in similar ways by the same kinds of mindless, hare-filled, leftwing groups whose ignorance of history is matched by their notion that "global governance" is a path to peace. These cadres are so dazzled by "peace" that an MSNBC host recently ranted about the need for "violent revolution" against what he perceived, characteristically as an alliance of the military, corporate and "right wing" forces in America.

Imagine a conservative Tea Party adherent or activist advocating "violent revolution" on TV or radio. The pack of independent minds would be out in full cry bellowing for indictments and loss of the offender's FCC license.

The silver lining to these kinds of slander and subversion of history is that Americans and Israelis, those who still can think, realize that they are targeted by the same kinds of haters and that, truly, they represent what is best and most hopeful in a floundering world. Moshe Phillips is the President of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel/AFSI. The chapter's website is at: www.phillyafsi.com. Moshe's blog can be found at
http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com and Moshe tweets at http://twitter.com/MoshePhillips

To Go To Top

Posted by Asher Eder, November 15, 2010.

Below is my reflection on the conflict, which we should never talk about as Israel-Palestine conflict but call it what it is: an Arab/Israel War, in which the Arabs (mis)use the Palestinians as proxy, or kind of spearhead, against Israel.

Dr. Asher Eder



In Islam, the term Jihad besides fighting one's own evil inclinations, can also have the meaning of waging a "Holy War" against an enemy of Islam and/or Muslim peoples or nations. In the latter case, it is the response of an army — not of individuals to persecution or oppression of a Muslim people, and in this case Jihad has to be declared by the Caliph. (Note: since the collapse of Turkey in WWI, there is no Caliphate, therefore no Jihad could be waged legally). Notwithstanding this legal definition, Muslim nations waging wars, even against other Muslim nations in recent years, labeled them as "Jihad" (e.g. Iraq against Persia; Egypt against Yemen); they inflated the idea of Jihad far beyond its original meaning to suite their temporary interests.

Here in Israel today, we are confronted with a different kind of Jihad. Jihad against the Jews was demanded by Mufti Amin El-Husseini already in 1943 [i.e. five years before the founding of the State of Israel!]. As a friend and ally of Nazi-Germany, he broadcast over Radio Berlin: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them, this is pleasing to Allah."

Following this call, Jihad was demanded by the "Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research." This conference was attended by high ranking delegates from 24 Muslim countries, and was convened in 1969 at the behest of Gaml Abd-el-Nassr--then President of Egypt--at Cairo's Al Azhar University. The proceedings were published in 1970 by the office of the "General Organization for Government Printing "in Cairo, in Arabic with an official English translation.

In its "Resolution and Recommendations"... the Conference states:
(a) That the causes for which combat and Jihad must be taken up as defined in the Holy Qura'n are all manifest in the Israeli aggression.."
(b) ............
(c) The Conference calls for strengthening the struggle which is being waged by the Palestinian people [note: by the Palestinian people; not against them!], and providing it with all means of escalating the battle to fulfill its objective...............

Fifthly :
(a) "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into [the hearts of] the enemies of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but who God doth know (Sura VIII, 60)."

Sixthly :
(a) The Conference denounces the support of certain countries for Israel and Israel's aggression, and declares such support to be a challenge to Muslim peoples, a demonstration of enmity toward them, and a total disregard of their sentiments.
(b) The Conference declares that Muslims everywhere will not remain mere spectators in the face of Zionist racist covetousness in the Arabic and Islamic worlds; nor will they shrink from giving their lives in defence of their countries and sanctuaries, and for the restoration of their usurped land......." (literal transcript from the "Proceedings")

We should not think that neither the Camp David Agreement with Egypt, nor the Oslo Accords with the PLO, has rendered the above calls for Jihad obsolete. Rather, the Jihad psychosis generated by the calls for Jihad (those quoted as well as numerous others) has bred groups like "Islamic Jihad", "Hamas", and "Hizbullah." Significantly enough, the PLO's late "Minister of War" was given the name "Abu Jihad" [liter. "Father of the Holy War"]; and even the name of the PLO's chieftain, Arafat, is a nom de guerre, a campaign slogan. Taken from the name of a hill next to Mecca, it signifies the culmination of a Muslim's haj (pilgrimage). So Yassir Arafat is to be the culmination of liberating the entire land of Palestine (PLO = Palestine Liberation Organization). Even after his death, he remains the symbol figure for that end.

These terror groups enjoy widespread material and ideological support in the Muslim world. Their fighters are celebrated as heroes; Muslim states grant them shelter and backing (e.g. via UN resolutions); and not even suicide bombers etc. are considered terrorists in these societies — rather they are promised entry into Paradise if killed in action.

Obviously, fighting these terrorists with conventional weapons (police, military actions, etc.) can at best be only one means of defense. Unfortunately, the notion that improving the economic situation would pull the carpet out from under the Jihad bigots has not proved correct. (Note: The Palestinian Arabs enjoy a higher standard of living than most of their Arab neighbors. Further more, Jihad groups are financed mainly by the wealthiest Muslim nations!)

It seems to me that the psychological/religious aspect of the battle is no less important; indeed it deserves immediate full attention and action. Fortunately, here we do not have to use ploys. It is the Koran [Qura'n] itself which in due time can help defuse the Jihad psychosis, pacify the minds of the Muslim peoples, and pave the way for dependable peace with Israel.

I have developed this theme in an article entitled: "Peace Is Possible Between Ishmael And Israel According To The Koran." It carries a supportive foreword by the Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi. My point is further supported by the fact that there are now quite a few Muslim countries that do not adhere to the (pseudo-religious) call for Jihad against Israel, but rather have established full diplomatic relations with her. Notable among them are Uzbekistan, and Kazakstan, two Muslim countries with over 40 million inhabitants!


An independent institute headed by relevant scholars should be entrusted with this task, and be endowed with the necessary means to work towards neutralizing the Jihad psychosis; to calm the agitated minds of many Muslims; and to work for developing a spiritual atmosphere conducive to establishing a trustworthy peace benefiting all parties involved.

Dr. Asher Eder
Jewish Co-Chairman
Israel-Ishmael Fellowship
A division of the Root & Branch Assoc., Jerusalem
Fax: 972-2-6739012; rb@rb.org.il ; www.rb.org.il


The incitement by some Muslim circles to annihilate Israel — which began many years before Israel's Declaration of Independence — is on the rise. It threatens not only Israel; it endangers the whole world. It is a crime against national and international laws at least on a par with neo-Nazi incitements and hostilities.

The advocates of Israel's destruction pretend that waging war against her is Jihad, a religious duty, while in fact it is not Jihad at all. It plainly contradicts the teaching of the Qur'an, as well as the tenet of the oneness of Allah: Jihad against Israel is a contradiction in terms, and pretends that fratricide is divine decree!

Mere reliance on protection by soldiers and armed policemen will not solve the problem caused by those who attack Jews and Israel, and claim that doing so is Jihad; nor would economic means or other political devices do the trick. It does not make much sense to negotiate a cease fire with the PA as long as the destruction of the "Zionist entity" is portrayed in the Arab world as a religious duty, or Jihad. We should expose its frenzy and make clear to our neighbors that normal relations with Israel are in line with the teaching of the Qur'an, and not a betrayal of Islam1.

In the present situation, a real Jihad (literally: a religious duty carried out in spite of severe hindrances) worthy of that name and in line with the teaching of the Qur'an, would consist of pursuing brotherly relations between the descendants of Israel and the descendants of Ishmael. This would benefit all, and would honor the Name of the G-d of Abraham, our common ancestor. The present Jihad being waged — in fact hatred and fratricide — constitutes a real betrayal of Islamic Holy Writ.

There are many ways to drive home this point: in the classrooms; radio and TV broadcasts, newspapers; leaflets, diplomatic channels, re-educate imprisoned Jihadists; and so forth. The means are at hand — we simply need to employ them, and do it diligently.


x) see the essay, "Peace is Possible between Ishmael and Israel according to Qur'an and Tanakh" available from the above address.

Dr. Asher Eder is the Jewish Co-Chairman and Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi Muslim Co-Chairman of the Islam-Israel Fellowship, Root & Branch Association Ltd, Jerusalem. Contact Asher Eder by email at avrason@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, November 15, 2010.

"They Must Go" was written in 1980, and printed in 1981.

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:


But There is a G-d in Israel (excerpts)

The analysis and proposed transfer of Arabs from Israel that I have set down are not personal views. They are certainly not political ones. This is the Jewish outlook, based on halakah, the law as postulated in the Torah.

The removal of all Arabs who refuse to accept the exclusive, unquestioned Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael is not only logical and normal for any Jew with a modicum of an instinct for self-preservation; it is also the Jewish halakic obligation. It is important that we know this in order to realize what true "Jewishness" really dictates and in order to instill in ourselves the faith and assurance that if we do this, all the nations in the world will be incapable of harming Israel.

The Jewish people are not merely one more nation. "Though I put an end to all the nations among whom thou art scattered, but I will never put an end to thee" (Jeremiah 30:11). Israel is indestructible. It is unique, it is holy, it is the Chosen of the L-rd; it has a reason for being. Its national uniqueness is built on an idea, on an ideology, that it alone has. The Jew is selected and obligated to be a religio-nation, commanded to obey the laws and follow the path of Torah. The covenant. The Jewish people took upon itself the yoke of the L-rd, acknowledging Him as G-d and observing His laws. The Almighty chose them as His unique people, pledging that they would be indestructible and would live in peace and prosperity in their own land, Eretz Yisrael.

The land was given as a reward, as a blessing. But it is more, much more, than that. The people of Israel have more than a right to the land; they have an obligation. "For you shall pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the Land which the L-rd your G-d gives you, and you shall possess it and dwell therein" (Deuteronomy 11:31).

A unique people given, uniquely, a particular land. Unlike all the other faiths that are not limited to one special country, the Jew is given a particular land and commanded to live there. And for a reason, as Moses explains: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the L-rd, my G-d, commanded me, that you shall do so in the Land whither you go to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:5).

It is impossible to create a holy, unique people that dwells as a minority within lands that belong to others. The majority culture must infiltrate, influence, corrupt, woo, tempt, pervert. The Jew is commanded to create for himself a holy nation, and that can only be done free of others, separate, different, apart. That is why the unique nation, chosen for holiness and unique destiny, was given a land for itself: so that it might create a unique, holy society that would be a light unto the nations who would see its example and model.

And as the Torah clearly commanded: And you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you...But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass that those which you let remain of them, shall be thorns in your eyes and thistles in your sides and shall torment you in the land wherein you dwell. And it shall be that I will do to you as I thought to do to them" (Numbers 3:52-56).

Far better than foolish humans did the Almighty understand the dangers inherent in allowing a people that believed the land belonged to it to be given free and unfettered residence, let along ownership, proprietorship, citizenship. What more natural thing than to ask to regain that it believed to be rightly its own land? And this over and above the need to create a unique and distinctly separate Torah culture that will shape the Jewish people into a holy nation. That "uniqueness" can be guaranteed only by the non-Jew's having no sovereignty, ownership, or citizenship in the state that could allow him to shape its destiny and character.

This is Torah. This is Jewishness. Not the dishonest pseudo "Judaism" chanted by the Liberal secularists who pick and choose what "Judaism" finds favor in their eyes and who reject what their own gentilized concepts find unacceptable. They weigh "Judaism" on the scales of their own intellectual arrogance — arrogance, incidentally, of intense ignorance.

And if this is not only the right of Jews but their obligation, what do we fear? Why do the Jews tremble and quake before the threat of the nations? Is there no longer a G-d in Israel? Have we lost our bearings that we do not understand the ordained historical role of the State of Israel, a role that ensures that it can never be destroyed and that no further exile from it is possible? Why is it that we do not comprehend that it is precisely our refusal to deal with the Arabs according to halakic obligation that will bring down on our heads terrible sufferings, whereas our courage in removing them will be one of the major factors in the hurrying of the final redemption?

What is wrong with us? Who blinded us and blocked from our memories the existence and power of the G-d of Israel? Did a Jewish people exist for 2,000 years without state, government, or army, wandering the earth interminably from land to land, suffering pogroms and Holocaust and surviving powerful empires that disappeared into history, just by coincidence? Did a Jewish people return to its land from the far corners of the earth to set up its own sovereign state — exactly as promised in the Bible — through mere natural means? What other nation ever did such a thing? Where are the Philistines of Goliath today? Where is imperial Rome with its Latin and its gods? Who defeats armies in six days, and on the seventh they rest?

Who if not an Israel because there is a G-d in it! The Land of Israel is His divine Land; the State of Israel is His divine hand. History is not a series of random events, disjointed and coincidental. There is a Creator, a Guide, a Hand that plans and directs. There is a scenario to history. The Jew has come home for the third and last time. "But the third shall be left therein" (Zechariah 13:8). The first redemption was that from Egypt; the second, the redemption of Ezra. The third will never end" (Tanhuma, Shoftim 9).

We live in the era of the footsteps of the Messiah, the beginning of the final redemption. The rise of the State of Israel from the ashes of Auschwitz marks the end of the night of black humiliation and agony, of Hillul Hashem, and the beginning of the dawn of the final, total redemption, of Kiddush Hashem, sanctification of G-d's name. The State of Israel is not a "political" creation. It is a religious one No power could have prevented its birth and none can destroy it. It is the beginning of G-d's wrath, vengeance against the nations who ignored, disdained, and humiliated Him, who found Him irrelevant, who "knew Him not." But, it is only the beginning. How the final redemption will come, and when, depends on the Jews.

The exiles shall be ingathered only through "faith" (Mechilta, Exodus). If we have it, if we truly believe in the existence of the Creator and Guider of history, the G-d of Israel, we can bring the final redemption today. "When will the Messiah come? 'Today, as it is said: "Today, if you will hearken unto my voice'" (Psalms 95:7, Sanhedrin 98a).

The Arabs of Israel represent Hillul Hashem in its starkest form. Their rejection of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel despite the covenant between the L-rd of Israel and the Jews constitutes a rejection of the sovereignty and kingship of the L-rd G-d of Israel. Their transfer from the Land of Israel thus becomes more than a political issue. It is a religious issue, a religious obligation, a commandment to erase Hillul Hashem. Far from fearing what the Gentile will do if we do such a thing, let the Jew tremble as he considers the anger of the Almighty if we do not.

Tragedy will be ours if we do not move the Arabs out. The great redemption can come immediately and magnificently if we do that which G-d demands. One of the great yardsticks of real Jewish faith in this time of momentous decision is our willingness to reject fear of man in favor of awe of G-d and remove the Arabs from Israel.

The world? The nations — united or otherwise? What do they matter before the omnipotence of the Almighty?

"Why do the nations rage...the Kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the L-rd and against His anointed...He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the L-rd shall mock them..." (Psalms 2:1-4). The Jewish people and state cannot be destroyed. Their weapon is their G-d. That is reality

Let us remove the Arabs from Israel and bring the redemption.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 15, 2010.

It's time, my friends, to let those who would vote for the new proposed freeze hear from us. Every effort at every level has to be made to stop this.

Under no circumstances communicate in hostile or argumentative terms. Be polite and make your case succinctly and clearly.

Where it is possible, faxes are more effective than e-mails.

From N. America, for faxes, dial 011-972, drop the zero of the area code 02, and continue as given.

There is no time to waste: Act on this, please! without delay.


The proposal — once it is finalized — will be brought to the 15-person Security Cabinet for a vote, which is expected to be very close.

Some on the Security Council are "lost causes": they will never vote against the freeze. There are four people who are key — people who might, or should have the inclination to vote against it, people who are not inherently left-wing by any means, but who will cooperate with the prime minister for political expediency or narrow interests of one sort or another.

The first two people are the Shas representatives in the Cabinet. Faction head Eli Yishai has already said that he will abstain from voting (which shifts the count automatically, as he would vote against if he voted) if there were massive building in Jerusalem and a promise from Obama that certain specific communities in Judea and Samaria would be permitted to build after the freeze.

Eli Yishai (Minister of Internal Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister)
Phone: 02-640-8408 or 02-640-8407
Fax: 02-666-2909
E-mail: eyishay@knesset.gov.il

Ariel Atias (Minister of Housing)
Phone: 02-640-8338
Fax: 02-649i-6713
E-mail: aatias@knesset.gov.il

Remind them that they are religious members of the government and have a responsibility to protect the land. Let them know that you are counting on them to vote with their conscience to protect Eretz Yisrael. Implore them not to abstain, but to cast votes against the new freeze in Judea and Samaria.

Then two members of Likud must be contacted.

Yuval Steinitz (Minister of Finance)
Phone: 02-649-6115
Fax: 02-649-6579
E-mail: ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il

Gideon Sa'ar (Minister of Education)
Phone: 02-640-8319
Fax: 02-649-6578
E-mail: gsaar@knesset.gov.il

Let them know how saddened and deeply disappointed you are by reports that they will support the freeze. Implore them to put political considerations aside and to vote their conscience, opposing a new freeze on building in Judea and Samaria.


As I have indicated, the proposal has not been finalized: details are still being ironed out. Thus it is theoretically possible (I know, it's a bit of a stretch) that in the end Netanyahu will not be satisfied with that final agreement. It is worth the effort, I think, to let the prime minister know how alarmed you are with what is being proposed, and to implore that — in order to protect Israel's genuine best interests — he not bring it to the Security Cabinet. Remind him what horrendous pressure he will be under to resolve borders with the Palestinian Arabs within 90 days. And let him know that his coalition will be at risk.

Prime Minister Netanyahu
Fax: 02-670-5369
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses


Numbers matter. Pass this message to others, please. Particularly in Israel this is important — send out e-mails and post this on blogs read in Israel. Where it is possible, share this with religious Sephardi voters in Israel, as this is the constituency that Shas represents. Such persons, writing to the Shas members of the Cabinet, should let them know who they are, and that they vote and would be most distressed if Shas did not actively oppose the freeze.

The real secret, of course, is to get to Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, the presumptive spiritual head of Shas.

There is a great deal of activity being promoted by those in the Knesset, the government, and organizations representing the Judea and Samaria communities, to stop the second freeze from happening.


Because the proposal is not finalized in writing, different versions have been reported in different places. I want to correct one matter that I apparently got wrong yesterday. As to a second set of 20 fighter jets, presumably they would be given to Israel, not sold.

There is a proviso, however. Uzi Landau, in an interview with Army Radio today, makes the very important point that just because the US promises doesn't mean the American government will deliver on the promise. He referred in particular to a US promise to then-PM Barak in 2000 to provide Israel with $800 million in cash if we pulled out of Lebanon. Where is that money? asked Landau.

I noticed, as well, that some of what the news is referring to is uncomfortably vague, with wording such as "the US will take into consideration," which, in the end is no assurance at all. All the talk about allowing Israel a presence in the Jordan Valley and promoting Israel's security interests is uncomfortably amorphous and means nothing.


Yoram Ettinger has written an important piece examining just this problem:

"President Obama stridently disavows President Bush's understandings — with Israel — concerning sustained natural growth construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as well as — supposedly — future Israeli sovereignty over "settlement blocs" in Judea and Samaria. What does such a disavowal bode for the credibility and durability of President Obama's promises to — and understandings with — Israel?!

"The discussion, in Jerusalem, of Obama's proposed commitments in return for the continued freeze of Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem (while Arab construction is at an all time high!) reflects miscomprehension of the US political system, ignores lessons from past US commitments and guarantees...

"...An examination of past US commitments, guarantees and treaties highlights three critical attributes: 1. Non-Specificity, vagueness and ambiguity, intended to facilitate non-implementation. 2. Non-Automaticity which is a platform for delay, suspension and non-implementation. 3. Non-Implementation if implementation harms US interests. For instance, the NATO treaty as ratified by the Senate commits the US only to consider steps on behalf of an attacked NATO member, "as it deems necessary," "including the use of armed forces." Also, in 1954, President Eisenhower signed a defense treaty with Taiwan; but in 1979, President Carter annulled the treaty unilaterally with the support of the US Supreme Court and Congress."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3967569,00.html

You might want to allude to Israel's inability to trust American promises in the communications to the five people above.


There is, as well, the unease caused by the Obama administration promise, for the next year, to veto efforts by the Palestinian Arabs to unilaterally establish a state via the Security Council. For one year only? Limiting this commitment to one year actually overturns a prior US policy, which was to consistently oppose such measures. And so this is not a "gain" at all. What it does is have the effect of further pressuring Israel to come to a deal within the year.

Something else that might be mentioned in the communications to the five.


As your time allows and as you are inclined, it is also very good to let those in the Security Cabinet who are opposed to the freeze know how grateful you are for their strength and their decisions on behalf of Israel. Urge them to use all the influence they have to convince others in the Cabinet to oppose the freeze. Just a couple of lines to each.

Moshe Ya'alon (Likud — Strategic Affairs Minister)

Benny Begin (Likud — Minister without Portfolio)

Silvan Shalom (Likud — Deputy Prime Minister)

Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu, Minister of Foreign Affairs)

Yitzhak Aharonovich (Yisrael Beitenu, Minister of Public Security)

Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu, National Infrastructure Minister)

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Burt Prelutsky, November 14, 2010.

I believe that eventually there will be peace in the Middle East. It will probably only take a few more of these "peace process" sessions before Israel cedes so much land to its enemies that it will simply disappear from the face of the earth.

Part of Israel's problems is that it got suckered into calling some of its territory "settlements". That was so dumb that it gave the lie to the long-held notion that we Jews are smart negotiators.

Let's face it, most of the United States at one time or another belonged to some other country. Sometimes we paid for it, as we did with France and Russia, and sometimes we fought for it. But once it was ours, it stayed ours. We didn't call it a settlement and we didn't hand it over, although I believe that Obama has plans for Arizona that he's not quite ready to announce.

A motto for Jews everywhere, but especially for Israelis, is "never again". It means that never again will Jews quietly enter cattle cars and go off to be exterminated by Nazis — be they pagans or Muslims. That's why I was so surprised that Netanyahu was wasting his time chatting with nincompoops in Washington when he should have been back in Tel Aviv, planning an attack on Iran.

I can only assume that Netanyahu, poor misguided schnook that he is, has his eye on a Nobel Peace Prize. Has everyone forgotten that Hamas, a gang of murderous thugs that everyone but Imam Rauf agrees is a terrorist organization, a group dedicated to the elimination of Israel, controls Gaza? It seems to me that if anyone even utters the words "peace process" within earshot of an Israeli prime minister, he should run in the opposite direction.

Speaking of Hamas reminds me that when people suggest that democracy is the answer to peace on earth, I say it's a load of hooey. Democracy sounds good, but it all comes down to who's voting. In Gaza, Turkey, New York, Minnesota and California, we can readily see the downside of democracy.

The tragic truth is if Iran gets its nukes, "never again" will be as absurd a motto as "hope and change" because, for Israelis, there won't be an "again."

I am not the least bit surprised that, considering his family background and his 20-year affiliation with the Trinity United Church, Obama favors the Arabs and the Muslims in the Middle East. What does astonish me is the silence and apparent acquiescence of Jewish politicians like Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Brad Sherman and Dianne Feinstein, who invariably play the Israel card in order to garner votes and fill their war chests when they're campaigning, but are mute when their party leader shows his obvious preference for the other side.

When Obama was first elected, bigoted liberals predicted that, because he was a black man, a white conservative, no doubt a Tea Bagger, would do him in. Fortunately, in spite of allowing party crashers to slip into the White House, the Secret Service has managed to keep him safe. I, for one, never believed he was in any greater danger than any other president. In fact, I was confident that his greatest risk is that he might fall victim to an exploding ego.

Frankly, I think Obama is the least competent chief executive in my lifetime. And, no, I didn't forget Jimmy Carter. However, if you say that to a liberal, he'll defend Obama, insisting that the president isn't concerned with details because he's a big picture guy.

I couldn't quite grasp the concept until I realized that some of the really big pictures over the past several years have been "Ishtar," "Battlefield Earth," "Alexander the Great," "The Postman," "Town and Country," "Cutthroat Island," "Heaven's Gate," "Waterworld" and "Howard the Duck."

Obama, a big picture man? I should say so. "The Rise and Fall of a Community Organizer" certainly ranks with the worst of those turkeys.

Burt Prelutsky is author of "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (A Hollywood Right-Winger Comes Out of the Closet)." He has been a humor columnist (L.A. Times), a movie reviewer (Los Angeles magazine), a freelancer (NY Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Sports Illustrated, Washington Times, etc.) and written for TV (several movies, plus episodes of MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, McMillan & Wife, Dragnet, Diagnosis Murder, etc., etc.) Contact him by email at burtprelutsky@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Burt Prelutsky, November 14, 2010.

When I consider the brouhaha over the mosque at Ground Zero, the question that springs to mind isn't why Islamics chose such a provocative site, but, rather, why so many Americans feel compelled to pander to Muslims.

Now, I understand that Mayor Bloomberg, being a New York liberal, assumes he is the perfect person to lecture the rest of us about religious tolerance. Lecturing, after all, is what liberals think they're best at, be it from a political dais, a college lectern, a judicial bench or the editorial page of the New York Times. Still, with the enthusiastic endorsement of his colleagues in the media, Bloomberg takes idiocy to new levels. He actually believes that Muslims should be encouraged to erect a 13-story victory structure on sacred ground because we live in a democracy. On the other hand, this lover of freedom and liberty, Nanny Bloomberg, has taken it upon himself to deprive New Yorkers of their right to consume trans fats and salt.

I certainly understand why Barack Obama's initial instinct was to back the building of the mosque, and it certainly wasn't just because he was addressing a group of Muslims at a Ramadan dinner. That was certainly the venue, and Obama, like most people, enjoys applause, which is why we always get to see him addressing union members and deep-pocket Democrats at fund-raising events. But the main reason he backed the mosque is because, no matter where he may have been born, there is a basic disconnect between him and this nation.

That may sound far-fetched, considering that he was elected president of the United States less than two years ago, garnering about 63 million votes. But that was after he and the MSM had successfully pulled the wool over a great many eyes. He has now had time to show his true colors in his America-bashing speeches; by his banishing the little statue of Churchill, while kowtowing to Saudi royalty; by his assuming with no facts at hand that a white Cambridge police officer was stupid and clearly in the wrong; by refusing to connect the Fort Hood assassin or any of the other terrorists with Islam; declining even to prosecute the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters. Heck, this clown won't even cross his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

I used to be so naïve that I assumed the reason that Obama attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist church for 20 years was merely a means to worm his way into Chicago's black community so that he could pursue a career in politics. I have since come to believe that Obama shares Wright's disgusting beliefs. I believe the reason that he, unlike most Americans, Democrats included, think it's a swell idea for the 13-story mosque to be erected is because, like his religious mentor, he is convinced that 9/11 was a case of America's chickens coming home to roost.

Consider, if you will, that the head of NASA was told that one of his primary goals was to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about their achievements in math and science. That meant that in addition to all his other responsibilities, the poor guy was going to have to bone up on ancient, very ancient, history.

Some people would point to the surge in Afghanistan as proof that Obama isn't a Manchurian or at least a Kenyan candidate, but that raises a provocative question: Why announce a deadline for pulling out our troops when such arbitrary dates inevitably encourage our enemies and undermine our allies? Knowing that we intend to be gone within a year, what Afghan with the brains he was born with would dare assist us and antagonize the bloodthirsty Taliban? And what's the big rush, anyway? We still have troops, for God's sake, in Germany, Japan, Korea and Kosovo.

In poker, when a player unconsciously tips his mitt it's called a "tell". With Obama, his tell is when he says, "Let me be perfectly clear." Another sure way to recognize that he's lying is to see if his mouth is moving.

Getting back to the mosque, I kept hearing Islamic spokesmen talking about their fellow Muslims who had been killed on 9/11, suggesting that they, too, had suffered painful losses. So I checked it out. As near as I could figure, 62 Muslims died on that infamous day. That, of course, isn't counting the 19 who were responsible for slaughtering 2,800 non-Muslims. Not to make light of the 62, but numbers are relative and I would guess that hardly a day goes by that Muslims of one sect aren't blowing up at least 62 members of a different sect somewhere in the world.

New York's Governor David Paterson, being yet another mushy-headed liberal, naturally couldn't resist leaping into the fray. In an attempt to broker an agreement, he offered state land to the Muslims as a means to lure them away from lower Manhattan. When I heard that, I found myself wondering why the usual suspects, including the ACLU, weren't raising Cain over the separation of church and state. I guess that only applies when it comes to Christianity and Judaism.

Speaking of non-Islamic theologies reminds me that Barack Obama, when he was addressing wealthy San Franciscans at a fund-raiser in 2008, dismissed millions upon millions of American Christians as "those people clinging to their religion and their guns," but has never once described Islamics as those people clinging to their religion and their suicide bombs.

Burt Prelutsky is author of "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (A Hollywood Right-Winger Comes Out of the Closet)." He has been a humor columnist (L.A. Times), a movie reviewer (Los Angeles magazine), a freelancer (NY Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Sports Illustrated, Washington Times, etc.) and written for TV (several movies, plus episodes of MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, McMillan & Wife, Dragnet, Diagnosis Murder, etc., etc.) Contact him by email at burtprelutsky@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 14, 2010.

This was written by Kalman Liebskind and it was published in Haaretz.

".... This is not political journalism. This is false journalism. Journalism that presents a reality that does not in fact exist. Series of journalists recycled this piece of nonsense without even going to the Interior Ministry to see what this was all about..."


On July 10, 2008 Ha'aretz's main section contained a small story. Not small, tiny. 93 words to be precise:

"The district committee," stated the article, "has approved for public hearing the establishment of 920 housing units in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem." The industrious journalist also included the city's reasons for having chosen to promote the project: "this will serve as a housing alternative for young couples, after the controversial Safdie project was struck down." Back then Ha'aretz did not believe that construction in East Jerusalem was a major story. This article was not even referenced in the front page, which was devoted to a kindergarten teacher who had abused children, a doctor who had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and then committed suicide, and the important legal ruling that "prostitutes will receive minimum wage from their pimps."

More than two years have passed since this meeting of the district committee in Jerusalem. The committee's members, who, as reported by Ha'aretz, approved the plan, have not held a single meetings since 2008. Since that time, the plan has gone through several technical changes. It took nearly two years for the Housing Ministry to approve changes sought by the committee, such as changing the entrance level into the houses, the height of the supporting walls, and parking places.

A few days ago advertisements were published in the newspapers inviting anyone opposing the plan, to do so. Apparently Ha'aretz decided to be the first to voice its objection. Ha'aretz knew that nothing new had occurred. Assuming that they remember what they themselves published two years ago, the paper should have been aware that this was a project that had already been approved.

But two years ago Prime Minister Netanyahu was not on his way to the United States, and this time he was. So Ha'aretz must have thought that this itself warranted the recycling of a story, as if it had never been published, while attempting to create a false image of some news event in the making.

Ha'aretz knows well that Barack Obama will not point out their journalist charlatanism. To the contrary. He and the Arabs serve as excellent partners to Ha'aretz's pyromaniac games. Schocken Publishing tosses the match, while Obama and Saeb Erekat pour the gasoline on it.

This is not political journalism. This is false journalism. Journalism that presents a reality that does not in fact exist. Series of journalists recycled this piece of nonsense without even going to the Interior Ministry to see what this was all about.

Some reported new tenders in Har Homa, of which there were none. Amos Schocken knows that even when he concocts stories of this kind he is walking on solid ground. That the papers in Israel love Netanyahu and construction in Jerusalem about as much as he does. That no one will expose him in his shame. And so he goes about and transforms his paper into a machine constantly charged with inciting the entire world against us. All means are justified as he is prepared to ignite the entire Middle East, just so long as Netanyahu is caught in the flame.

One can hardly avoid the impression that Ha'aretz has chosen to forgo the journalistic experience and has become an actual player on the political field.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Noam Bedein, November 14, 2010.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Yakov Yaakobov Z"L, a husband and father of two young boys, murdered by a Qassam rocket 4 years ago, on the 21st of November 2006, the first day of the month of Kislev.


It's been almost two years since the IDF incursion in Gaza sought to put an end to the Gaza terror regime's daily rocket attacks on the civilian population in Sderot and the Western Negev.

While attacks have been dramatically reduced, the construction of approximately 5,000 new bomb shelters in the Sderot region demonstrates that the "peaceful" situation isn't expected to last.

Israel was successful in its efforts to reduce the threat to its citizens, but not successful in changing world opinion. The international diplomatic and public relations damage has multiplied since the operation in Gaza, and Israel is still having to justify its military actions.

One common theme in global reporting on the IDF incursion focuses on the "disproportionate" death toll: 1,114 deaths in Gaza, and 13 on the Israeli side of the border.

The Gaza deaths are usually reported as mostly civilian casualties; but, according to a report in Haaretz this past week, Hamas admitted that 600 to 700 of those killed were armed terrorists. Given their history of misrepresentation, there's every reason to suspect that Hamas still under-reports its casualties and inflates the number of civilian deaths.

According to Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the vast majority of the rockets from Gaza are launched from among the civilian population. If there is any disproportion in the situation, it's in the fact that Israel must fight an enemy that intentionally uses civilians, hospitals, places of worship, and schools as a shield for terrorists.

I believe that most of us, as Israelis and Jews, care about every civilian casualty on both sides of the fence. No one in Israel pursues relentless war against those who, for 62 years, have sought to destroy us. Israel simply defends itself.

As a photojournalist and a humanitarian, often speaking to government officials and foreign journalists, I've noticed that the casualties in Sderot are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

After four years of personal experience on the front lines of the 'media war', I know that once casualties are mentioned, the other side always compares the numbers to the Gaza narrative and changes the focus to what they call "disproportionate deaths".

This manipulation lets the Palestinian advocates avoid dealing with the underlying cause of death on all sides: the "total war" ideology that calls for the destruction of Israel and of the Jews and vows to continue until their goal is achieved.

The intention and purpose of the aerial attacks launched from Gaza is to kill and traumatize as many civilians as possible. When Israel responds, it does so by pinpointing the target itself and never the civilian population.

While Israelis train children to run to bomb shelters in 15 seconds, the Palestinian leaders train their children to run to roof tops and to become a shahid (martyr) because it plays well in the media.

What about the victims of Hamas rocket terrorism?

The Forgotten Qassam Victim: The Yaakov Yaakobov Family

On Thursday, November 11, 2010, I visited the Yaakobov family, an immigrant family from the Kavkaz mountains in the former USS.

Four years have passed since the father of the family, Yaakov, was killed by a Hamas missile that struck in the Sderot Industrial Zone factory where he was working. Yaakov died from that direct hit on November 21st, 2006, the first day of the month of Kislev.

Three months before Yaakov's death, I moved to Sderot and started my Journalism studies at Sapir college. The November 21st attack was the first massive barrage I had ever experienced. Witnessing this attack, and learning of Yaakov's death, changed my life. Rather than pursuing a degree in Journalism, I decided to put my focus on informing the world about what was going on in Sderot.

Four years later, I went to visit the Yaakobov family to pay respects. Arriving at their home, I didn't even recognize their neighborhood at first. The whole area has turned into a construction zone, with three-storey-high cement bomb shelters attached to the very old apartment buildings that make up this section of Sderot.

"The whole area has turned into a construction zone, with three-storey-high cement bomb shelters attached to the very old apartment buildings that make up this section of Sderot."

Over the past several years I've stayed in touch with the Yaakobov family members and with Yaakov's son Chanan, who was 12 years old when his father died. I got to know Chanan in a summer camp and theater program in the United States that the Sderot Media Center organized in 2007. Chanan is turning 16 on Tuesday November 16th.

I'm bothered by the fact that Chanan's father will never be part of his life and that his death is considered insignificant by those who focus on Israel's "disproportionate" response to terrorism. In 2008, two years after his father was killed, Chanan spoke at the yearly ceremony for terrorist victims and fallen soldiers. He was 14 years old at the time and said he was starting to forget the way his father's face looked.

Chanan and Noam Bedein

Now, four years after Yaakov's death, his wife, Purim, had trouble getting a quorum of ten men to the grave for her sons to make Kadish. A small ceremony was held at their home, with a few family members.

Purim was glad to see me and said that I was the only one who called her to see how she was doing. With Purim's permission, I'm posting her email and asking others to let her know that there are people who still remember and care about her and her family.

I also ask those who have the means to assist in furnishing the family's new bomb shelter bedroom with new book shelves, closets, bed, and an air-conditioner. Maybe even inviting the family for a vacation.

Perhaps someone would like to surprise Chanan, the 16 year old, with a nice birthday present, reminding him that he, his father, and the Yaakobov family have not been forgotten.

Noam Bedein is a photojournalist, lecturer and founder/director of Sderot Media Center. He has conducted briefings and tours for government officials, diplomats, foreign press, and students from around the world. Contact them at

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 14, 2010.

Do you remember, Avraham Aviinu bought The Cave for the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron ?
And he buried his wife Sarah there.
Do you remember, Yaakov Aviinu bought Schem?
And Yosef Hatzaddik is buried there.
Do you remember David HaMelech bought the Temple Mount before he conquered Jerusalem?

Do you remember Sir Moses Montefiore bought Ramgate in 1831 and hence Jews could own land? added a room to Rachel's Tomb in 1841?
In his diary it states there were three yeshivas in Hebron in 1865 and there were 489 inhabitants.
In 1891 Hadassah Hospital in Hebron served the majority of Jews as well as Arabs?
Why won't you remember?
Because you don't remember there is unnaturally limited growth limiting a nation who had a third lost to
the Holocaust, and more lost to the Inquisition, Crusades, invaders and haters.

Do you remember there were 200 families living in Muswara before the 1929 massacre? Muswara is now an Arab parking lot.
Why won't you remember even if there are survivors (who were protected by their mothers dying bodies) still alive?

Do you remember the Romans changed the name of Jerusalem to Aeitola Capitolina, but we didn't?

Do you remember the Romans changed the name of Judea, Samaria, Israel to Palestine after the
Philistines who are a dead race to confuse us?
Why are you confused by the facts or are you ashamed that we survive and are 6,000,000 and growing again in Israel?

Do you remember Mahmoud Abbas alias Abu Mazen wrote a theses denying the Holocaust?
Do you believe this Holocaust denier claimed Rachel's Tomb is a mosque on Halloween and UNESCO validated the Big Lie masked by the Big Liar?
A lie by a non fact is a lie.

Do you remember when Oslo II, 1995 was signed on The Whitehouse Lawn and PM Rabin refused to come out until
the Amendment to protect 29 Jewish Holy Sites was added. This amendment to keep
Rachel's Tomb, Maarat HaMachpelah, The Tomb of Josef and Shalom Synagogue forever under Israeli control
was signed by PA Arafat, Pres. Clinton (Hillary's husband) and PM Rabin and was reported on the front page in The New York Times?
Why are you forgetting and letting history be rewritten according to the dictates of Mein Kampf's rip-map?

Do you remember Tzvi Hirsh Kalisher bought the property across from Rachel's Tomb with the pennies of those
who could not afford to come to Israel
and this memorial may be their only legacy for their generations murdered in the Holocaust,

and it is outside the wall even though recorded by The Israel Land Authority.

Do you remember the 1917 Balfour Mandate for the Jewish State in Palestine included Jordan.for the Arabs which is 78%.

Do you hear that they only want 22%?

Do you know that by ignoring the Mandate for the Jewish State in Palestine the custodian, Britain, denied Jews their right to leave Europe in WWII and sacrificed their very lives? Do you remember that they hung our beautiful youth who wanted to save their brethren? Do you remember the British embargo during WWI and that half the Jewish population of Jerusalem died for lack of food and medicine? How can you forget to remember that there were Jews in Jerusalem lost to the failure of others when they were weak and losing now to failure by self denial when they are strong?

Do you know that Ameirca is proud of its 400 year old settlement of Jamestown 1607 — 2007?

Why would PM Netanyahu negotiate 4000 years of Jewish truth for the Big Lies of the Holocaust denier?

Negotiating on forgotten handshakes is causing Israel to be forgotten piece my piece, layer by layer.

Rebuilding is remembering and re-in-stating..

As the enemy of truth and Israel removes the facts under the ground
and Netanyahu fails to respect Hebron, the resettlers; the Gush, the resettlers, Ramot, Jerusalem, the resettlements,
he is compromising truth, justice and Jewish rights to their property in their Homeland.

As Israel had legal validation, not remembering is forgetting the responsibility of an elected official who was selected to remember.
Netanyahu is taking steps backward forgetting the past and ignoring the future.

Of course, Israel will survive the evil empires of today because of the settlements: Abraham was told not to wander, to settle the land HaShem gave him for his Jewish descendants.
It is natural growth to rebuild what all the vanishing empires tried to vanquish.

Let our people re-build. We are forever. Remember to not forget.

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 David Wilder, November 14, 2010.

Years ago I discovered the bible. No, not the one that starts 'In the beginning...'. Well, almost, but a little different.

This bible begins, "It was not until this book was well under way that I reluctantly confronted the historical factors underlying the "Palestinian problem.' The book was originally meant to be solely an investigation of the current plight of the "Arab refugees," as that subject was then still generally known." The first chapter ends with the words that title the last chapter, (This book is) "in essence, about flight from fact."

The book, four hundred pages later, concludes, "Today (1984) the explicitly stated Arab goals appear to be gaining credence once again through the medium of propaganda and twisted rhetoric, unquestioned by those of us who haven't known the questions to ask, and unhindered by many who have guessed. Those who understand the reality ought to demand more."

So it was that the twentieth century bible of those seeking truth about Israel and the Middle East was born, called "From Time Immemorial," authored by Joan Peters.

A few weeks ago, while still in the United States, a friend from Chicago called me about a couple wanting to visit Hebron. I get such requests frequently and offered to place them on one of our regular tours. Then he told me their names: Dr. William Caro, (yes, related to Rabbi Yosef Caro, author of the Shulchan Aruch, the most important codification of Jewish Law ever written, who lived in Tzfat some 500 years ago), and his wife, Mrs. Joan Peters.

I froze. "Joan Peters — From Time Immemorial," I asked? Of course the response was positive. A little while later, speaking to her on the phone, I told her that as I relate to her magnum opus as a bible, she could easily understand how I relate to her.

This week Joan, together with her husband Bill, came to visit in Hebron. We didn't have a lot of time, but managed to visit the community's neighborhoods, Ma'arat HaMachpela, and meet some people. While introducing her to one of my friends, his wife walked by, looked at my guests and blurted, "Joan Peters?! You're here, in Hebron?" She recognized Joan from a small photo of her, taken about 30 years ago, on the back of the book cover.

Driving from Tel Rumeida to Beit Hadassah, we gave Hebron resident and activist Baruch Marzel a ride down the hill. Baruch told Joan, "I didn't just read your book. I studied it and learned it."

During a short interview outside Machpela, I asked Joan what struck her about Hebron? She answered, "The history, the history is awesome. The archeological dig, that's awesome. The 97 percent, being surrounded by Arabs is also awesome; it's terrifying that Israel's government has put Hebron in this situation.

Her husband, Dr. Bill Caro: "I find this a remarkable place. One of the remarkable things about Hebron is the continuity of the Jewish community, going way way back, to Biblical times. And as American citizens we don't know much about it, we don't learn much about it, we take it for granted. We know about Israel, we're here with a group that strongly supports Israel (Honest Reporting), but Hebron we read about, but being here is really important, and it's so gratifying to be here.

I asked Joan Peters the million dollar question — what brought about the writing of From Time Immemorial?

"That's a tough question to answer. The short answer is, I think it was a dibbuk (inner spirit — ed.) because I don't know how I could have done it now by myself. But it went from pillar to pillar and one question begot another and the research was fascinating to me — I love research — and I found all sorts of things I didn't expect to find, and in the process I had no idea what I was up against when I started. And when I finished I had no idea what it was going to inspire and I'm terribly humbled and gratified by the fact that people care so much about what I found. It was there, it was all there. I just found it."

One of the fascinating chapters in this classic is titled, "'Muftism' and Britain's contribution to the "Final Solution." Here the connection between Nazi Germany and the Grand Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini is examined. Recently this subject has been the source of more than one book, but a few decades ago it was almost untouched. Also studied is the British refusal to allow Jews into their homeland.

"The Jews had nowhere to go. The irony was that the very loss of their nation had become the source of much of the anti-Jewish antagonism. The Jews could be pushed around or held suspect, because they weren't "from" anyplace and no place totally accept them. The more they clung to their beliefs, the more they seemed to stand out..."

From Time Immemorial is a permanent fixture on my office table. Despite the seemly everlasting mess which continues to grow, I can always find this book, and, as a rule, show it to just about every reporter who interviews me. The message is quite clear: If you really want to understand the Israeli-Arab conflict, this literature is a must-read. I don't know how many of them actually follow through, but surely anyone who takes the plunge and examines the book must realize that common preconceptions are usually close to 100% wrong.

When I asked Joan if she'd continue writing she responded positively, but preferred not to go into details. I would be thrilled to receive a new Joan Peters expose, continuing to deal with Israel and present day issues. But even if she should never write another word, Joan's place in history is assured. She is truly a modern-day wonder woman. She put it plainly, 'the material was all there — I just found it.' So simple and so true. But the fact is that nobody else cared enough to search for, and reveal the truth. I can only but take my hat off to Joan, while hoping and praying that she is not the last of her kind.

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 Arlene Kushner, November 14, 2010.

Before I discuss that interminable, yet non-existent, "peace process," I want to go back and provide a link to one more article on Obama in Indonesia. It is too powerful not to share.

Last I wrote on this subject, I provided criticism of Obama by several commentators, because he chastised Israel from a Muslim country. But Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, carries it a great deal further in his blog posting. written on November 9th, called "A Smiling Obama Returns to Bloody Jakarta":

"The media narrative is that Barack Hussein Obama is returning to the place where he grew up as part of a diplomatic tour. The truth is that Obama is visiting a genocidal country and paying homage to its regime, even while many of the atrocities continue. (Emphasis added)

"While Obama found time to blast Israel for building housing in Jerusalem, he made no mention of the Indonesian genocide in East Timor. No word about the Indonesian mass murder of between 100,000 to 200,000 people in a country whose population totaled little more than half a million..

"But there is a reason you won't hear about the meat hooks where Indonesian backed militias hung their victims, before mutilating and killing them. You won't hear about the fields of the dead where the corpses of men, women and children were piled into mass graves. You won't hear of the machete squads who hacked people to death in full public view and on video. You certainly won't hear about the ethnic cleansing, the mass deportations, the gang rapes or even the murder of Western reporters. And there's a simple reason for all that.

"Indonesia is a Muslim country. Their victims in East Timor were Christians.

"...But East Timor isn't the end of it. The same Indonesian military is still in business.

"The Kopassus special forces, Indonesia's answer to the German SS, are still out and about. In 1998, Kopassus thugs gang raped hundreds of Chinese women in Jakarta. Some were burnt alive. The victims were as young as 10 years old and some were thrown into burning buildings afterward. The attackers proclaimed to their victims, 'You must be raped because you are Chinese and non-Muslim.'

"And because of that, because the perpetrators were Muslim and the victims non-Muslim, the whole thing was quickly swept under the rug.

"The Kopassus forces are still up to their old game. Their enemies list has leaked and its top target for assassination is Reverend Socrates Sofyan Yoman, the head of the Baptist Synod in West Paupua. The Deputy Commander of Kopassus, Colonel Nugroho Widyo Utomo, is a war criminal. This is the organization that America will be providing aid and training to — under the authorization of the Obama Administration. These are the Muslim war criminals that we will be helping to become better killers and more efficient monsters. (Emphasis added)

"Recently cell phone video footage of Indonesian forces brutally torturing West Papuan natives surfaced, but this hasn't halted the resumption of US military cooperation with Indonesian forces — or put a stop to Obama's visit.

"And once there, Obama did not challenge Indonesia on its continuing occupation of West Papua. Nor did President Yudhoyono ever utter a word of regret. But Yudhoyono did have the unmitigated gall to pressure Obama on an independent Palestinian Muslim state. Because unlike the Christians of East Timor and West Papua, or the Chinese women of Jakarta — Muslims actually matter.

"In response, Obama bragged about a new partnership between America and the Muslim world, and condemned Myanmar [where there was violence], while making no mention of the situation in New Guinea. Or acknowledging that he standing on the bloody soil of a regime that had committed genocide and shrugged it off... (Emphasis added)

"And that denial pervades everything the administration does. In Mumbai, the Jakarta street kid spent ten minutes talking about the terrorist attack, without once mentioning the identity of perpetrators. His only mention of Muslims was as "victims" of the attack. That Muslims had perpetrated the attack remained unspoken."
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ 2010/11/smiling-obama-returns-to- bloody-jakarta.html


Prime Minister Netanyahu has returned home from meetings in the US with Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton, and the only thing that remains unclear is the extent to which he caved. That he did cave is without question.

He apparently hopes to be able to reinstate a 90-day freeze in building in Judea and Samaria. If he does not, it will not be for lack of his trying but rather because of the refusal of his 15-person Security Cabinet to go along with it.

The deal under consideration is not finalized and there is nothing in writing. As Netanyahu put it: "[the proposal] is undergoing a consolidation process on both the US and Israeli sides. If and when the process is completed it will be brought before the proper governmental forum — the Political Security Cabinet, for approval." (Elsewhere, the Cabinet was cited by the prime minister as the forum to which the proposal would be brought.)

In broad outlines the proposal was presented by Netanyahu to the seven-person inner Cabinet (Septet) last night, and the full Cabinet today.


News has it that this freeze, proposed by Clinton in the course of an exceedingly lengthy meeting with Netanyahu, would not include eastern Jerusalem, but would be retroactive to September 26, when the last freeze ended. That means that anyone who started construction when that last freeze was lifted would have to stop. This alone is sufficient to bring one's blood to the boiling point.

(A clarification to the best of my understanding: This does not mean counting of the 90 days would start from September 26. Counting would begin on the day agreement went into effect. However, when the previous freeze was instituted, construction that had already reached a certain point, with a foundation in and perhaps walls up, was — at least in theory — permitted to be finished. In this instance, everything started after September 26 — even if the foundation were already in, etc. — would be counted as new construction and have to stop. This would in essence make the freeze a lot more than 90 days and would over-turn the lifting of the freeze on September 27.)

In return, reportedly, we would be given US assurances that no other freeze would be requested subsequent to this three months, the US would veto all PA unilateral actions in the Security Council in the course of the coming year, and similarly would seek to block measures that delegitimize Israel or deny her the right to self-defense. And Congress would be asked by the Obama administration to approve the sale to us of 20 more stealth fighter jets.


Netanyahu, as he presents this, is making a great deal of his care to protect Israeli security. But I tend to view this as political smokescreen.

Aaron Lerner, of IMRA, working directly from Netanyahu's statement at the opening of the Cabinet session, noted that what he said was: "I insist that any proposal meet the State of Israel's security needs, both in the immediate term and vis-à-vis the threats that we will face in the coming decade."

Observes Lerner: "Mr. Netanyahu has children and grandchildren. His only concern is for the next decade?"

What Lerner then determined in the course of the day today was that Netanyahu's reference to a decade of security was repeated in other contexts. And so, wrote Lerner:

"...this reference to ten years is one of Mr. Netanyahu's sound bite policy building blocks.

"...And it is a very disturbing policy sound bite. Because policy sound bites typically reflect more than a few minutes of thought.

"So here we are, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu saying that the test of a deal is if it can be expected to be viable for only ten years.

"This should be taken as a warning to any cabinet member or MK being asked to support any proposal relating to Arab-Israeli relations that comes through Mr. Netanyahu's office. Anyone, that is, that is interested in Israel's future beyond 2020."


But never mind in ten years: this would be an enormously dangerous arrangement now. At a bare minimum, every time we freeze we weaken the legitimacy of our claim to the land. But it's far worse than this: For, from the US perspective, should this freeze be instituted, the expectation would be that Israel would strike an agreement with the PLO within those 90 days regarding final borders. That's why the US is content to request only 90 days: after that, there would be no argument about where Israel could build without restriction and where all further construction would be prohibited.

An agreement on final borders for a Palestinian Arab state within 90 days????

Imagine, if you will, what sort of pressure we'd be under to come to that agreement.

I remind one and all what Sultan Knish wrote, above. There is no room for doubt as to what Obama's allegiances are and how readily he would pressure us.


There are many voices being raised loudly here in Israel in opposition to a new freeze. Those noted first from within Likud were Silvan Shalom, Gilad Erdan, Yuli Edelstein and Moshe Ya'alon, with Ya'alon calling the US offer a "honey trap." In addition, there are Limor Livnat and Benny Begin — and others.

Coalition head Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) has stated that he believes the majority of Likud ministers and MKs will oppose this new proposal.

Elkin joined MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) in sending a letter today to right wing members of the government, asking them to oppose the freeze. Eldad is not optimistic about opposition to the proposal.

The letter called upon MKs to "stand with [its authors] in this testing time, to oppose every additional freeze and to demand a renewal of building as the cabinet decided. No security package can be as worthy as the security provided by the hills and Jordan valley."

Additionally, Danny Danon (Likud), Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, began a round of emergency consultations with key cabinet members.


Yesha Council Chairman Danny Dayan (not to be confused with Danon) said, "The unilateral ten-month freeze accomplished nothing other than to make the notion of freezing the rights of our families to build a pre-condition for peace. If Israel is forced into another freeze, our nation will be entering into a trap where we are already addressing final status issues while the Palestinians have never made even a single concession. "


Shas, as is its norm, is equivocating. Minister Eli Yishai says he would not oppose the freeze (i.e., would abstain) if building in all of Jerusalem were to proceed immediately, and Obama would agree to write a letter stating that after 90 days building would resume in Maaleh Adumim, Ariel, Beitar Illit, and Kiryat Sefer.

Habayit Hayehudi is solidly opposed to a freeze resumption, but questions hang in the air as to whether this coalition partner would leave the government if it were to pass. (My betting, based purely on what I've seen to date, is not.)


With all of this, ironically, it is not a sure thing that the Palestinian Arabs would come to the table even if a freeze, as described, were reinstituted. Khaled Abu Toameh writing in today's JPost, indicated that a Palestinian Authority official said yesterday that "The US failed to convince Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to halt settlement construction in return for the resumption of peace talks." Allegedly, this came from US Consul-General in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubinstein, who briefed PA President Mahmoud Abbas on Netanyahu's meetings with Biden and Clinton.

In light of Netanyahu's efforts to secure approval for a freeze extension, this seems a bit puzzling. Except for the fact that Jerusalem is not — at least officially — included in this proposal.

Today PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said that the Arab League would be consulted on this. While expressing severe reservations ("they know we have a major problem in not including east Jerusalem"), he said there would be no official PA response until an official US briefing with regard the plan was provided.


More on this and other subjects will follow soon.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Tom McLaughlin, November 14, 2010.

Been talking politics and economics in Dublin. I sit next to people in breakfast shops and in pubs and strike up conversations. I don't have to bring it around to the above subjects because they do. It's depressing. It's also been cold and windy for a few days, so when sun was forecast for Saturday I took a bus into the Wicklow Mountains. Trouble is, it started raining as soon as I got there.  

Green trees, Wicklow Mountains, Dublin, Ireland

Took all these photos at the extensive Glendalough Monastery ruins in the heart of the Wicklow Mountains. I went around by myself, but I overheard a tour guide tell his group that Jesus was Irish. "How do I know that?" he asked. "He had eleven drinking buddies and lived with his mother until he was thirty-three." Sacrilegious? Maybe, but funny.

The sensor on my Nikon D-60 is sensitive enough to pick up plenty of light on overcast, rainy days, and for that I'm grateful. I knew I was framing some beautiful scenes while resting my umbrella on my head as I adjusted my lens, but I wasn't sure how they'd come out. I'm very pleased. The sun emerged as the sun was setting and offered some mist to hang over the mountains on one side of the long valley.

Vikings had raided this monastery every 20-30 years for centuries before Brian Boru defeated them. I wondered how many slaughtered monks lay under these stones.  

Monastery, Wicklow Mountains, Dublin, Ireland

The wind-twisted cedar struck me. It's not hard to see where the prevailing wind comes from as all the trees — and even the gravestones — seem to lean north. This tree symbolized the Viking violence monks endured for so long.  

Cemetary, Wicklow Mountains, Dublin, Ireland

The Vikings would wait long enough between raids to let the monks rebuild and accumulate more things to steal.St. Kevin liked to get out of the city too and he went to Glendalough sometime after 500 AD to find refuge from the outside world. These stones on a mountainside overlooking Glendalough's upper lake (or "loch" as they say here) are all that remain of his "cell." It's assumed that he had a stone beehive structure on the site similar to the ones found in Dingle and dating from about the same time.Always been drawn to ancient trees, especially those with the general signs of age like moss and curiously-shaped limbs. There were several on the so-called "Green Road" to the upper lake at Glendalough. Some seemed like characters out of the Wizard of Oz.It's an enchanting place, as so much of Ireland is to me.

This is my third trip and I don't think it's the last. If Ireland's economy continues to tank, perhaps it'll get even cheaper to travel here. That assumes the US economy doesn't collapse along with it though.After a few centuries and half-a-dozen raids, monks built this round tower to hide in when the Vikings came by. Guess it worked because it's still there.As these pictures attest, Ireland has survived travails for a long time and it will get past the one looming now as well. Can't be any worse than a Viking raid, can it?

Tom McLaughlin is a teacher and columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine. Visit his website at http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com and email him at tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net

The photo was taken from "Mountains and Monasteries in Wicklow," The article is archived at
http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com/2010/11/ mountains-and-monasteries-in-wicklow.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Rubinek, November 13, 2010.

For many centuries, under both islamic oppressive ahl al-dhimmah regulations and European Christian "tolerance," Jews have been denied the right to bear arms* so that today many Jews have accepted this foreign imposition as almost an inherent genetic trait. Of course, as the successes of the IDF over the past several decades, the participation of a million and a half Jews in the fight against the Axis in WWII, and our entire Biblical military history demonstrate, Jews can and do fight as well as any other national or ethnic group — and better than many. It's time we accept the reality that there is nothing "un-Jewish" about guns.

It's time for the irrational — even pathological — aversion of Jews to firearms to stop. It's time for Jews to understand the normal concept of self-defense, and to admit that we cannot always rely on a sometimes unfriendly civil government for our protection, and our survival.

I wonder how differently the Nazi plans for the Holocaust might have turned out if there had been 3,000,000 armed Jews in Europe instead of only 30,000 partisans. Unfortunately, we'll never know, but I truly believe that the number "six million" would have been considerably smaller, and that Israel today would be considerably larger — and without any problems from the Arab-muslim occupiers.

(* of course there were exceptions, such as when the Czar drafted Jews into their army as "cannon fodder" to precede their troops into battle and absorb all the enemy fire with their expendable lives, or when the muslim rulers periodically rounded up Jewish and Christian boys for forced conversion to islam and a lifetime of compulsory military servitude.)

This below comes from Eliyahu, National Chairman of Jewish Survival Network. It was written by Gary North and is archived at


Aaron Zelman's organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is well known in second amendment circles as an outfit that takes no ideological prisoners. The JPFO has released a video, No Guns for Jews, that states the case as well as anything I have seen. click here.

The video makes it clear that Jews have been at the wrong end of the barrel for longer than there have been barrels. There is a long tradition of disarmed Jews — so long, in fact, that Jews have mentally accepted it. Zelman is trying to change their minds.

The problem he faces is this: the documents that the video offers for support — the Pentateuch, the Talmud, and their medieval commentators — are out of favor in modern Jewish circles. The other document — the United States Constitution — has also been out of favor on this issue in many Gentile circles.

The moral issue is self-defense. It is not revolution.

To access the video, click here.

The legal issue is the right to keep and bear arms: a Jewish right and an American right. This right is under fire. The "assault weapon" of those who want to legislate away this right has been excessive trust in the government. The video makes this clear.

This is an almost flawless video from a persuasion standpoint. It targets a specific audience. It presents its case in terms of the concerns of this audience. It offers a specific ethical case, based on the official documents of this audience. It presents evidence of what has happened in the past to members of this audience because of their refusal to honor the ethical principle. It identifies specific members of the group who have openly called for the continuing violation of the original ethical principle. Then there is a call to action: join the organization.

All in all, it could serve as a case study of how to create an effective video.

For years, I have been what you might call a gentile free rider on Zelman's work. I have decided to stop my free riding. I made a donation. The video persuaded me!

Contact Ralph Rubinek by email at rrubinek@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 13, 2010.

TEHRAN (FNA) — A senior official of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) announced on Saturday that the country's first nuclear power plant will join the national power grid by the next 40 days.

"The Bushehr nuclear power plant will join the national power grid by the next 40 year," Deputy Head of AEOI Behzad Soltani told reporters in Iran's Northeastern city of Mashhad today.

He further assured that the sanctions imposed on the country by the West could never undermine the country's nuclear progress, stressing that Iran's future nuclear advancements will prove ineffectiveness of enemies' pressures.

On October 26, Iran began loading fuel into the core of the Bushehr nuclear power plant reactor in a last step before the facility can start operation.

The move came after the country completed all principal tests of the power plant, including 250 bar pressure, 110 bar pressure on the second orbit, test on spherical metal with five load pressure as well as warm test which were all conducted with success.

The fuel was injected into the heart of the reactor after doing overall controls over the equipments of the first orbit and presenting the necessary documents to the county's nuclear safety body and acquiring the necessary certificates for the project.

In this phase 163 fuel rods will be injected into the plant's core. The first nuclear power plant in Iran, region and the Middle East will start operation after all fuel rods are sent to the center of the reactor.

AEOI Head Ali Akbar Salehi had earlier announced his organization hopes that loading fuel into the Bushehr nuclear power plant reactor would complete in 55 days, and that the plant would join the national power grid in mid February.

Western corporations began the construction of the Bushehr facility in the 1970s. However, following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Western companies reneged on their commitments and pulled out of the project due to political pressure from Washington.

Iran then turned to Russia to complete the project. In 1992, Tehran and Moscow signed a deal to complete the construction of the nuclear power plant. Russia started building the nuclear facility in 1994.

The startup of the station, originally scheduled to be completed in 1999, was delayed on several occasions, but it eventually seems that the nuclear facility will start power generation in just a few weeks.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com This article is archived at
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php? nn=8908221816

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 13, 2010.

Beirut, (SANA — Syrian news agency) — Secretary General of Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Thursday said when in 2000 the Resistance put the last nail in the coffin of the geographically extending Israel, targeting the Resistance moved to a new stage as the Israelis and Americans said at the time they would not stand still on a resistance which caused their defeat.

"At that time, targeting the Resistance was through bringing it into confrontation with the international community. Later, Resolution 1559 was issued as a response to this victory," said Nasrallah in a speech marking Martyr's Day broadcast on al-Manar satellite channel.

He stressed Israel's involvement in issuing the resolution, proved by the statement of Salvan Shalom when he then said "we want to put Hezbollah and the Resistance in Lebanon into confrontation with the international community."

"Those who might think that the Resistance will allow arresting any of its members are mistaken...the hand which will reach out to any of them will be cut off...the Resistance will defend itself against any accusation in the way it chooses," added Nasrallah.

Hezbollah Secretary General continued to say that "who want justice and truth regarding the issue of the assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafiq al-Hariri should work on prosecuting the false witnesses along with those who made and fabricated them."

"The file of false witnesses will lead to the largest political scandal in Lebanon. This is why they are being protected so that their fabricators will be protected," Nasrallah added.

Nasrallah referred to the good and true initiative made by King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his visit to Damascus as well as his joint visit with President Bashar al-Assad to hold the tripartite summit in Lebanon with President Michel Sleiman.

"The Syrian-Saudi efforts are very serious... there are great and genuine aspirations based on these continued efforts.... Any results of the Syrian-Saudi efforts accepted by the Lebanese concerned parties will be supported by Iran," Nasrallah added.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, November 13, 2010.

Dr. Paul Hendler wrote an article in the Cape Times supporting Archbishop' Tutu's call for a boycott of the Cape Opera's visit to Israel and stating a great deal of misinformation about Israel and the 1948 war. He said:

Why Tutu Was Right

Behind Israel's walls — the big lie

Paul Hendler Dr Hendler is an independent analyst of social, political and economic processes and a practitioner who advises on urban development and human settlement.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's call for a boycott of performances in Israel by South Africans has provoked the ire of the Israeli Embassy, Rhoda Kadalie (who sees critics of Israel as pro-ANC leftists who ignore far worse human rights abuses in our own country) and Sydney Kaye (Cape Times letters, October 28), who implies that Israel is responding legitimately to threats to its existence. The issue here is about historical truth. And how can we be sure of the "facts" that are propagated?

Dominant groups in society (such as the State of Israel in the Middle East) are able to propagate their viewpoints in a hegemonic manner.

It is said: "The truth will always out"; however, truth is elusive, and it has to be sought out, as it does not simply "appear" for all to see (if only they would open their eyes).

Hundreds of years ago, the Catholic Church suppressed Galileo and his heliocentric view of the universe (which today we know is the truth).

In the context of modern democratic rights and the freedom of speech, the views of Tutu and others cannot be suppressed in the same way — but they are systematically rubbished as irrational, devoid of truth and reinforcing an antiSemitic agenda. Their claim that they are in fact fighting a non-racial cause is then set against the alleged racist consequences of their actions, to further undermine them.

That Israel is, and has always been, under threat, from the birth of the state to the present day, is a myth perpetuated by Zionist ideology, and is borne out of the notion that before 1948 the Jews in Palestine invited the Arab Palestinians to remain in the country and participate in the new state.

Supposedly, this generous gesture was rejected by the Arabs who instead opted to leave the land of Palestine while it was being invaded by Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian troops, on the assumption that they would return on the back of a victorious Arab military victory and drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea.

This myth was actively perpetuated by the Zionist youth movement that I participated in during the 1960s. Growing up in the South African Jewish community, less than a quarter of a century after the Holocaust and only a few years after the formation of the State of Israel, my generation internalised this view as the "truth" and it created a moral basis for "our" state which was consistent with our status as God's chosen people who had almost been obliterated by Nazism.

The myth has been undermined by recent Israeli historiography. For instance, Bennie Morris (1948 — the First Arab-Israeli War, 2008) showed that Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Jordan were reluctant to confront the Haganah, Palmach, Irgun and Stern Gang (the Jewish community's forces, which became the Israeli Defence Force after May 14 1948) because — with the exception of Jordan's Arab Legion (led by the legendary John Glubb Pasha) — their forces were significantly inferior both in terms of military organisation and hardware.

These countries, as well as the small forces of Arab volunteers which had moved in to support Palestinian villages, were unable to procure arms due to a comprehensive arms embargo enforced by the US and Britain, while the IDF received significant shipments of arms from the Communist bloc.

Arab states' leaders generally encouraged Palestinians to remain in their villages — with devastating consequences — rather than to flee. This questions the veracity of the "flee, return and drive them into-the sea" assumption.

Economically and politically, Palestinian society was fragmented (the nascent Palestinian movement having been smashed by the British mandatory power during the suppression of the 1936 revolt), hardly a basis for co-ordinated and organised population movement in and out of the country to take strategic advantage of an invasion by a regular force. Besides, why should settled peasants and villagers have trusted regular forces from foreign countries with whom they had little if any contact, to wage war on their behalf, to the extent that they would abandon their homes and livelihoods and run the risk of endemic poverty and displacement should this not have come to pass?

By Morris's own account, much of the Palestinian population had already fled to inland areas or out of the country altogether by May 15 1948, the day that regular Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian and Jordanian forces moved into Palestine (the Lebanese forces chose to stay on their side of the border), a flight consequent on armed and violent conflict with Zionists.

Morris's history remains descriptive rather than analytical. He simply depicts the Palestinian refugees as victims suffering hardships in times of war, which explains nothing about what happened. He undermines, but stops short of challenging, the myth of the benign Israelis and the warlike, irrational Arabs.

Illan Pappe, one of the "new"Israeli historians, did address these questions (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006). In 1947 the UN resolved that 499 000 Jews were to share a state with 438 000 Palestinians — these figures are significant because they indicate a tenuous Jewish majority in the designated Jewish state. Pappe found evidence of an elite group, which he refers to as "the Consultancy" (consisting of the heroes of Israel's War of Independence, including David Ben Gurion), that between June 1947 and May 1948 debated how to create a state with a Jewish majority over as much of Palestine as possible. They came to the conclusion that this could only be achieved through transfer of the Arab population out of the territory. The strategy was encapsulated in Plan Dalet (D), which was a blueprint for ethnic cleansing, which is designated a crime against humanity in international treaties.

The orders which went out to various brigades that constituted the Jewish armed forces often explicitly used Hebrew terms for "cleansing" to describe their operations. Plan D referred explicitly to encircling villages, wiping out resistance and expelling the population beyond the borders of the state.

By September 1948, after the IDF had conquered large parts of the area designated as a Palestinian state, almost 800 000 people had been uprooted, 531 villages destroyed and 11 urban neighbourhoods emptied of their inhabitants. The evidence referred to is the diary of David Ben Gurion (Israel's first prime minister), in the Ben Gurion archives, the private archive of Israel Galili (who was present at all the meetings of the Consultancy), and interviews with other members who participated in Consultancy meetings. Unlike Morris, Pappe also draws on oral testimony from Palestinian refugees, which he identifies as a serious gap in Morris's research.

In rejecting the analogy of Zionism with apartheid, Kadalie and her daughter Julia Bertelsmann (Franchising 'Apartheid': Why South Africans Push the Analogy, 2008) argued that apartheid was characterised by job reservation, separate amenities and disenfranchisement of the black majority, which were not actions taken by the Israeli state against its Arab citizens.

Notwithstanding Kadalie's and the Israeli Embassy's protestations, both apartheid South Africa and Israel share the fact that ethnic cleansing played a significant role in establishing both systems. In South Africa, between 1960 and 1983, 3.5 million people of colour were forcibly relocated from their homes in areas prescribed for whites, to other group areas, mainly Bantustans (Platzky and Walker, The Surplus people — Forced Removals in South Africa, 1985). As in the case of Zionism, apartheid required ethnically cleansed areas in which the "white population" would be the majority of the citizens. Both apartheid South Africa and Israel can be characterised as societies in which ethno-national control was extended over contested territory, through land ownership and land usage legislation (cf. Kedar and Yiftachel, Land Regime and Social Relations in Israel, in De Soto and Cheneval Realising Property Rights, 2006).

Questioning why Israel is singled out for criticism while other abusers of human rights, such as Robert Mugabe, are not, is a diversionary tactic. Tutu is on record for criticising the regime of Mugabe years ago. He can hardly be called an ANC hack, given his brave and principled stand against Thabo Mbeki regarding the latter's autocratic style of governance as well as his administration's policies on Zimbabwe, HIV/Aids and human rights abuses elsewhere in the world that South Africa avoided criticising in the UN.

Unquestioning support for Israel has been based on the assumption that the Jewish people are justified in their actions against the Palestinians (including the 1948 ethnic cleansing) to prevent being annihilated in an anti-Semitic, Gentile world, even if this means covering up or being economical with the truth. A different view of Jewish identity could be that we honour our six million martyrs through committing ourselves to uncovering the truth about all human rights abuses and war crimes, wherever and whenever they occur, and especially when they are committed in our name.

This is my reply.

Dear Dr. Hendler

Although. it may be unintentional on your part, your oped of November 3, in the Cape Times misinforms readers and I trust that the facts that I present below will persuade you to issue a correction. ("Why Tutu was right — Behind Israel's walls — the big lie")

The Archbishop's call for a boycott of performances in Israel by Cape Town's renowned opera troupe was based on his erroneous presumption of apartheid in Israel. But as Tutu made absolutely no reference to Israel's history, the views you expressed about the 1948 Israel-Arab war are not only inaccurate, they are completely irrelevant to the Archbishop's call.

One can only wonder whether you have heard of the Hamas Charter when you state categorically that it is a myth that Israel has been and is under threat.

You quote New Historian, Benny Morris to support your view, but I invite readers to read what Benny Morris in fact told the Washington Post on March 11, 2007 and to judge for themselves whether Morris does indeed support you. This is what Morris said "My feeling during the first intifada was that they [the Palestinians] wanted us off their backs ... My sense of the second intifada was that they both wanted us off their backs and they wanted to destroy us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001496.html

Moreover this is what Benny Morris wrote in a letter to the Irish Times of February 21, 2008. "In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they [the Arabs] launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes."

You also reject the historical fact that before 1948 the Jews in Palestine invited the Arabs to remain in the country and participate in the new state. Well, if you are interested in facts, I invite you to visit some of the peaceful Arab villages that accepted the invitation to stay and participate in the new state, which invitation you say was never offered. Take the Arab village of Abu Ghosh for example, that is today very popular for its excellent restaurants. Village leader Mohammed Abu Ghosh has been quoted as saying, "What we did, we did for Abu Ghosh, for nobody else. Others who lost their land, hated us then, but now all over the Arab world, many people see we were right. If everyone did what we did, there'd be no refugee problem ... And if we were traitors? Look where we are, look where they are".

Your claim that in 1948 the Jews had superior weapons and numbers is akin to asking readers to believe that the earth is flat.

In this matter I write as an eyewitness who participated in that war. My colleagues and I who took part, know how we were invaded by five armies in a Holy War intent on driving us into the sea — that the invaders included the British trained Jordanian Legion, the powerful, well equipped Egyptian army, navy and air force and the armies of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.

From day one, Tel Aviv and other strategic targets were attacked and bombed with impunity by Egyptian Spitfires, DC-3 Dakotas and C-47 bombers and the Egyptian Navy bombarded Naharia as well as Tel Aviv. At that stage, Israel had no combat aircraft and no anti-aircraft artillery with which to defend itself.

Immediately Israel declared its Independence on May 14. 1948, the Arab League declared "Holy War", with the publicly declared intention of driving the Jews into the sea. Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq invaded the newborn state. Among the first to fall were the isolated settlements of the Etzion Bloc, where the town of Efrat now stands. (Map by Saville Kaufman and Maurice Ostroff)

We know for a fact how desperate and badly equipped we were. That our total population of only 600,000 included women, children and the elderly and that tragically 6,000 of us were killed in the War — i.e. 1% of our entire population, not to mention the seriously wounded.

Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini, who had met with Hitler in 1941 and had been involved in recruiting support for Germany among Muslims during WW2 proclaimed, "I declare a Holy War, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

Israel was left on its own to face the Arab onslaught. No one expected the Jewish State to survive. Even the CIA estimated that the Jews would not last more than a few weeks. But, against all reasonable expectations, Israel survived the onslaught.

On May 14, 1948, when Ben-Gurion proclaimed the State of Israel, he wrote in his diary: "The world was sure that within 10 days, at the most, not a soul would be alive in Israel."

No less an authority than US Secretary of State George C. Marshall, warned Foreign Minister-to-be Moshe Sharett against signing Israel's Declaration of Independence. Marshall reportedly told Sharett, "Believe me; I am talking about things about which I know. You are sitting there in the coastal plains of Palestine, while the Arabs hold the mountain ridges". Contradicting your third hand opinion, Marshall who was deeply involved, said "I know you have some arms and your Haganah, but the Arabs have regular armies. They are well trained and they have heavy arms. How can you hope to survive.

Surprisingly, you accept New historian Illan Pappe's interpretation of Plan Dalet despite the fact that Pappe is a dubious source of credible information. He strongly supported and continues to support a student, Teddy Katz, whose MA thesis centred on a fictitious massacre at Tantura in 1948 despite it having been proved in the Supreme Court to be a falsehood.

The verifiable facts are that Plan Dalet was defensive, not offensive, prepared in advance of the declaration of the state. It was to be activated only in the event of an attack initiated by the Arab side. This is evident from the text which states:

(a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders [of the Hebrew state] against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state.... Generally, the aim of this plan is not an operation of occupation outside the borders of the Hebrew state.

Like most states, including South Africa where you live, Israel is not above criticism, and we who live here are proud of our free press that often criticizes Israel very harshly. May I hope that you will accept the above observations in the constructive spirit intended.

This open letter is being publicized as will the reply I hope to receive from you.


Maurice Ostroff

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il
and visit his website: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 13, 2010.

This was written by Salim Mansur. Contact him at salim.mansur@sunmedia.ca.


The non-Muslim world is increasingly not surprised and unmoved by the depravity of Muslim jihadis committing outrage, one after another without end in sight, and what can only be explained, unsatisfactorily, as a pathological wish to cause pain to the living by random acts of terrorist violence.

The murderous attack on the church in central Baghdad last Sunday by Muslim terrorists, if we go with the news reports, was merely another not unusual blood-soaked event in the daily cycle of news from Muslim countries.

But if such an atrocity was not just another criminal event in a "normal" day across the Arab-Muslim world, then we should have heard of a special meeting being called at the UN, or in one of the capitals of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to express outrage against those who killed innocent worshippers inside Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad.

We then should have heard of Muslim political and religious leaders expressing their grief over the dead and wounded — there were some 120 Iraqi Christians in attendance at the Sunday evening mass when Muslim terrorists attacked the church and left 58 dead with only a dozen escaping unhurt.

Instead, we have deathly silence of the Muslim leadership as non-Muslim minorities inside the Arab-Muslim world are routinely abused, their homes and places of worship under daily duress, and their hearts filled with fear of violent death in the hands of Muslim jihadis.

The silence signifies the abdication of any responsibility by governments of the Arab-Muslim world to protect non-Muslims in their countries, and severely punish those who target them.

Then there is the ignoble silence of Muslims here in Canada, and across the West, over the repeated atrocities committed against non-Muslim minorities in places like Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, or Sudan.

This silence of Muslim minorities in the West is even more despicable than that of Arab-Muslim governments. It reveals how little they understand, or respect, the political culture of societies where they have made their homes.

On the contrary, there is shrill denunciation by Muslim governments, and organizations representing Muslim minorities in the West, of the manufactured problem of "Islamophobia."

Earlier this year the UN human rights council passed a resolution on "combating defamation of religions" with particular reference to Islam.

The resolution, pushed by the OIC members, denounced anti-Muslim discrimination in the West following 9/11. It also expressed deep concerns in respect to Islam "frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violation and terrorism."

The gap between the resolution lobbied for by the OIC and the silence of its members over atrocities committed against non-Muslim minorities inside the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) illustrate the perversity of Muslim political-religious leaders.

Similar is the perversity of Muslim organizations in Canada and the West remaining silent in the face of outrageous crimes and defamation of religions by jihadis, while condemning Islamophobia where it is more or less non-existent.

The simple truth is Muslims are among the worst perpetrators of crimes against non-Muslims, and penalties based on obsolete jurisprudence of Shariah implemented in Muslim states violate the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights, to which they are signatories.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 13, 2010.

As millions of Britons fell silent, during Armistice Day commemoration, to honor those who have died in war, Muslim demonstrators clashed with police in Kensington, west London, chanting "Our dead are in Paradise, British soldiers burn in hell", "Islam Dominates," "Allah is our protector and you have no protector." Are such demonstrations being pending in the USA?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-1328703/Remembrance-Day-Poppy-burning- Muslim-protesters-mar-Armistice-Day.html#ixzz151Km6skk


The USA is justly perceived as the role-model for democracy: freedom of expression, religion, movement, media, Internet and election. Therefore, the USA is perceived as a lethal threat by Muslim regimes in the Middle East, all of which are autocratic, representing an ethnic minority (or a military clique), suppressing the majority and fearing democracy.

The USA is properly perceived — by rogue Muslim regimes — as the most effective hurdle on their way to attain historically-strategic goals: Saddam Hussein's drive to control the Arab World, Assad's aim to reassert Greater Syria (encompassing Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, parts of Turkey and Israel), Iran's aspiration to dominate the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, etc.

The USA has been targeted as a scapegoat by autocratic Muslim regimes, blaming the USA — along with the West and the Jewish State — for the humiliation, frustration and rage over the failure to reclaim the glory of ancient Islam.

Since the 7th century, the vision of Islam has been the gradual domination of the globe. According to Prof. Bernard Lewis, the leading expert on Islam, Muslims believe that their victory in Afghanistan, over the USSR, caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, they are convinced that defeating the USA would be less difficult, in view of US retreats from Vietnam (1973), the US Embassy in Teheran (1979/1980), Beirut (1983) and Somalia (1993) and the expected evacuation/retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan. They assume that anti-US terrorism (e.g. 1995/6, 1998 and 2000 anti-US Islamic terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen, culminating in 9/11) entails sustained punishment, while yielding US concessions and retreats overseas and eventually on the US mainland.

Anti-US Islamic terrorism has been emboldened by counter-terrorism officials — such as John Brennan and Eric HolderolderHol, President Obama's Advisor on Countering Terrorism and Attorney General respectively — who claim that there is no military solution to terrorism, that there is no global terrorism, that there is no Jihadist terrorism, since "Jihad is a process which purifies the soul" and that terrorism is largely a law-enforcement challenge rather than a military issue. Such deficient moral clarity breeds a deficient operational clarity, emboldening further terrorism.

Rogue/autocratic Muslim regimes have realized that terror is the most effective anti-US weapon, increasingly on the American mainland. They assume that Western leaders have reconciled themselves to engagement and coexistence with terrorism, rather than endeavor to devastate terror regimes through a systematic series of disproportionate traumatic blows. Terrorism provides the element of deniability, while eroding the confidence of Americans in the capability of their government to maintain homeland security. Terrorists are convinced that they can get away with murder, and even be rewarded. They have concluded that the pen and the tongue are extremely effective in complementing the sword in the battle against Western civilization, led by the USA.

The current Islamic assault on the US mainland, through the proliferation of many dormant terror cells and a campaign of conversion to Islam — largely funded by Saudi Arabia — is presented by Yehudit Barsky, Director of Middle East and International Terrorism Division of the American Jewish Committee:

  • Omar Ahmed, co-founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which has been connected to Hamas and other Islamic terror organizations: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant...The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

  • US-born Imam Zaid Shakir, a frequent participant at CAIR's seminars, is a co-founder of the Muslim Zaytuna College, Berkeley, California, which aims at producing Islamic scholars, who will entrench Islam in the USA: "Every Muslim who is honest would like to see America become a Muslim country. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Muslim." Zaytuna College highlights the supposed relevance of the Sharia laws to the US legal system.

  • US-born Al-Qaida operative, Anwar al-Awlaki, inspired US-born Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 American soldiers on November 9, 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas. He trained Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who attempted to detonate explosives on December 25, 2009 in Northwest Airlines flight on route from Amsterdam to Detroit.

  • US citizen Faisal Shahzad was trained by Taliban and inspired by Anwar Al-Awlaki, attempted the May 1, 2010 Times Square car bombing.

  • The Al Shabaab, "Holy Warrior Youth Movement," is recruiting in the USA via Internet. Eight Al Shabaab recruits — including converts to Islam — were arrested in Minnesota.

    Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century, in order to settle intra-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with the USA — the "Big Satan"? Islamic terrorism constitutes a clear and present danger to the USA and to the Free World, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel's policies or even the very existence of Jewish State — the "Little Satan."

    Prof. Fuad Ajami, a leading Middle East scientist, issued a warning to US policy-makers: "No American diplomatic scheme would spare America the fury of those bent upon eradicating its presence in the region. It is a false reading of a large civilization to say that the terror springs from the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians... It springs from deeper social, economic and political pressures within Mideast society, from the traumas of dislocated newly urbanized youth...Some of it is hatched by merciless men for whom terror is a profession that pays... It does not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians to pretend that it would solve a problem much larger than their conflict..." (NY Times, April 17, 1986).

    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 was published at
    http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/ CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3983500,00.html

    To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 12, 2010.

This appeared November 9, 2010 in IPT News.


During the past month, Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual guide to the Muslim Brotherhood, has called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies." He also boycotted an interfaith meeting with Jews on grounds he believes they support murdering Muslims in Palestine, and he additionally said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.

This continues Qaradawi's long-established support of violent jihad. But despite this record, he has been embraced as a "moderate" Muslim by his defenders in the West and the Arab world. In a September interview, former London Mayor Ken Livingstone said "the fact that Sheikh Qaradawi has been banned [from Britain] is a disgrace; he is one of the leading progressive voices in the Muslim world." Livingstone blamed "a huge smear campaign organized by Zionists."

In America, John Esposito, a religious scholar who is close to the Brotherhood, has called Qaradawi a supporter of a "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights." The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and prominent Islamists like Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, have expressed similar sentiments about Qaradawi.

Barrie Osborne, producer of Hollywood blockbusters like The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix, has hired Qaradawi as a consultant for a movie about the Prophet Mohammed. Last month, Qaradawi was given a medal for public service by King Abdullah of Jordan.

Qaradawi has won these awards despite a long record of anti-Semitism and advocating violence against purported enemies of islam. Consider the following examples:

  • In an interview last month with Al-Jazeera's Arabic-language service, Qaradawi was asked if Muslims should try to get atomic weapons "to terrorize their enemies." Qaradawi replied that this goal would be permissible, saying he was "happy" to learn that Pakistan had such a nuclear weapon to defend itself. Qaradawi explained that that was the meaning of Koranic verses urging Muslims "to terrorize thereby the enemy of God and your enemy."

Support for Iran and Muslim rights to possess nuclear technology have been recurring themes for Qaradawi.

"It is obligatory on all Muslims to resist any possible attack the US might launch against Iran," Qaradawi said in a 2007 interview. "The U.S. is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the disguise of war on terrorism and provides Israel with unlimited support."

It was wrong to deny Iran the right to ostensibly peaceful nuclear technology so long as the United States and Israel had nuclear weapons, he said.

  • Last month, Qaradawi boycotted the 8th Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue conference in Qatar, saying he opposes discourse with Jews on principle.

"How can we conduct a dialogue in a time when they seize lands, shed blood, burn farms, and demolish houses? Palestine's conundrum has to be resolved first before we sit together at the same table," he said.

A source close to Qaradawi told the Egyptian newspaper al-Masry al-Youm that the imam does not oppose talking to Jews because of their religious affiliation, noting that he has met with representatives of the anti-Zionist Neturai Karta, an organization seen here attending a Holocaust-denial conference staged by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Neturai Karta are Jews who reject the principles of Zionism and the occupation of Muslim lands, although "the majority of Jews at present are with the actions of murder in Palestine," the source said in explaining Qaradawi's willingness to talk to the group.

In a recorded address last month to a Hamas-organized parley in Gaza, Qaradawi said Palestinians must continue violence against Israel.

"Arms must not be laid down; he who wants freedom must pay the price. Independence is not given as alms," Qaradawi said. According to the Arabic-language newspaper al-Watan, Qaradawi stated: "We must irrigate [the] tree of freedom with our blood. We must not leave the Palestinians alone." Every Muslim "must play his part to help our brothers in Palestine until they obtain their rights," he said. "Not one inch of the Land of Islam must remain in the grasp of infidels and occupiers."

  • In an interview with OnIslam.net last month, Qaradawi blamed "the Zionist media machine" for popular opposition to the location of the Ground Zero Mosque. Muslims in the U.S. and abroad also have voiced opposition to the plan.

  • Qaradawi's website glorifies violence against Jews and against Palestinians deemed to be supporters of Israel. The front page links to a section entitled "Palestine under siege." At the top of the section is an entry from May 2002 showing the body of a "Palestinian collaborator with Israel" being dragged through the streets of Hebron. It consists of Koranic verses denouncing Muslims who work with "evil Jews" to betray Hamas and other "citizen resistance fighters."

  • In a September speech reported by the Arabic-language website moheet.com, Qaradawi called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army. He said the Prophet Mohammad's prohibition on killing the innocent did not apply to Israel because it is an invader and aggressor society which only knows how to violate the rights of others.

  • In a February interview with BBC Arabic, Qaradawi affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."

  • According to excerpts of a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera in January 2009, Qaradawi called on Muslims to put Jews in "their place" as Hitler had done, in revenge for Israeli military operations in Gaza several weeks earlier. "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption," he said. "The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them — even though they exaggerated this issue — he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

  • At a January 2009 "Gaza Victory Rally" in Doha, Qatar, Qaradawi prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."

  • In a January 2009 sermon broadcast on Al-Jazeera television, Qaradawi said Allah "will not allow these people [Jews] to continue to spread corruption in the land. We wait for the revenge of Allah to descend upon them, and Allah willing, it will be by our own hands: 'Fight them, Allah will torment them by your hands, and bring them to disgrace, and will assist you against them, and will heal the hearts of the believers, and you will still the anger of your hearts.' This is my message to the treacherous Jews." He went to urge Allah not to "spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

Qaradawi may hold more tolerant views on other issues. But when it comes to terrorism and anti-Semitism, his words and the consistency with which he offers them, speak for themselves.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Tauby, November 12, 2010.

Why did the Angels Use a Ladder?

So what's the best way to get to heaven? Walk across a busy highway? Perform some amazing act of faith? Save a thousand lives? Well, a pretty good answer may be found in this week's Parshah.

We read the story of Jacob's dream and the famous ladder with its feet on the ground and head in the heavens. "And behold the angels of G-d were ascending and descending on it."

Let me ask you what they might call in Yiddish, a klotz kashe (simplistic question). Do angels need a ladder? Everyone knows angels have wings, not feet. So, if you have wings, why would you need a ladder?

There is a beautiful message here.

In climbing heavenward one does not necessarily need wings. Dispense with the dramatic. Forget about fancy leaps and bounds. There is a ladder, a spiritual route clearly mapped out for us; a route that needs to be traversed step-by-step, one rung at a time. The pathway to Heaven is gradual, methodical and eminently manageable.

Many people are discouraged from even beginning a spiritual journey because they think it needs that huge leap of faith. They cannot see themselves reaching a degree of religious commitment which to them seems otherworldly. And yet, with the gradual step-by-step approach, one finds that the journey can be embarked upon and that the destination aspired to is actually not in outer space.

There is a Chinese proverb that goes. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step." Now that's not only Chinese wisdom; we Jews agree. And it's not just limited to a journey by foot. It is a simple yet powerful idea that it need not be "all or nothing."

What do you think is a rabbi's fantasy? A guy walking into my office and saying, "Rabbi, I want to become 'frum' (fully observant), now tell me what I must do"? Is that what I lie awake dreaming of? And if it did happen, do you think I would throw the book at him and insist he did every single mitzvah from that moment on? Never! Why not? Because a commitment like that is usually here today and gone tomorrow. Like the popular saying goes, "Easy come, easy go." I'm afraid I haven't had such wonderful experiences with the "instant Jew" types. The correct and most successful method of achieving our Jewish objectives is the slow and steady approach. Gradual, yet consistent. As soon as one has become comfortable with one mitzvah, it is time to start on the next, and so on and so forth. Then, through constant growth, slowly but surely we become more knowledgeable, committed, fulfilled and happy in our faith.

When my father was in yeshiva, his teacher once asked the following question: "If two people are on a ladder, one at the top and one on the bottom, who is higher?" The class thought it was a pretty dumb question — until the wise teacher explained that they were not really capable of judging who was higher or lower until they first ascertained in which direction each was headed.

If the fellow on top was going down, but the guy on the bottom was going up, then conceptually, the one on the bottom was actually higher.

And so my friends, it doesn't really matter what your starting point is or where you are at on the ladder. As long as you are moving in the right direction, as long as you are going up, you will, please G-d, succeed in climbing the heavenly heights.

Wishing you a safe and successful journey.

Have a great Shabbos.
From Rabbi Tzvi Tauby

Contact Rabbi Tzvi Tauby by email at tzvi@ivolunteerny.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 12, 2010.

"..'They do not want to become active out of fear for losing their jobs (which is a very real possibility) or getting hurt by some Muslim wacko. Increasingly, this state of denial is enforced by actual states of denial — the most recent example being Austria...' 'We need to stand up and say, 'No to Shariah.''

This was written by Diana West. It is archived at
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/article/id/ 41936/group/Opinion/


When Barack Obama spoke in Mumbai about "the different meanings" of jihad, he set up us up again for the Big Lie: "I think," the 44th president said, sounding much like the 43rd president, "all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence toward innocent people that is never justified."

All — all — of the sacred books and schools of Islam say differently. Every, single one. The fact is — not the fantasy — there is no distortion of Islamic texts required to justify the violence of jihad from Mumbai to Tel Aviv to New York City to Bali to Madrid and beyond.

But we, dhimmi-citizens of an Islamizing world, are not supposed to notice the links between the violence and the faith, the faith and the law, the law and the violence — and certainly not say so out loud. Most people don't.

Increasingly, this state of denial is enforced by actual states of denial — the most recent example being Austria, which, in a trial on Nov. 23, will attempt to use "hate speech" laws to send Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff to prison for as long as three years for statements about Islam very similar to those I've just written.

The Viennese mother and housewife originally approached the subject of Islam from her unique background that includes a childhood stint in Iran during the Islamic Revolution in 1979 when her diplomat-father was stationed there; and her own work experience with Austrian embassies in both Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion in 1990, and Libya, on 9/11 ("The Jews did it!" Elisabeth's Libyan landlord shouted at her that same day).

She studied the Islamic texts and commentaries, the apologetics and the critiques. Empowered by her natural right to free speech, she decided to educate others in her native Austria about the Koran, about Islamic law (Shariah), in seminars she offered under the auspices of the pro-Western-civilization think tank Wiener Akademikerbund (Association of Vienna Academics). Contracted by the anti-Islamization Freedom Party (FPO) in 2008, Sabaditsch-Wolff has been educating Austrians about Islam ever since.

"The groups were very small at first, sometimes as few as five or six people" she recently told me. "Later on, the numbers rose to 35." Last fall, one attendee in particular seemed "overly enthusiastic about the topic," Elisabeth recalls. She turned out to be a journalist who would brand the seminar a "hate school" in a sensational story for NEWS, a left-wing publication.

"It causes a huge uproar among the establishment," Elisabeth says, although now that her trial approaches Austrian media are silent. "Bishops, rabbis, politicians, all of whom had never attended any of my seminars and knew nothing of the content, were asked to weigh in and condemn me. The bishop said, 'One must never speak about any religion the way Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff did about Islam.' This was especially painful for me."

Elisabeth's husband, a military surgeon, is very supportive of her. "My mother had to come to terms with her daughter being maligned in the media," she says. "My sister has cocooned herself and believes the NEWS story rather than confronting reality. My father, who has attended all of my seminars, knows the truth and supports me 100 percent."

Of course, when she enters that Vienna courtroom, she will face the state alone. "The thought that the state — a state that I love very much and that I represented proudly all my life — is prosecuting me for thoughts is a painful one. It is hard to understand that I should have to stand trial for thoughts that are not only based on experience but are the product of careful study of the texts that make up Islam."

But Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is also standing trial for her courage, which threatens all states of denial.

"It is interesting to note that once the topic is raised, most friends out themselves as feeling the exact same way I do, however, there is fear. They do not want to become active out of fear for losing their jobs (which is a very real possibility) or getting hurt by some Muslim wacko.

My response is always, 'Fear is the wrong feeling here. We need to stand up and say, No to Shariah, gender apartheid, theocracy, parallel legal systems.' "By the way," she adds. "I am being charged for saying all of this!"

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Horovitz, November 12, 2010.

The departing head of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, lets it all out.


Winding up a torrid decade as director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman has plainly decided to give vent to years of pent-up frustration.

In this interview, during which he spoke for more than an hour and a half in rapid-fire English, he loosed off passionate criticism in all directions: At a misguided government bureaucracy that threatens to doom the GPO into irrelevancy. At the failure of some in officialdom to back him when he defended Israel against what he considered dire media misrepresentation. At Israel's surrender of many of its own historical claims and rights. At some local journalists who bolster the delegitimization of Israel. At the Palestinian manipulation of the foreign press. And, most of all, at parts of the foreign press itself, which he depicts variously as unconscionably ignorant, disinclined to appreciate fundamental truths about Israel's best features, incompetent and sometimes downright immoral.

Is the departing Seaman a heroic advocate for Israel who is being shamefully and counter-productively treated by his foolish, short-sighted, lily-livered bosses? Or should someone so candid and opinionated never have been entrusted with the ultra-delicate task of liaising with the international media?

By the end of this interview, which I have condensed of necessity and edited to clarify Seaman's central arguments, his verbal onslaught may have divided readers as to whether he was a rare asset or crippling liability in a job he evidently loved. But very few, I suspect, will be unmoved. Excerpts:

How long were you in the job?

About 10 years. Before then I had worked in several positions in the GPO. Going way back, I was in the same paratroop company as [Ambassador to the US] Mike Oren... I was head of the GPO's foreign press department when the [second intifada] broke out in September 2000. There was no real director of the GPO and I was promoted to that position.

What was the main responsibility?

Handling the foreign press.

Assisting with all their technical needs. Giving the government's message. Getting them contacts. Showing them around the country.

I was ready to leave two years ago, with the creation of the new Ministry of Public Diplomacy. There were certain things that I had wanted to do [and haven't been able to]. I wanted to take the GPO into the 21st century.

The demise of the GPO began immediately after its peak. The peak was around the first papal visit [by John Paul II] 10 years ago. The GPO assisted the large number of media people here, creating a press center that became an international standard. Bureaucratic envy set in. Some ministries didn't like the fact that the GPO was getting all the credit, all the prestige. Working with the media is perceived to be very prestigious...

The GPO was weak politically; it was always an outsider.

[Officialdom] usually didn't know where to place us: Are we on the side of the government or are we on the side of the journalists? So the GPO lost out over the years.

There were things that I thought were necessary to do. For example, today, new media allows us to go back to one of our original duties at the GPO, which was to be sort of journalists. In the past we used to have a GPO correspondent sitting in meetings, and then providing information to different media organizations. There was a lull in that during the '90s and the first part of this century, but today with new technologies we could do exactly what Israel needs, which is to bypass the mainstream media, and sometimes the bias that exists there, the blocking of Israel's message.

Another of the most essential things, fundamental in reestablishing the relationship between the State of Israel and the foreign media, is the day-to-day contact between the government, via the GPO, and the foreign media. [In past years], we had this through [the presence of both the GPO and many foreign journalists in offices in the same building, central Jerusalem's] Beit Agron.

The Palestinians have this advantage, through the American Colony Hotel [in east Jerusalem, where many visiting foreign journalists stay]. They have direct relations with the media, and are cultivating that relationship. Well, the government of Israel had that for years through the GPO at Beit Agron. It was a day-to-day press center. Media organizations had offices there, and so did the government, Foreign Ministry, the IDF. Army Radio was there.

When JCS [Jerusalem Capital Studios] opened up [and became the new home for many foreign TV bureaus and other foreign journalists], our relationship with the foreign media started deteriorating.

Beit Agron stopped being the center. We started losing the connection with the foreign press.

For over four years now, I've been saying we have to move the GPO out to Malha, because that's where most of the foreign media are going out to, to reestablish that daily contact with them. In the past, you could sit, talk and schmooze with them, have coffee. I can't emphasize strongly enough how important that personal contact with the journalists is.

But then you get involved in the bureaucracy. "Oh, you're gonna move? It's gonna be costly."

In my talks with Oren [Helman, the former Binyamin Netanyahu adviser who is formally succeeding Seaman next week], in preparation for his taking over, I indicated to him that either we move our offices to Malha or we shut down the GPO. Because otherwise we can't serve our purpose.

Journalists here don't have to be in contact with government officials. They can come to Israel and walk around freely. But having a press card makes it easier for them. And that's our advantage at the GPO — the fact that we issue the press cards. That's sometimes the only contact that some journalists are going to have with officials in Israel.

And that's the point where, while one person is preparing the card, another person can sit there, create a relationship with the journalist, see what they're doing, suggest ideas for the stories.

When Sderot [was under heavy rocket attack] we had a lot of journalists coming in, and we had a display in the office of the missiles that had landed there. It became a conversation point. A lot of journalists, based on what they saw [in our office], decided to go to Sderot as part of the broader story. They hadn't thought of doing so before.

On the Internet today, meanwhile, there's no limit to what can be done. Everybody [in Israeli officialdom], from Olmert's government to this government, understands this. But it just doesn't happen. For the life of me I don't know why. Well I do, but I'm a civil servant, so I can't express my criticism in a way that would...

You say you were ready to leave two years ago. But now the Ministry of Public Diplomacy didn't want you to stay on?

Nobody owed me anything. It wasn't my position for life. But it was never explained to me, which is the only thing I'm disappointed about.

They could have come up and said, "We don't like what you're doing." They would rather have someone else? That's their prerogative. But here in Israel people don't know how to conduct themselves in an honorable way. So they go through this whole charade of having a professional [tender to fill the job]. That process was done legitimately, I have no qualms about that.

You were required to reapply for your existing job?


And you chose not to?

No, I applied, knowing very well that I wouldn't get it.

Look, it doesn't matter. I'm a little disappointed, because there were a lot of things I wanted to do. I'm handing over the office in the best possible way I can. The GPO is important to Israel. Overall, for our relationship with the media, for Israel's public relations apparatus, it is tremendously important.

It's good to have new people coming in. I also believe in the Ministry of Public Diplomacy, and Yuli Edelstein, and what he's doing. If they identify these areas which have not been developed by the State of Israel, areas that the usual hasbara doesn't move in to, there's a lot that can be done.

The whole Masbirim campaign is a very good idea, even though it is ridiculed by certain circles. Ordinary people have a greater ability to convince people internationally than a government does.

By interacting with ordinary people they meet on holiday?

Yes! Or by doing it through the Internet. There's a lot of misinformation going around.

Unfortunately, the Israeli media is to a large degree responsible for a political indoctrination that represents only a small percentage of the Israeli public's opinion.

The Israeli media is the original skewer of the conception of Israel, and the foreign media then plays into that?

Absolutely. An example: During the war in Lebanon [in 2006], I was up North, among the journalists. In the evenings I saw the interaction between Israeli media and the foreign media. Some of the Israeli journalists were sitting there and making the most atrocious statements about the State of Israel. They had been p***ed off about a lot of things, unhappy with the way [the war was] being conducted. In some cases there was a political tone to what they were saying. That's good and legitimate for the internal debate. But somebody from the outside doesn't understand the basis for this or that argument. Yet [the Israeli journalists] are more than happy to convey their opinions to somebody from the outside, not understanding how somebody from outside perceives this. They're legitimizing the delegitimization of the State of Israel.

This is perhaps the greatest threat that we have been facing over the past decade: It's no longer a case of Israel versus the Palestinians. It's a deliberate, concerted effort to delegitimize Israel's existence. [Our enemies] tried to beat us on the battlefield. They tried defeating us on the low-intensity battlefield. When they lost on these two levels, they suddenly understood that the only way to fight us today is to delegitimize our right to exist...

Part of my problem with the foreign press — and I've been accused of being combative and feisty in fighting them — is that you have journalists coming in here not having the faintest idea of what is going on.

They live off what they get from their colleagues; they meet certain people who come from the same social-economic background; they live off of one newspaper, Haaretz. They don't make an effort. When you have a conversation with them, you find that they have a complete lack of knowledge of the elementary issues.

This didn't used to be the case.

Journalists from the '70s, '80s, who were here during the beginning of the '90s, were very knowledgeable, very experienced. This is a different generation.

The narrative has shifted. They'll adopt the Palestinian narrative. That has become the bon ton. They'll talk about "the Palestinian right of return." There is no such thing. They talk about what the Palestinians call "Israel's violations of Oslo." What exactly are they talking about? They have no knowledge about the facts.

Today, if you bring in, say, an expert on international law [to hold a briefing for foreign journalists], they delegitimize the person based on what they perceive to be his political opinions. This is unacceptable, especially for a journalist. We the people, in a democratic society, rely on them to provide us with the information for us to make an educated decision on a particular issue. In this case, many journalists are failing in their duty. The media outfits that employ them are giving them automatic backing. And when the media doesn't exercise its checks and balances, they're failing in their job.

This began with the year 2000.

People call it "the Oslo war" — the Palestinian violence which erupted at that point. I've been working for Israeli public relations for 27 years, and there were certain "truths" that we were told: That if we adopt UN resolutions, there'll be peace. If we recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination, there'll be peace. If we remove settlements, there'll be peace. And over the past 25 years, there's been a progression in the Israeli position: Israel recognized the PLO as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; relinquished territory; removed settlements.

Regarding Lebanon, Israel fulfilled all the UN resolutions.

Yet the end result was not the peace that we were promised. In no way am I criticizing the efforts for peace. Peace is a strategic necessity for the State of Israel. But here, in this case, these "truths" that we were promised never came about. On the contrary, it only increased violence, increased extremism. Yet there was a failure by a lot of the media to be intellectually honest, to say "maybe we need to reevaluate," to say "maybe we shouldn't always be taking the Palestinians' side because they're the underdog."

So in the year 2000, with the violence, with the bombs exploding here, [the foreign media's] political positions couldn't be [justified]. Yet every time there was a bomb here, directed against civilians, instead of an automatic expression of disgust at an assault on civilians, there were always conditions: "Well, we have to understand why [the bombers are acting]." Why do we have to understand it? But morally, you can't make that "logic" [stand up], so they went to this other "logic," and that was the numbers: "Look how many Palestinians were killed. If there are 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, therefore the Palestinians must be victims."

It's nonsense. It's morally repugnant. It's intellectually unacceptable to make that kind of equation.

But the media repeated this. Not only in one-to-one discussions.

Reuters, AP, AFP would end their articles saying, In the recent violence, 4,000 Palestinians died compared to 1,000 Israelis. They were doing this deliberately, to create the impression that the one side that is suffering more must be justified. They were using small journalistic techniques to create an impression that put Israel in a negative light.

I noticed it most during the Lebanon War. Israel being singled out for criticism. The terminology used for Israel: Israel is always aggressive.

Israel is always active. Other things just "happen." Missiles "rain down" on Israel. But where Israel is concerned, and I'm quoting from some media reports, they even adopt Nazi terminology: "Israel's blitzkrieg."

Always using negatives and very aggressive terms.

By contrast, the suffering Israel endures is always caused by some obscure [force]. It's never quite clear what's happening, and who is responsible. The number of ways that Israel is depicted negatively is, astoundingly, much greater than with Hizbullah. Hizbullah is a terrorist organization! It is considered so by every country in the world, including the United Nations. [Yet I found foreign media] to be taking their word, their narrative as fact.

And the same in Gaza in 2008?

It became second nature, so it's only natural that Gaza was just an extension. For too many in the media today, it becomes a feeding frenzy. For the war in Gaza about 400 additional reporters showed up here. They seem to have no knowledge of what is going on. They don't understand what they're seeing.

They don't understand urban warfare. They'll see some phosphorus or they'll see some smoke, and they'll immediately adapt [what they're told about it] without understanding from the military perspective why it's being done. [In Gaza, they were fed] misinformation, and they gave credibility to sources who time and time again have been disproved, sources who are very credible in the Western world, such as doctors.

In the Western world doctors are given a very particular [credibility].

But that same attitude was given to Palestinian doctors, and more than once they deliberately misled and lied to the journalists. And instead of the journalists saying, "Ok, once, twice. The third time they're not going to be lying to me anymore," they keep turning to these sources.

Some journalists did the job they were supposed to be doing, and went to objective experts and asked them about false claims [that Israel was using illegal weaponry, or had weaponry that purportedly melted the skin, or that Israeli weaponry was causing] these kinds of injuries. [One specific reporter] did the legitimate thing. He went and he asked an expert. And he was told, "What you're talking about is science fiction.

These weapons don't exist." So, in this case, the story should have been over. But no, he reports [the false allegation and the firm dismissal], giving legitimacy to the actual accusation.

You want to compare that to something? Go back to the old blood libel.

Imagine the Jews are being accused now of using blood to make matza.

Some of the foreign media would "go to the experts," maybe one of these cooking shows on television, who'd dismiss the idea, of course.

But the very report itself would give legitimacy to this absurd kind of accusation. Some people watching would say, "Where there's smoke there's fire, so there must be some truth to it." [The foreign media] would not do this to any other country.

They tried pulling some of this stuff with the United States in Iraq, but very quickly ceased doing it.

With Israel they continue to allow it...

Journalists kept accusing Israel of using illegal phosphorus weapons.

It's not illegal! And Israel used them legally. Many countries do. But when they're caught in an argument that is proven to be wrong, the journalists don't issue a correction, saying, "We're sorry." No, they then say, "Oh, it may not be illegal, but it's immoral." Immoral? Isn't war immoral? We didn't start this war.

Lebanon is the prime example of everything we've been unfairly accused of. Israel had fulfilled UN resolutions.

Israel was not occupying a centimeter of Lebanese territory.

Israel was attacked. Not only were its soldiers abducted, but journalists ignore the fact that there was an allout assault on Israel's northern communities on that first day.

Yet despite all that, after a few days, you have it for the first time: "Disproportionate use of force."

Ever since the enemies of Israel understood that it could not be defeated militarily, because of its strength, their goal has been denying us the right to use that strength. And here, unfortunately, the media sometimes are politically cooperating with this, and other times are being duped into it.

They don't understand that they are being used by those elements who are abusing freedom of the press, abusing freedom of speech, abusing all these civil rights in Western society. We represent Western civilization in this area. These extremists who are assaulting Israel, it's a prelude to what can be expected in Western societies. If it's not stopped on Israel's borders, the rest of Western civilization will end up facing the same kind of thing.

Is some of your critique not the political opposition of somebody who tried to run as a Likud candidate for the Knesset?

I have never hidden my political beliefs. I do my job first. My political opinions have no bearing on the way I conduct myself in the professional aspects of the job.

Yes, I wanted to run for politics, for the Likud. I'm from a family connected to the IZL [Irgun], from a Revisionist family, an admirer of Jabotinsky and his teachings. I don't hide these things. I'm very proud of them.

But I was brought up to respect people whatever their views, their political opinions...

Coming back to what I said about [inexperienced] journalists coming to Gaza. They are unqualified to report on modern warfare. The Palestinians are very good at manipulating images for show, for the journalists.

[None of the reporters] will actually find out what really happened.

They'll get "verification" of an indication from a colleague who hasn't verified it either. Even if they tried to do their job and they tried to verify, their editor would be shouting back, "I'm getting these pictures. They're coming in on X news media. Why are you not reporting about this?!" That's why [during Operation Cast Lead] I thought the presence of journalists would not contribute to the exposure of what was actually happening there on the battlefield. The contrary.

You're saying that when conflict erupts between Israel and Palestinians, the international press are lousy, incapable of doing their job. In effect, it's better that they not cover it?

I don't say they should not cover it.

But their presence on location does not contribute to the general knowledge of what is actually happening there.

So how are people supposed to understand what's happening there?

Some of the tragedy is not only the journalists' doing, it's the realities themselves. If good old-fashioned journalism were at work, looking, trying to verify, getting other sources — it can't be done. I feel sorry for a lot of the journalists today, those who really want to do a professional job.

The Palestinians are not stupid.

They have 20-30 years of experience of telling the journalists how high to jump. They know what makes modern media tick.

[With inexperienced journalists going into the West Bank], you're taking somebody who doesn't know the history. They're moving from Israeli society, where we do everything to maintain normalcy.

You'll have a suicide bombing in the morning, and by late afternoon there's no indication of it any more. With the Palestinians, the moment you cross over, at the roadblock, people automatically have a negative reaction to the figures of authority. I get complaints [from journalists] saying there's no human contact [between soldiers and Palestinians at checkpoints].

I try to explain to them there's no human contact because when there was human contact, some [terrorists] saw that as an Achilles' Heel and attacked the Israeli soldiers [at the checkpoints]. We're trying to protect our lives. It's the same with the security barrier. We protect our lives.

[Visiting journalists] don't see it that way. They experience what it is like to be a Palestinian to a certain degree. When they come to our side, you have to start with the historical explanations. It's very hard, because the life we have here seems very similar to their lives at home. They don't understand the day-to-day things that we go through.

What are you going to do now?

I don't know. I never sat and thought, what is my next goal going to be? I did the job the way I believed it should be done. I didn't get a big salary. I was always paid as a head of a department, not as the head of the GPO, which is substantially different. So nobody can accuse me of reaping the [financial] benefits of this position.

More than once, people said to me, are you sure you want to do this? Maybe you shouldn't. For example when I started taking a position on the issue of al-Dura...

That Israel was not responsible for the killing of 12-year-old Mohammad al-Dura [at Netzarim junction] in Gaza [on September 30, 2000] at the start of the second intifada, and that it had been foolish to apologize?

First, and second that I was critical of the conduct of France 2 [the TV station that broadcast the allegation of IDF responsibility for al-Dura's death]. After literally hundreds of hours [of examination], I was absolutely convinced that the Israeli attitude of "better we not say anything" [about the incident] was not only wrong, was not only a mistake, but that it was a violation of our responsibility as civil servants. We have a responsibility to present Israel and we were failing...

Israel didn't kill al-Dura and needed to have said so?

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And more than this. This incident was used in order to begin [the second intifada]. It served the politics of many people — Israelis and foreigners — to accuse Ariel Sharon of igniting the violence of the year 2000, [rather than] that Arafat had premeditated this. But the real violence did not erupt immediately after Sharon went to the Temple Mount [on September 28]. The real violence erupted when the blood libel erupted — that we killed the child. It was irresponsible to put these images out, because they were not clarified.

What was the basis of the accusation [that the IDF killed al-Dura]? A correspondent who was not physically on location. There was no visual evidence to back up the [charge].

There was no footage of Israeli soldiers shooting, no footage of the boy being shot, no footage of the boy dying. There was nothing to verify this.

This goes to what I was saying about the media immediately getting caught up in a news frenzy. CNN originally did the professional thing and said, "Wait a minute, I need more verification before I put out this story." [But] once it had a life of its own, they had to report it also. And the next day, you had journalists reporting on this deception as if it were fact... Fundamental journalistic principles were not applied.

I wanted the truth. If Israel was responsible, I would be the first person to admit it. So, if they had made a mistake in this, why are journalists incapable of criticizing their colleague? When I raise these questions with journalists, they don't offer a counter-argument.

No, they immediately resort to "Oh, you're a right-wing extremist, these are conspiracy theories..."

Perhaps because the State of Israel didn't really back you up?

The State of Israel did back me up... There's no doubt about it today.

France 2 failed. This should not have been reported in the way that it was.

Would that be the most egregious example, in your eyes, of journalism failing to report the story accurately?

That was the most famous thing.

There was another famous incident I was involved with, involving Al-Jazeera, and our suspension of [some of our] services to them.

[In July 2008] they celebrated [the release in a prisoner exchange of] Samir Kuntar, [the brutal killer of four Israelis, including a four-year-old girl, in Nahariya in 1979] in their offices in Lebanon. Officially. On air. An official celebration by the organization.

Here, we required that they look into [the incident] themselves. It wasn't an apology that I was looking for. It was whether Al-Jazeera, which wants to be treated as a professional media organization, addressed something that was clearly a professional failure.

And in this case I have a lot of respect for the way they addressed it, how they tried to correct it and make sure that kind of thing wouldn't happen again. A lot of Western media organizations can learn from that.

By the way, I was criticized by the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office.

For protesting Al-Jazeera's celebration of the release of Samir Kuntar?

Yes. According to them I was damaging the very sensitive negotiations going on between Al-Jazeera and the Foreign Ministry [over this incident] at that time, negotiations that existed apparently only in the minds of the people in the Foreign Ministry...

Sometimes you have to stand up [on matters of principle]. That's what I've tried to convey to the system here. It started back with al-Dura. If we are wronged, we're within our rights to stand up and say this is wrong. We should be the first ones standing up and saying that.

Yes, you have to be nice to the journalists. But if they do not conduct themselves professionally, they have to understand that we're no different from any other country in the world.

Journalists are not above the law.

In the year 2000, there was a foreign journalist who went to hotels throughout Israel and would refuse to pay. He would show his press card and then would refuse to pay his bill, saying, "I'm a foreign journalist." At one point he made a point of saying he was an American, and that his taxes subsidize this country. This was a top journalist. Unfortunately, the hotels decided they didn't want to make a big issue out of it.

A leading American journalist went around Israel, stayed at hotels, didn't pay his bills and nobody made a fuss about it?

Yes. Then you had cases, such as during the disengagement from Gaza or the war in Gaza, where media organizations hired Israelis, rented rooms, hired services, and then just disappeared without paying.


There's nothing we can do at the Government Press Office. You can file a complaint but there's no legal thing that I can do.

I can make journalists' lives more difficult. There are certain guidelines that allow me to do that. Such as with the case of [Swedish newspaper] Aftonbladet, and their despicable anti-Semitic... I don't use that word lightly, by the way, because I came from a family where my father converted; half my family are Christian. I don't use that word lightly. But in this case, Aftonbladet's report on the IDF [purportedly] abducting Palestinians and using their body organs. We didn't prevent Aftonbladet from working here. We just took our time. To this day, the correspondents from Aftonbladet do not get a press card immediately.

We can take up to 90 days and we can take longer...

There's been continuous frustration over the past 10 years in the GPO — constantly fighting for budgets, for our place among the government bureaucracies, always having the personal sword over my head, always facing threats: "If you do this, you're going to get fired. If you take this position, you're going to be fired." It didn't matter that I could prove to them why I had to "take this position."

When the [second intifada] violence erupted, in many ways the foreign media became a tool being used against the State of Israel. We have clear evidence that shows Marwan Barghouti's and Yasser Arafat's involvement with [Palestinian journalists] who were employed by the foreign press [and whose status and capacity to work in Israel, with attendant concerns about security risks, was an issue that Seaman dealt with extensively, including in court battles and face-offs with various Israeli politicians].

It developed over years, beginning back in the late '80s. [Some of these Palestinian journalists] started off at the Palestinian Information Office [in east Jerusalem], which was shut down by [prime minister Yitzhak] Shamir during the first intifada. They were shut down because it was clear that they were serving to incite people on the ground. So they left and started being employed by the foreign press.

Then foreign journalists started giving cameras to Palestinians because they were getting good pictures. It evolved over the years.

With the advent of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat adapted the same measures [he had used in] Beirut.

Some of these [foreign] media organizations knew. And not only were they sympathetic, they had people who were connected to the PLO who were assigned here as journalists because it gave them that access.

Until the year 2000 it was fine, but the moment all hell broke loose, some of these people saw it as their jobs — and I'm talking about the foreigners right now — to help the Palestinian cause. And the Palestinians involved saw it as their job and they were getting clear instructions.

Instructions to do what?

To kill certain stories or promote other stories [in the foreign press].

There was an attempted suicide bombing one day in Jerusalem. A border policeman of Ethiopian descent was injured. Earlier that day, the Palestinian Minister for Jerusalem Affairs was caught illegally in Jerusalem and he was being held at the Russian Compound. We know that the Palestinian producers at the major media offices here coordinated among themselves to shift the story [that day] from [focusing on the] suicide attack to the fact that this Palestinian dignitary was being held by the Israelis. They deliberately misled on certain stories. They coordinated with the Palestinian Authority.

A lot of these [Palestinian] people first got jobs in the Palestinian media under Arafat, and then they started applying for jobs [with the foreign media based in Israel]. We started finding out that a lot of these people had been released from Israeli jails. Arafat was giving them jobs as journalists.

Are you disappointed that when you tried to take a more robust official line, in opposing some of the reporting that you feel has been unfair in the foreign media, that you haven't had support from the Prime Minister's Office, from the Ministry of Public Diplomacy?

From the Ministry of Public Diplomacy I did have support. When I approached the minister regarding the images from Reuters [which had cropped out of its photos weapons held by "activists" confronting Israeli soldiers] from the Mavi Marmara, Yuli Edelstein immediately put his name to [a complaint] and within 24 hours we got a [positive] response [from Reuters].

I understand at times the restraint that people in the Foreign Ministry want to show. There's room for it at times. I'm not picking fights. [But] I believe that we should be standing up for things that we know are wrong, and not [let] journalists think they can get away with everything and that there's no response from the Israeli side...

The same, by the way, goes for our decision not to allow journalists into Gaza for the war [Operation Cast Lead]. A decision was made. And then [various officials] started saying, "Oh, maybe we shouldn't." There were real reasons for this decision.

And it was upheld, but that was because the Ministry of Defense held firm. And prime minister Ehud Olmert.

Broadly speaking, you're saying Israel doesn't have the official courage of its convictions?

Sometimes no, it doesn't. It's not everybody in the Foreign Ministry. It's certainly not the Foreign Ministry today. But for a long time those voices within the Foreign Ministry were stronger than the ones who said, "Yes, we have to stand up to it."

This goes back to the whole issue of Israel's hasbara failures since the Oslo Accords. We pulled the rug out from under our arguments. The moment in the Oslo process when we didn't completely stand up for our narrative, we gave legitimacy to the Palestinian claims. [We gave up on] our positions, our claims, our rights!

As regards the Old City, east Jerusalem...?

Every place! My grandfather came here from Afghanistan, not because of Tel Aviv and not because of Haifa, but because of our ancestral right to the Land of Israel. And without our right to the Land of Israel we have no right to the State of Israel; we are no more than the colonialist occupiers which they claim we are. For many years, we used this claim of our right to Eretz Yisrael, not as a political statement, but as a case of genuine historical reasoning. You can't say that it's a right-wing argument. It has nothing to do with my positions or my being a right-winger. It's a fact.

What is Judaism? Where is the birth of the Jewish people if not in Judea and Samaria? Now that's not to say that we can't compromise. Zionism has been a movement of compromise. But if we deny these [historical] rights, we're undermining our own credibility and our own rights. This is part of the failure that has happened here.

Unfortunately, people with those kinds of positions had a stronger voice in the Foreign Ministry for many years. Other people were afraid to speak up. Over the years, I paid a hefty price for sticking to things that I believed were right to do. And everything that I stood up against, whether it was Aftonbladet, Al-Jazeera, the al-Dura case, I was eventually proven right.

And yet you still lost your job.

I didn't lose my job. I was criticized for [my positions]... I paid a price with a negative portrayal, with a negative image — that I was a right-winger, an extremist, that people weren't getting their press cards for political reasons — that has no basis in reality. Yet this became the prevalent attitude.

I'm controversial. Why? Because I stand up to defend Israel? Because I criticize the media where they fail? Nobody ever argued with me over the issues. They defamed me. And the reality is, it just doesn't hold. Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email

David Horovitz is editor of Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 12, 2010.

This was written by Stephen Brown and it appeared in Front Page Magazine


Libya's Gaddafi's U.N. speech

Once again, the United Nations has damaged its own purported values and reason to exist when it praised Libya's human rights record last Tuesday while condemning America's. This time round, it was the UN's Human Rights Council (HRC) serving as the vehicle for the world body's latest exercise in hypocrisy.

After a review of Libya's human rights record Tuesday morning, HRC members exhibited their moral decay when they lavished praised on the North African dictatorship of Libyan strongman Muammar Gadaffi. Almost simultaneously, it adopted a report containing 228 recommendations regarding America's human rights situation.

The recommendations are based on criticisms from other countries and NGOs, some of which undoubtedly harbor anti-American sentiments. State Department legal adviser Harold Kohl alluded to the report's political background when he called some of the recommendations "political provocations."

But the HRC's political bias and the questionable morality of some of its members did not prevent Michael Posner, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, from spending three hours testifying before it last Friday. As if that wasn't humiliating enough, it was equally embarrassing Posner acknowledged before such human rights disasters as Cuba, Mauritania and Angola that there was "imperfection" in America's human rights record.

"Though we are proud of our achievements, we are not satisfied with the status quo," Posner said.

Considering the HRC's political nature, one could almost have written the report condemning the United States in advance. According to one account, it included the usual indictments such as the Guantanamo Bay prison facility and accusations of torture against the US military. Also mentioned was overcrowding in American prisons, the need to ratify international conventions on women and children and that "discrimination permeates all aspects of life in the U.S." All in all, standard accusations from the leftist, anti-American playbook.

The report on Libya, on the other hand, reflected a human rights paradise. The report drew praise from other UN members, including such paragons of human rights as Iran, which stated: "Libya has achieved significant progress in the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level, especially in such areas human rights legislation." Syria, another bastion of domestic and international virtue, gushed that Libya's "unique experience in democracy ...has allowed for the growth and development and promotion of human rights in full conformity with its commitment under international law..."

Human rights organizations acquainted with Muammar Gadaffi's Libya, however, are not hiding their anger about the glossing over of its atrocious human rights record and the farce that just occurred at the UN.

"Libya's report seeks to cover up its well-documented practices of torture, violations of religion, attacks on migrants and refugees, oppression of journalists and opposition politicians, and the discrimination against women," said Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, a Geneva-based group that monitors the United Nations.

And when one considers the human rights violations that are occurring almost daily in Libya, the UN's HRC takes on the appearance of a Soviet court where decisions are made on the basis of a totalitarian ideology and not on evidence with regard to justice. Only last week, Libya's secret service began to arrest journalists.

Reporters Without Borders (RWB), a worldwide press freedom organization, reports that 30 journalists have been imprisoned so far. RWB called the arrests "the reaction of a draconian state, deaf to the need for protecting human rights and freedom." Somehow, this latest Libyan violence against freedom of the press, a freedom the UN supposedly supports, escaped the HRC's attention when assessing Libya's human rights record on Tuesday.

But what the HRC could not avoid were submissions regarding Libya by the human rights organizations World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) and Human Rights Solidarity (HRS). The submissions concerned a Libyan citizen arrested in 1989 who was tortured and murdered while in custody. He was one of many Libyan citizens who were arrested and disappeared that year.

"This state disregards its treaty obligations and especially its fundamental obligations to respect the right to life and physical and psychological integrity of its nationals," stated an OMCT press release, issued last week.

While the HRC called upon Libya to open an impartial investigation into the matter and report back to the HRC within 180 days, the accusations levelled by the two human rights organizations obviously did not affect Libya's favorable evaluation. The many other cases of Libyan human rights violations, too numerous to list, also had no visible impact on the report's outcome.

The HRC's hypocrisy is even more pronounced when one considers some of the world's worst human rights abusers are among its current 47 members. China, Saudi Arabia and Angola do not conjure up images of states with great respect for human rights but rather of those who care little about personal freedoms within their own borders. Moreover, the HRC spends a lot of time criticising Israel rather than dealing with real human rights abuses occurring elsewhere in the world. According to UN Watch, as of last May the HRC had "adopted 40 censure resolutions, of which 33 have targeted Israel."

But the HRC's credibility sank even further when Libya was elected as a council member last May. The reaction in democratic countries was outrage, especially among human rights groups. But besides countries actually voting for Libya, it was pointed out at the time it was equally deplorable that Libya's election was not opposed by the United States. There is a marked contrast between the Bush administration strongly and openly opposing Libya's bid for the chairmanship of the UN's Commission on Human Rights in 2003 and America's current UN ambassador, Susan Rice, being unable "to condemn Libya's specific human rights record" last spring, let alone express outrage.

When UN general Secretary Kofi Annan proposed establishing the HRC to replace the old Commission in 2006, the United States voted against it and refused both funding and to run for a seat. The Bush administration foresaw the sham it has become. President Obama ended that boycott and has supported the council while admitting it "remains flawed."

But with time, these flaws are becoming more outrageous and actually constitute a mockery of human rights and disrespect for the United States. Such a development, in turn, diminishes America's stature as the world's true moral beacon, as she fails uphold the rights, upon which the UN was founded, while her own human rights standards are simultaneously being poorly represented.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, November 12, 2010.

This comes from Islam in Europe website and is archived at
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oqXpnURgYXo/ TNweF2Tl7oI/AAAAAAAABno/EqXmJML 1yIM/s1600/coderood.jpg


A dozen women are killed every year in the Netherlands in honor murders. Code Rood: Eerwraak (Code Red: Honor Murders) is a Dutch documentary (NL) about honor related violence. Jessica Villerius interviewed four girls who grew up in the Netherlands, and are now fleeing their family.

The interviews were organized through social workers. After Villerius interviewed 'Dunya', a 14 year old Turkish girl who was abused by a family member, the youth services suddenly demanded that she get permission from her mother for the broadcast. The youth service notified the parents, who then threatened to kill her if the interview will be broadcast. Villerius decided in this case to drop the interview.

The other three girls all lost their virginity, or were accused of doing so, and their families want to punish them for it. All three tell of a life of intense supervision, of being checked at every step. All three have gone through physical, and sometimes sexual, abuse.

Two of the girls come from Muslim families. 'Saba' (19) is not willing to marry the older cousin her father wants her to. 'Zara' (15) from Afghanistan had a boyfriend, but when she decided to break it off, her father told her she either gets married, commits suicide or he'll kill her. Her boyfriend wants to kill her, and even told her parents she's not a virgin anymore. A cousin she's not willing to marry wants to kill her as well. He had abused her when she was 13, but the police refused to accept her complaint unless her parents signed it as well.

Nadya (17), apparently an Iraqi Christian, was going out with an Iraqi-Christian boy. All was well as long as they were going to get married. But he found out she wasn't a virgin, and though he said he accepted that, he started beating her. She got pregnant and had an abortion, which her boyfriend intended to use against her. After her boyfriend tried to kill her, she left him. He then told her family everything, and now her father wants to kill her too.

Villerius also speaks with the boyfriend of Amritpal, a Belgian Sikh girl who was killed by her parents since she wanted to marry a boy from a different caste.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC]
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at gabriellegoldwater@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, November 12, 2010.

"The chances of achieving a peace agreement will be significantly advanced by achieving comprehensive security understandings between Israel and the US." — Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu — Press Release — Prime Minister's Office, 10 November, 2010

"Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances.... The nature of the Israeli's situation is bound to influence their interpretation of ambiguous events.

We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant.

Violations force us to choose between doing something about them and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action. Accordingly, we tend to lean over backwards to avoid the conclusion that the Arabs are violating the cease-fire unless the evidence is unambiguous." Henry Kissinger to President Richard Nixon, 1970 [Henry Kissinger "White House Years", page 587]

What are the necessary conditions for a comprehensive security understandings between Israel and the US to effectively offset the degradation of security associated with various changes associated with implementation of an agreement with the Palestinians?

#1. It has to be a formal treaty. President Obama gave us an important reminder, when he opted to ignore the Bush letter, that Presidential letters in no way obligate the United States of America.

This may be workable.

#2. The United States must recognize the right of Israel to implement security related measures and operations relating to the Palestinians at Israel's sole discretion, backed by the commitment of the United States to protect Israel from international sanctions and/or UN Security Council condemnation for such activities. By the same token, The United States commits that it will never restrict or delay the supply of conventional weapons and ancillary security related equipment to Israel.

This is where the problems start:

The "Israel's sole discretion" provision is crucial. Otherwise, we could find ourselves in a rapidly deteriorating situation with America either dragging its feet or deciding that its own interests would be best served if Israel didn't act.

Frankly speaking, it is highly doubtful that the United States would agree to the "Israel's sole discretion" provision.

What, then, is the ramification?

In the absence of an "Israel's sole discretion" provision, there is always a risk that when Israel finds itself relying on America honoring the agreement that the powers that be in Washington decide that their national interests are best served if Israel declines to defend itself.

And thus, a "comprehensive security understandings between Israel and the US" could not in in fact effectively offset the degradation of security associated with the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Back to the drawing board.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 11, 2010.

This was written by Leo Rennert and it appeared in American Thinker


When Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson did a stint as the paper's Jerusalem correspondent, he earned a well-deserved and well-documented reputation for anti-Israel bias, shading and spinning his copy to portray Israel in the darkest of hues while swallowing Palestinian narratives hook, line and sinker. Wilson spared no effort in writing lengthy up-close and personal features about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, but studiously avoided chronicling the plight of Israeli residents of Sderot when they were prime targets of thousands of missiles launched from Gaza.

So it comes as no surprise that Wilson has lost none of his pro-Palestinian proclivities in his new incarnation as the Post's White House correspondent. In a dispatch from Jakarta, where he is covering President Obama's Asian trip, Wilson writes the following:

"The president's efforts to mend relations with the Islamic world were partly overshadowed by the reopening of a rupture between the United States and Israel.

"Obama criticized Israel for undermining two-month-old peace talks with new plans to build on land that Palestinians claim as their future capital. At a news conference, he said of the Israeli government's project to construct 1,300 apartments in East Jerusalem, 'This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.'

"Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu responded by asserting that 'Jerusalem isn't a settlement — Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."

"Israel's construction in the occupied eastern part of the city, seized by the Israeli army in the 1967 Middle East war, has infuriated Palestinians, who view the work as a slow erosion of their future state."

This kind of Wilson reportage, as usual, is riddled with anti-Israel, pro-Palestinians spins, such as:

--In the same news conference, President Obama also was critical of the Palestinian side for failing to hew to his agenda to get negotiations going again. But Wilson, ever an apologist for the Palestinians, fails to report that Obama told reporters: "I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side make the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough." Wilson's copy is devoid of any Obama unhappiness with the Palestinian side.

---Wilson falsely asserts that Israel has come up with "new" plans to build in eastern Jerusalem. In fact, these are previously announced and duly reported plans. The news peg for what Wilson grandiosely describes as a U.S.-Israel "rupture" is merely that Israeli authorities now have called for public comment on plans that have been in the mill for a long time. There is nothing "new" about these plans.

--Wilson describes these building plans as highly provocative because they involve construction in the "occupied eastern part of Jerusalem, seized by Israel in the '67 war." What he fails to report is that the apartments are slated to go up in entirely Jewish neighborhoods, notably in Har Homa, which boasts a population of 12,000 Jewish residents living on entirely Jewish-owned land, which was purchased by Jews after the First World War — long before the 1967 war.

--Nor does Wilson report that when Israel reunified Jerusalem in 1967, in a defensive war against half a dozen Arab armies intent on destroying the Jewish state, it seized the eastern section from Jordan, which had captured it in a war of aggression against Israel in 1948. From 1948 to 1967, the eastern part of Jerusalem was illegally occupied by Jordan in direct violation of the 1947 UN two-state partition plan.

During these 19 years, Jordan barred Jews from their most sacred Jerusalem shrines, yet didn't use its hold on eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank to set up a Palestinian state. The "international community: — a favorite reference point in Wash. Post reportage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — never accepted or recognized Jordanian sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem. Wilson, however, erases all this history because it doesn't comport with his view that Jews have no inherent right to live in eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City with all its religious sites.

--Wilson also fails to point out that since the 1,300 apartments are slated entirely for Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, they will remain part of Israel under any rational, realistic two-state scenario.

--Wilson conveniently omits several salient points in Netanyahu's rebuttal — that while for the last 40 years there has been construction throughout Jerusalem — east and west — this didn't hamper negotiations that led to Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties. Also, that during the last 17 years, such construction did not prevent a lengthy series of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, including grants of extensive powers to the Palestinian Authority over the West Bank's major Palestinian population centers.

--Bottom line: Logic, reality, and factual history don't matter to Wilson. What solely matters is that Har Homa sits on land that the Palestinians want and that Palestinians are "infuriated" when Israel doesn't kowtow to all their desires. Palestinian wishes trump everything else, as far as Wilson is concerned.

Anti-Israel bias the Wilson way — by commission and omission.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, November 11, 2010.

This is from the WeasilZippers website:
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/11/10/islamaniacs- performing-bloody-ritual-in-london/


Islamic self-mutilation

(ExpressUK) — ISLAMIC fanatics are mutilating themselves at a British mosque in a bloody ceremony carried out only yards from a busy high street.

Shia Muslims use a five-bladed chain called a Zanjeer to whip their own backs and make cuts in their foreheads with razor blades in homage to their faith.

Bare-chested men were left bleeding heavily during the ritual known as Matam — self-flagellation — which a witness described as being "like a scene from a horror film".

The Sunday Express found that up to 800 men performed the bloody ceremony in secret at the Imamia Mosque in Forest Gate, east London, last year.

The Matam takes place during the annual Shia Ashura ceremony and commemorates the death of Husayn, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad. It is practised largely in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and India as well as Yemen and Afghanistan but this is the first time it is known to have taken place in Britain.

Huge wooden screens were put up around the mosque to keep the event secret and prevent passers-by on busy Romford Road seeing the bloodletting.

The Sunday Express visited the mosque last week and learned that the ceremony took place last December and is due to be repeated next month. One man who witnessed the ceremony last year was so alarmed by what he saw he nearly passed out.

He said: "There was blood everywhere. There were pools of blood on the ground and my clothes were splattered with blood. It was very scary.

"I was told it was part of a religious ceremony but the anti-western sentiment was clear. If the public had seen what was going on they would have reported it to the police. It was like a scene from a horror film."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, November 11, 2010.

This comes from Heather Robinson.


Anwar al-Awlaki

The photo is of radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born terrorist on the CIA's kill or capture list who yesterday released a tape calling for the death of Americans and is considered one of al Qaeda's top ideologues, participated in training Muslim chaplains to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,, SB107040799634777100,00.html).

Apparently, Awlaki's participation in training Muslim chaplains was initially reported back in December 2003 by The Wall Street Journal's Glenn Simpson, who also reported that, while serving as imam at a mosque in San Diego, this hard-core Islamist radical "counseled" two of the Sept. 11th hijackers.

According to Simpson, Awlaki, whom some in the press have dubbed the "new bin Laden" because of his leadership role in al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula and his charismatic taped appeals to fellow radical Muslims to engage in violence against Americans, has trained at least 75 military chaplains and lay personnel in the U.S. This training was conducted under the aegis of the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America (IIASA), the branch campus of a Saudi University that the Pentagon engaged for the training of Muslim chaplains until 2003. In 2004, the FBI, customs, and the IRS raided the Institute.

Perhaps most chilling of all, given his former job training U.S. Muslim chaplains: Awlaki has been linked to Ft. Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hassan
(http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter- contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873).

Earlier today I attended a briefing held by the Washington D.C.-based think tank Center for Security Policy (CSP). Speakers included terrorism expert Patrick Poole (quoted in article reprinted below), who delivered the news that Al-Awlaki trained U.S. chaplains. As mentioned above, this has been reported before; my guess as to why it was presented today as news is the emergence of yesterday's videotape, in which U.S.-born Awlaki, who is a top terrorist in Yemen, calls for attacks on his fellow Americans.

While it may not be "news" in the strictest sense, it is suitable for CSP and others to remind the public that this man infiltrated our armed services. The fact that a spiritual mentor to two of the 9/11 hijackers who is now in a leadership position in al Qaeda trained some U.S. chaplians, some of whom are probably serving in the U.S. armed forces, is cause for alarm. Unbelievably, I also learned today that at one point, Awlaki — at that time considered a "moderate" Muslim — was hosted at a luncheon at the Pentagon by the U.S. Army's Office of Government Counsel.

Also speaking at today's event was Andrew McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. attorney, who made the point that, in raising awareness about efforts on the part of radical Muslims to infiltrate America's institutions, he and others concerned with this stealth terrorist movement are not "smearing everyone with a broad brush" or trying to cast aspersions on all American Muslims. To the contrary, he spoke of the vital cooperation of patriotic Muslim-Americans that helped him prosecute terrorism in the 1990's.

"We could not have successfully prosecuted terrorism in the 1990's were it not for the assistance of patriotic Muslim-Americans," he said. "We recognize we have allies among Muslim-Americans and we need to cultivate them."

He went on to say that he interviewed numerous Muslim-Americans for intelligence jobs in the 1990's and recalls that several turned down job opportunities because "we couldn't guarantee the court would never reveal their identities."

What these Muslim-Americans feared most, he recalled, was not threat to life and limb but "being ostracized within their communities" were their cooperation with the government's efforts to nab terrorists known.

It is sobering to think that even in the U.S., or at least in some pockets of it, so much hatred and anti-American radicalism is being cultivated. Given the information that Al-Awlaki trained military personnel, and in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting, it seems to me that political correctness should not get in the way of a thorough investigation. Anyone who trained under this man should, albeit in ways that are respectful of civil liberties, be watched.

From The Chicago Examiner, by homeland security writer Cynthia Hodges:

On Monday, November 8, 2010 a dangerous new video by Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki surfaced on extremist web sites. In the video, Awlaki is seen instructing Muslims to kill Americans without further instruction, because it is "either us or them."

Anwar al-Awlaki, the first American citizen on the CIA's kill or capture order in the War on Terror has been referred to as the "next bin-Laden" due to his ability to inspire other terrorists throughout the west, including many other Americans.

Terrorism expert Patrick S. Poole now reports that al-Awlaki is a former instructor at the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in the United States.

As a branch of the Ibn Saudi University of Riyadh, the university was certified to train Muslim chaplains for the Pentagon through 2003. After a government raid by FBI and U.S. Customs in 2004, the school closed it doors.

The radical Muslim extremist was vice-president of an Islamic charity that federal prosecutors identified as an al-Qaeda front, a group still doing business with the U.S. government, winning a $3.5 million partnership to help fight child labor and trafficking in 2008.

As an instructor at the Institute, Awlaki reportedly trained at least 75 Muslim chaplains whose current activities are unclear. Interestingly, in December 2003 Awlaki's role as instructor and relationship with 9/11 hi-jackers were linked by a Wall Street Journal reporter but has not been mentioned since.

In addition to three of the 9/11 terrorists, Awlaki is has been linked cargo plane to the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, the recent attempt to bomb Times Square.

In the weeks after 9/11, Anwar al-Awlaki emerged as a moderate cleric denouncing terrorism — even leading prayer services on Capitol Hill. At the time, U.S. officials were unaware of his meetings with the 9/11 hijackers. The FBI became suspicious after discovering that Awlaki met with associates of both bin Laden and the "Blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel Rahman.

Anwar al-Awlaki, believed to be living in Yemen has proven to be an dangerously effective leader of the group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

On October 29, President Obama acknowledged that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula "continues to plan attacks against America, our citizens, and our friends and allies". The remarks were made during a press conference confirming that two printer cartridges containing bombs were discovered aboard cargo planes headed to the United States.

How much exposure to give terrorists creates a dilemma for the media. However, to have the information and not alert Americans or down play the threat could be devastating.

Editor's Note: From Rich Trzupek, November 17, 2010, in Front Page Magazine:

'There's little doubt that Al-Awlaki provided aid and inspiration to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian "underpants bomber," and to the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad.

'He has also called for the murder of civilians like Salman Rushdie and the young Seattle cartoonist who initiated "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." Yet, despite the danger that Al-Awlaki continues to represent to the free world, the ACLU and the CCR filed suit in federal court to protect the radical cleric's "rights."

'Al-Awlaki's father, Nasser Al-Awlaki, asked the two groups for help after he learned that the Obama administration has targeted his son for assassination.

'Because the cleric was born in New Mexico, the ACLU and CCR maintain that he is entitled to due process in America's legal system. Defending his organization's decision to defend Al-Awlaki, Vincent Warren, the executive director of the CCR, said:

'That's what we do. We file lawsuits. ...[W]e don't believe the US should be wreaking violence for political reasons. It should be up to a court, not just the US government, to decide whether al-Awlaki poses a threat. The US should not be conducting the killing of US citizens outside the legal process, far away from any battlefield.

'The proposition that the US is "wreaking violence for political reasons" is patently ludicrous. The United States is at war with a determined enemy and the fact that this particular conflict involves asymmetrical warfare does not relieve the president of the United States from his duties as commander in chief.

'Al-Awlaki isn't "far away from any battlefield" because he and his fellow terrorists have defined the battlefield as the whole planet earth. Furthermore, the congressional war resolution passed on September 14, 2001 remains in force.

'That resolution authorizes the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations, organizations or persons that he deems to have helped bring about the 9-11 attacks and to use such measures to prevent future acts of international terrorism.

'Thus, when Al-Awlaki decided to join forces with al-Qaeda, he not only became an enemy of America, he forfeited his rights as an American. He's a combatant.

'Al-Awlaki is no more entitled to legal protections in a time of war than a Confederate soldier was in 1863.

'What the ACLU and the CCR are suggesting is the equivalent of requiring Union soldiers to obtain writs from a judge approving each and every target wearing a grey uniform before pulling a trigger at Gettysburg. In time of war, it is both the president's right and his duty to decide how to prosecute that war and where to attack the enemy.--"


'It is more and more apparent that Islam, even when presenting itself as "moderate," is all too often a front for the Islamist program, which is fundamentally inconsistent with religious liberty and tolerance. Yet the ACLU seeks to deprive concerned Americans of the right to say so.'

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, November 11, 2010.

The headline in Israel's most influential daily newspaper stated "Netanyahu: Direct talks are only path to true Mideast peace"
(see http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy- defense/netanyahu-direct-talks-are-only-path-to- true-mideast-peace-1.321667). That headline really says it all. Netanyahu is not a political conservative. A conservative would proclaim that the "only path to true peace is victory." It is remarkable that so many political conservatives in the U.S. continue to see Netanyahu as a conservative analogous to the American style!

In 1963 Senator Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, wrote the book Why Not Victory? A fresh look at American policy. This was the follow-up to his ground-breaking The Conscience of a Conservative. Just look at the book title — for true conservatives it is axiomatic that there is no substitute for defeating evil.

Netanyahu no longer speaks of defeating Hamas and Hezbollah, let alone destroying Fatah.

Conservative columnist George Will visited Netanyahu in Jerusalem in the summer. He wrote in The Washington Post on August 12 that "No two leaders of democracies are less alike — in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies — than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist." At least Will did not describe Netanyahu as a conservative. He's not. And he is much closer to Obama than he is to Goldwater. Will relates that "Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu... One photograph is of Theodor Herzl... Zionism's founding father... The other photograph is of Winston Churchill."

It has been said that Netanyahu has long admired Churchill. More correctly, he has long spoke of Churchill. On September 24, 2009 Netanyahu gave a speech at the UN General Assembly. He said: "Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the 'confirmed unteachability of mankind,' the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the 'want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.'"

Will wrote: Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.

Netanyahu is a pragmatist; he perceives a non-existent value in linking his enemy to Nazi Germany and himself to Churchill. One flaw here is that he has never shown the political fortitude of a Churchill and another is that other than George Will and other U.S. conservative pundits who find Israeli politics too complicated, no one cares. The liberal/conservative dichotomy does not really exist in Israel as it does in America.

Netanyahu would have us draw a distinction between the Iranian enemy (and their Hamas and Hezbollah surrogates) and the PLO/Palestinian National Authority/Fatah enemy. If Netanyahu actually believes that simply because their strategies and public rhetoric are different, that one of these enemies can be negotiated with, then he is drinking his own Kool-Aid. Goldwater drew no distinction between Chinese communists and Soviet communists: both were enemies that needed to be defeated. Churchill and the Allies during World War Two did not distinguish between Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: all three had to be beaten. Netanyahu has long preached that once Israel's enemies embrace democracy and other Western values there can be peace. Churchill and Goldwater demanded victory against evil before peace. They believed that lasting peace without a prior victory would be impossible.

Netanyahu called his first book Terrorism: How The West Can Win. Did Netanyahu decide that winning the war against terrorism was less important than getting re-elected and mouthing the Obama White House line?

On the surface alone it is surprising that Netanyahu would want to link himself to Churchill in the first place. Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was a senior aide to Ze'ev Jabotinsky. When Begin, Jabotinsky's political heir and most famous disciple, declared the Irgun's Revolt against the British Mandate in 1944, Churchill was in power in London.

Benzion, the elder Netanyahu, who celebrated his 100th birthday in Jerusalem last March, organized support for the Irgun Zionist militia in the U.S. in the 1940s. He served as part of an international delegation of Zionists from the Jabotinsky movement. These activists raised funds to rescue Jews from Nazi occupied Europe and bring them to the British Mandate and break the British naval blockade. They lobbied for the creation of the Jewish State and formation of a Jewish army to fight alongside the Allies against the Nazis. To the Irgun Churchill was an enemy for much of the 1940s. Churchill saw the Zionist militias as Britain's enemy as well.

The first prime ministers from Netanyahu's Likud party, Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both honored Jabotinsky and the Zionist militias with much more commitment than Netanyahu has demonstrated. Begin was the first to place Jabotinsky's portrait in the prime minister's office. Shamir paid tribute to Avraham "Yair" Stern of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel/LEHI by placing his portrait in that same office. Now in place of Zionist heroes appears Churchill. In reality, Netanyahu does not truly emulate Churchill's doctrine and strategy either. Netanyahu has lost his way. More correctly, he lost his way a long time ago.

Moshe Phillips is the President of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel/AFSI. The chapter's website is at: www.phillyafsi.com. Moshe's blog can be found at
http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com and Moshe tweets at http://twitter.com/MoshePhillips

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, November 11, 2010.

Should other Western states follow the Belgian and French examples and ban the full Islamic body and face-covering veil — or more specifically, the burqa and the niqab? In other words, should the West ban any and all clothing which obliterates one's identity? Most Europeans, according to recent surveys, seem to think so.[1] Still, significant numbers, especially in the United States,[2] and including quite a few feminists,[3] have viewed such a ban as religiously intolerant, anti-woman, and anti-Western. They maintain that the state has no place in deciding what a woman can and cannot wear — it is her body, not public property; [4] that given the worldwide exploitation of women as pornographic sex objects, wearing loose, comfortable, modest clothing, or actually covering up, might be both convenient and more dignified;[5] that because of the West's tolerance toward religions, the state cannot come between a woman and her conscience for that would betray Western values;[6] and that women are freely choosing to wear the burqa.[7] Some Western intellectuals oppose banning the burqa although they understand the harm it may do and the way in which it may "mutilate personhood."[8] Algerian-American academic Marnia Lazreg, for example, implores Muslim women to voluntarily, freely refuse to cover their faces fully — to spurn even the headscarf; however, she does not want the state involved.[9]

It is arguable that the full body and face cover is not a religious requirement in Islam but represents a minority tradition among a small Islamist minority; that it is not a matter of free choice but a highly forced choice and a visual Islamist symbol — one that is ostentatiously anti-secularist and misogynist;[10] that the Western state does have an interest in public appearances and, therefore, does not permit public nudity or masked people in public buildings; and that it is strange that the very feminists (or their descendents) who once objected to the sexual commoditification of women "can explain to you with the most exquisitely twisted logic why miniskirts and lip gloss make women into sexual objects, but when it comes to a cultural practice, enforced by terror, that makes women into social nonentities, [they] feel that it is beneath [their] liberal dignity to support a ban on the practice."[11] To this may be added that face-veil wearers ("good" girls) endanger all those who do not wear a face veil ("bad" girls). But before addressing these arguments at greater length, it is instructive to see what political and religious leaders in the Muslim world, as well as Muslim women, have to say about the issue.

The House of Islam Unveils Its Women

The forced veiling and unveiling of Muslim women, both in terms of the headscarf and the face veil, ebbed and flowed for about a century as Muslim elites strove to come to terms with the demise of the Islamic political order that had dominated the Middle East (and substantial parts of Asia and Europe) for over a millennium. Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, for example, generated a new and vibrant brand of nationalism that sought to extricate Turkey from its imperial past — and its Islamic legacy — and to reconstitute it as a modern nation state. Iran's Reza Shah distanced his country from Islam for the opposite reason, namely, as a means to link his family to Persia's pre-Islamic imperial legacy, which is vividly illustrated by his adoption of the surname Pahlavi, of ancient Persian origins,[12] and the name Iran, or "[the land] of the Aryans," as the country's official title in all formal correspondence.[13]

During the 1920s and 1930s, in this new international environment, kings, shahs, and presidents unveiled their female citizens, and Muslim feminists campaigned hard for open faces in public. They were successful in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran, to name but a few countries.

As early as 1899, the Egyptian intellectual Qasim Amin published his landmark book The Liberation of Women, which argued that the face veil was not commensurate with the tenets of Islam and called for its removal.[14] According to photographs taken by Annie Lady Brassey in Egypt in the 1870s, Egyptian women wore heavy, dark coverings with full niqab (face covering) or partial niqab when possible.[15] In 1923, the feminist Hoda Hanim Shaarawi, who established the first feminist association that called for uncovering the face and hair, became the first Egyptian woman to remove her face veil or niqab.[16] In the following decades, the veil gradually disappeared in Egypt, so much so that in 1958, a foreign journalist wrote that "the veil is unknown here."[17]

In Afghanistan, Shah Amanullah Khan (r. 1919-29) "scandalized the Persians by permitting his wife to go unveiled." In 1928, he urged Afghan women to uncover their faces and advocated the shooting of interfering husbands. He said that he "would himself supply the weapons" for this and that "no inquiries would be instituted against the women." Once, when he saw a woman wearing a burqa in a Kabul garden, he tore it off and burned it.[18] However, Amanullah was exiled, and the country plunged back into the past.[19] Turkey banned the Islamic face veil and turban in 1934, and this prohibition has been maintained ever since by a long succession of governments that adhered to Atatürk's secularist and modernist revolution. Moreover, from the 1980s onward, Turkish women have been prohibited from wearing headscarves in parliament and in public buildings, and this law was even more strictly enforced after a 1997 coup by the secular military. In recent years, the Islamist Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, AKP), which has ruled Turkey since 2002, has tried to relax this restriction, only to be dealt a humiliating blow on June 15, 2008, when the country's Constitutional Court annulled a government reform allowing students to wear Muslim headscarves at university on the grounds that it contravened Turkey's secular system.[20] In recent years, women wearing both hijabs and burqas have been seen on the streets of Istanbul.

As early as 1926 in Iran, Reza Shah provided police protection for Iranian women who chose to dispense with the traditional scarf.[21] Ten years later, on January 7, 1936, the shah ordered all female teachers and the wives of ministers, high military officers, and government officials "to appear in European clothes and hats, rather than chadors"; and by way of "serving as an example for other Persian women," the shah asked his wife and daughters to appear without face veils in public. Ranking male officials were dismissed from their jobs if their wives appeared with face veils in public, and the police began breaking into private homes to arrest women wearing chadors there. A report from the city of Tabriz stated that only unveiled girls could receive diplomas.[22] These and other secularizing reforms were sustained by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who in September 1941 succeeded his father on the throne and instituted a ban on veiled women in public.

Lebanon has always been the most Westernized Arab society, owing to its substantial Christian population with its close affinity to Europe, France in particular. A Palestinian-Lebanese-Syrian woman visiting the United States said, "In the 1920s, my mother, a university professor, was the first woman to take off her veil in Beirut. She had to remain at home under house arrest for one year due to the violence threatened by street mobs. Then, things changed for the better."[23]

Since 1981, women in Tunisia have been prohibited from wearing Islamic dress, including headscarves, in schools or government offices. In 2006, since this ban was increasingly ignored, the Tunisian government launched a sustained campaign against the hijab. The police stopped women in the streets and asked them to remove their headscarves; the president described the headscarf as a "sectarian form of dress which had come into Tunisia uninvited." Other officials explained that Islamic dress was being promoted by extremists who exploited religion for political aims.[24]

In 2006, in neighboring Morocco, a picture of a mother and daughter wearing headscarves was removed from a textbook. The education minister explained, "This issue isn't really about religion, it's about politics ... the headscarf for women is a political symbol in the same way as the beard is for men."[25] However, the government could only go so far in its ability to restrict the face veil or headscarf. In 1975, Moroccan feminist Fatima Mernissi described the lives of Moroccan women as circumscribed by Ghazali's view of women, including women's eyes, as erotically irresistible, and as such, dangerous to men.[26] In 1987, Mernissi analyzed the Islamic veil in both theological and historical terms.[27] Clearly, as fundamentalism or political Islam returned to the historical stage, "roots" or Islamic identity, both in Morocco and elsewhere, was increasingly equated with seventh century customs that were specific to women and to the Prophet Muhammad's own life.

Public servants in Malaysia are prohibited from wearing the niqab. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the niqab "has nothing to do with [a woman's] constitutional rights to profess and practice her Muslim religion" because it is not required by Islamic law.[28] On July 18, 2010, Syria became the latest Muslim state to ban full face veils in some public places, barring female students from wearing the full face cover on Syrian university campuses. The Syrian minister of higher education indicated that the face veil ran counter to Syrian academic values and traditions.[29]

In October 2009, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, perhaps the foremost, formal spiritual authority in Sunni Islam and grand sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's highest institution of religious learning, was reportedly "angered" when he toured a school in Cairo and saw a teenage girl wearing niqab. Asking the girl to remove her face veil, he said, "The niqab is a tradition; it has no connection with religion." He then instructed the girl never to wear the niqab again and issued a fatwa (religious edict) against its use in schools.[30]

In 2010, at a time when Britain's department of health relaxed the strict National Health Service dress code by allowing Muslim nurses and doctors to wear long sleeves for religious reasons — despite the high risk of spreading deadly superbugs — the Egyptian ministry of health outlawed the niqab (which often included glove-wearing) for hospital nurses, threatening those who failed to comply with dismissal or legal prosecution. The Iraqi religious authority, Sheikh Ahmad al-Qubaisi, supported this Egyptian decision and issued a fatwa which stated, "People have the right to know the identity of the person they are in front of in order not to feel deceived. The obligation of niqab was only for the Prophet's wives as they were the mothers of all believers."[31]

Free Choice or Forced Choice?

These examples challenge the increasing number of Muslim women in the West, including converts and educated women, who claim to be freely choosing to wear the burqa and the niqab. They are doing so in stark contrast to the ethos and values of their adopted societies at a time when governments in the part of the world where this custom originated have been progressively unveiling their women.

These supposed defenders of women's rights appear oblivious to what is implied by the phrase "to cover," namely, that women are born shamed — they are nothing beyond their genitalia, which can shame or dishonor an entire family — and it is this shame which they must cover or for which they must atone. Qur'anic verse (7:26) states, "We have sent down clothing to cover your shame." Certainly, this applies to both men and women, but patriarchal customs have almost exclusively targeted women. Ironically, this verse also says that "the clothing of righteousness is the best" — a point lost on Islamists and their unwitting sympathizers in the West.

The fact is that Muslim women are increasingly not given a free choice about wearing the veil, and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, flogged, jailed, or murdered for honor by their own families, by vigilante groups, or by the state.[32] Being fully covered does not save a Muslim woman from being harassed, stalked, raped, and battered in public places, or raped or beaten at home by her husband. Nor does it stop her husband from taking multiple wives and girlfriends, frequenting brothels, divorcing her against her will, and legally seizing custody of their children.[33] A fully covered female child, as young as ten, may still be forced into an arranged marriage, perhaps to a man old enough to be her grandfather, and is not allowed to leave him, not even if he beats her every day.[34]

Moreover, after decades of attempted modernization in Muslim countries, the battle to impose the veil was launched again by resurgent Islamists. The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran sent shock waves throughout the region and set in motion a string of violent eruptions. These included the 1979-80 riots in the Shiite towns of the oil-rich Saudi province of Hasa, the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt to topple the secularist Syrian Baath regime in the early 1980s, the Algerian civil war of the 1990s, the ascendance of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. All these developments placed substantial areas under Islamist control and influence with dire consequences for women. As one Egyptian man lamented, "My grandmother would not recognize the streets of Cairo and Port Said. The women are covered from head to toe; the mosques blare hatred all day long."[35] And this in a country where the authorities go to great lengths to fight Islamist influences.

The Taliban, for example, flogged women on the street if their burqas showed too much ankle while Islamist vigilantes poured acid on the faces of Afghan and Pakistani schoolgirls who were not sufficiency covered.[36] As an Afghan woman noted, "For nearly two decades, we wore no chadors and dressed in modern ways. As the war against the Soviet occupation intensified, women were again forced to wear chadors. Now, even under an American occupation, they are again fully covered."[37]

In Algeria, a leading Islamist group proclaimed that all unveiled women are military targets and, in 1994, gunned down a 17-year-old unveiled girl.[38] In 2010 in Chechnya, roving vigilante bands of men harassed and threatened women for not wearing headscarves. They punched women and taunted them with automatic rifles and paintballs. The vigilante groups have the backing of Chechnyan president Ramzan Kadyrov's government, which also encourages polygamy.[39]

In 1983, four years after the Iranian revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini instituted a ban on women showing their hair and the shape of their bodies. The chador, which does not cover the face, is, nevertheless, a severe, dark, heavy, and shapeless garment that has demoralized and enraged what was an essentially Westernized and modern upper and middle class.[40] Thereafter, the Iranian government beat, arrested, and jailed women if they were improperly garbed and has recently warned that suntanned women and girls who looked like "walking mannequins" will be arrested as part of a new drive to enforce the Islamic dress code.[41] Saudi Arabia does not have to resort to such violence. No Saudi woman dares appear open-faced in public. In 2002, when teenage Saudi schoolgirls tried to escape from a burning school without their headscarves and abayas (black robes), the Mutawa, or religious police, beat them back. Fifteen girls were burned alive.[42] According to Tunisian-French feminist Samia Labidi, an increasing number of Islamist husbands force or pressure their wives — whose own mothers went about with uncovered faces — to cover.[43] Then, they pressure their new sisters-in-law to do likewise. In the West, some families have honor-killed their daughters for refusing to wear hijab.[44]

A man from Istanbul remembered that his grandmother had fully veiled but not his mother. But, he explained, "It is mainly peer pressure that makes things happen in Turkey. Neighbors tell you to go to mosque; they watch how young girls and women look and behave very closely. The pressure to conform is tremendous."[45]

Westerners do not understand how pervasive such pressure can be. On July 17, 2010, for example, the newspaper Roz Al-Yousuf addressed the coercive nature of hijab in Egypt. Wael Lutfi, assistant chief editor writes in the first person feminine:

Society persecutes women who do not wear a hijab. Of course, I wear a hijab. If I want to be practical and interact with this society while [sustaining] minimal damage, I must wear a hijab. A woman who does not wear a hijab is guilty until proven [innocent]. Why should I waste my time proving that I am a respectable and educated girl?

Lutfi tells "Suha's" story. She comes from a prominent Egyptian family and does not wear a hijab. At work, she is cajoled and harassed by hijab-wearing women who bombard her in person and via e-mail; they give her pro-hijab audio cassettes and invite her to hear a popular preacher whom hijab-wearers follow. Suha loses one marriage proposal after another when she refuses to promise that she will wear the hijab and stop working after marriage. Finally, Suha's married male boss questions her closely, agrees with her anti-hijab position — and then asks her to secretly become his common law wife. He views her as a prostitute because she is not wearing the hijab.

Likewise, Walaa was verbally insulted and her brothers were assaulted by neighborhood boys because she was not wearing a hijab. Now, she dons one when she leaves home, removes it elsewhere, returns home wearing it again. Another young girl wears the hijab because her father has asked her to do so and because her beloved younger brother said that his friends were judging him harshly because she did not do so. She says:

I wear a hijab because we live in a society that allows the preacher Safwat Hijazi to call women who do not wear a hijab "prostitutes," and I do not want to be called a prostitute.[46]

Thus, one can hardly view the covering of one's face as a free choice but rather as a forced choice. One must also realize that non-veiled women, including non-Muslims, who do not veil are then seen by Islamists as "fair game" or "uncovered meat that draws predators," to use the words of a prominent Australian sheikh.[47]

To be sure, some religious women dress modestly, not "provocatively," because they view this as a religious virtue. Yet only Muslims engage in full face covering to satisfy the demand for modesty, and there is a crucial difference between a free choice and a forced choice. A forced choice is not really a choice at all. One either submits or is punished, shunned, exiled, jailed, even killed. A free choice means that one has many options and freely chooses one of two or one of ten such options.

Many children who are brought up within fundamentalist religions or in cults are trained, by a system of reward and punishment, to obey their parents, teachers, and religious leaders. As adults, if they wish to remain within the community (and the opportunity for leaving did not and still does not exist for most Muslim women), they must continue to conform to its norms. Most are already socialized to do so and thus, some Muslim women will say that they do not feel that anyone is forcing them to wear the headscarf; they will, in a private conversation, denounce the face veil, the burqa, the chador, and the Saudi abaya.

In the West, young Muslim women may feel they are responding to perceived racist "Islamophobia" by donning the headscarf or the face veil as a revolutionary act,[48] one in solidarity with Islamists whom they may fear, wish to please, or marry.

Europe Debates the Veil

The Islamist resurgence throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world has triggered a mass migration to the West; Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists as well as Christians have exited Muslim lands.[49] Still, it has taken Westerners decades to understand that the battle for Muslim women's freedom as well as for Western Enlightenment values also has to be fought in the West.

Thus, in 2004, France became the first European country to legally restrict Islamic dress by passing an ethnicity-neutral law that forbade the wearing of religious clothing in public schools. Veils, visible Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps, and the hijab were all forbidden. Also in 2004, eight of Germany's sixteen states enacted restrictions on wearing hair-covering veils, particularly in public schools.[50] Since then, many European governments have debated whether or not to ban the face veil.

In February 2010, the French government refused to grant citizenship to a Moroccan man who forced his wife to wear a burqa;[51] later that year, three women actually engaged in a physical fight after a burqa-clad woman supposedly overheard another woman making snide remarks about her choice of dress.[52] In Norway, adult neighbors and their children came to blows over the question of whether Muslim women should wear the headscarf, [53] and in March 2010, a ban on the burqa in public places was proposed although defeated in the Norwegian parliament.[54] On April, 29, 2010, the lower house of the Belgian parliament approved a bill banning the burqa and imposing a fine or jail time on violators;[55] three months later, Spanish lawmakers debated banning the burqa in public although they ultimately decided against it.[56] In August 2010, Sweden's education minister announced his intention to make it easier for Swedish schools to ban the burqa.[57] In July 2010, by a majority of 336 to 1, the lower house of the French parliament approved a government bill that bans face-covering in public, and the bill was approved by the French senate on September 14.

While these bills await ratification, local European officials have already taken concrete steps against the burqa. Since January 2010, the Netherlands has limited the wearing of burqas in public spaces.[58] In May 2010, a local council in north Switzerland voted to introduce an initiative to ban the burqa in public places while, in 2005, the Belgian town of Maaseik passed a law mandating a fine for anyone wearing a face veil.[59] In April 2010, a French woman was fined for wearing a burqa while driving,[60] and in the same month, a girl wearing hijab was sent home from her school in Madrid.[61]

Britain, by contrast, has conspicuously refused to consider banning the burqa. There has, of course, been the odd case when a radical Islamist has been taken to task for unlawful insistence on the Muslim dress code, such as the Manchester dentist who refused to treat Muslim patients unless they wore traditional Islamic dress,[62] but efforts at a ban have gone nowhere in parliament.

In response to the French parliamentary vote of July 2010, Britain's immigration minister, Damian Green, stated that "forbidding women in the U.K. from wearing certain clothing would be 'rather un-British'" and would run contrary to the conventions of a "tolerant and mutually respectful society."[63] The following month, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim cabinet minister in the U.K., defended the right of women to choose whether or not to wear the burqa, claiming, "Just because a woman wears the burqa, it doesn't mean she can't engage in everyday life."[64]

Many non-Muslim, Western, female politicians have been cowed by doctrines of political correctness, cultural relativism, misguided beliefs about religious tolerance, and by the fear that if they oppose the burqa, they will be condemned as "Islamophobes" or racists. Ignorance about Muslim jurists' rulings that the full-face covering is not religiously mandated and about the history of the Islamic veil in Muslim lands has led to a curious Western and feminist abandonment of universal human values as they bear on the Islamic veil.

Ironically, powerful Western women, while claiming to represent an anti-colonialist or post-colonialist point of view, are reminiscent of Victorian-era and early twentieth century British colonial administrators who believed that the needs of empire would not be well served by interfering with local customs. This British position was very different from the position of American, Christian missionary women who tried to help, teach, and sometimes save Muslim women from their plight.[65]

Thus, both U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have donned the hijab when visiting Arab and Muslim countries whereas Arab and Muslim female dignitaries and spouses do not remove the hijab or the niqab while visiting the West. On July 18, 2010, British Minister Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary and second most powerful woman in the cabinet, described the burqa as "empowering." She said, "I don't, living in this country as a woman, want to be told what I can and can't wear. One of the things we pride ourselves on ... is being free to choose what you wear ... so banning the burka is absolutely contrary to what this country is about."[66]

On July 2, 2009, as Muslims demonstrated in Antwerp to oppose the banning of headscarves in two schools[67] — then-Swedish head of the European Union, Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, stated that the "twenty-seven-member European Union must not dictate an Islamic dress code ... the European Union is a union of freedom."[68]

The Grounds for a Burqa Ban

There are a multitude of specific problems associated with the burqa and niqab. To begin, full-body and face-covering attire hides the wearer's gender. In October 1937, Hajj Amin Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem and Adolf Hitler's future ally, fled Palestine donning a niqab as did one of the July 2005 London bombers.[69] From a security point of view, face and body covering can facilitate various acts of violence and lawlessness from petty crime and cheating to terrorism. This danger, which has been highlighted by a number of experts, notably Daniel Pipes,[70] has been taken very seriously by Muslim authorities, who have banned the burqa on precisely these grounds.

In Bangladesh, the largest state-run hospital banned staff from wearing full-face burqas after an increase in thefts of mobile phones and wallets from hospital wards.[71] In a number of Egyptian universities, women were barred from covering their faces during midterm exams and were prohibited from wearing niqabs in female dormitories after it transpired that men had snuck in disguised as women.[72] Abu Dhabi, meanwhile, has banned the niqab in all public offices to fight "unrestricted absenteeism."[73]

There are also numerous cases of bans for security. In Kuwait, for example, female drivers are barred from wearing the niqab for "security reasons." The regulation came into effect about ten years ago when the authorities were pursuing sleeper terrorist cells and feared that individual cell members could use the niqab to slip through checkpoints unnoticed.[74] Saudi Arabia's antiterrorism forces have begun a battle against the niqab after discovering that many "Islamic terrorists have used it to hide in order to commit terror attacks."[75] These concerns are not difficult to understand given the widespread use of the burqa and niqab for weapons smuggling and terror attacks, including suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories, among other places.[76]

Beyond these abiding security considerations are equally compelling humanitarian considerations. André Gerin, a French parliamentarian, has described the burqa as a "moving prison."[77] This is an apt definition: In a burqa, the wearer has no peripheral and only limited forward vision; hearing and speech are muffled; facial expressions remain hidden; movement is severely constrained. Often, no eye contact is possible; niqab wearers sometimes wear dark glasses, so that their eyes cannot be seen.

A burqa wearer may feel that she cannot breathe, that she might slowly be suffocating. She may feel buried alive and may become anxious or claustrophobic.[78] Just imagine the consequences of getting used to this as a way of life. But perhaps one never gets used to it. Many Saudi and Afghan women toss their coverings the moment they leave the country or enter their own courtyards.[79] For example, an unnamed Saudi princess describes her experience of the Saudi abaya as follows:

When we walked out of the cool souq area into the blazing hot sun, I gasped for breath and sucked furiously through the sheer black fabric. The air tasted stale and dry as it filtered through the thin gauzy cloth. I had purchased the sheerest veil available, yet I felt I was seeing life through a thick screen. How could women see through veils made of a thicker fabric? The sky was no longer blue, the glow of the sun had dimmed; my heart plunged to my stomach when I realized that from that moment, outside my own home I would not experience life as it really is in all its color. The world suddenly seemed a dull place. And dangerous, too! I groped and stumbled along the pitted, cracked sidewalk, fearful of breaking an ankle or leg."[80]

The burqa is harmful not only to the wearer but to others as well. The sight of women in burqas can be demoralizing and frightening to Westerners of all faiths, including Muslims, not to mention secularists. Their presence visually signals the subordination of women. Additionally, the social isolation intrinsically imposed by the burqa may also be further magnified by the awkward responses of Westerners. Several Ivy League college students mentioned that classmates in burqas and dark, thick gloves make them feel "very sad," "pushed away," "uneasy about talking to them." "When one woman is asked to read aloud, she does so but her heavy gloves make turning the pages slow and difficult." The students feel sorry for her and do not know how to relate to her.[81]

A burqa wearer, who can be as young as ten years old, is being conditioned to endure isolation and sensory deprivation. Her five senses are blocked, muted. Sensory deprivation and isolation are considered forms of torture and are used to break prisoners. Such abuse can lead to low self-esteem, generalized fearfulness, dependence, suggestibility, depression, anxiety, rage, aggression toward other women and female children, or to a complete psychological breakdown.

Wearing the burqa is also hazardous to the health in other ways. Lifetime burqa wearers may suffer eye damage and may be prone to a host of diseases that are also related to vitamin D deficiency from sunlight deprivation, including osteoporosis, heart disease, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, certain cancers, depression, chronic fatigue, and chronic pain. It is ironic that women in the Middle East, one of the world's sunniest regions, have been found in need of high levels of vitamin D supplementation owing to their total covering.[82]


The same Islamists who subordinate women also publicly whip, cross-amputate, hang, stone, and behead human beings. Iran continues to execute women and men by stoning for adultery.[83] The burqa reminds us of such practices. Many Westerners, including Muslims, ex-Muslims, and Christians, Jews, and Hindus who have fled Muslim lands, may feel haunted or followed when they see burqas on Western streets. Does their presence herald the arrival of Islamist supremacism?

Many Muslim governments know something that their Western counterparts are just learning. Covered women signify Islamist designs on state power and control of political, military, social, personal, and family life. Were these designs to be extended to the West, it will spell out the end of modernity, human rights, and the separation of state and church, among other things; in short, the end of liberal democracy and freedoms as now practiced.

Apart from being an Islamist act of assertion that involves clear security dangers and creating mental and physical health hazards, the burqa is a flagrant violation of women's most basic human rights. However, were the government to attempt to ban the burqa in the United States, a team of constitutional legal scholars would have to decide whether to follow the French ethnicity — and religion-neutral approach of no "face coverings," "face masks," etc., or whether to ban outright the public disappearance of women's faces and their subordination in the name of Islam as a violation of their civil rights.

It is impossible for Western governments and international organizations to prevent the acid attacks or honor killings of women in Muslim countries who refuse to cover their faces, but why tie society's hands on Western soil? Why would Western countries prize the subordination of women and protect it as a religious right at a time when many Muslim states refuse to do so? When it is understood that the burqa is not a religious requirement but rather a political statement — at best merely an ethnic and misogynistic custom — there is no reason whatsoever for Western traditions of religious tolerance to misconstrue the covering of women as a religious duty at a time when the vast majority of Muslims do not see it as such.

End Notes

[1] "Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe," Pew Global Attitudes Project, Washington, D.C., July 8, 2010; United Press International, July 17, 2010; The Toronto Sun, July 28, 2010.
[2] New Atlanticist (Washington, D.C.), Mar. 1, 2010; Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2010.
[3] Martha Nussbaum, "Veiled Threats?" The New York Times, July 11, 2010; Naomi Wolf, "Behind the Veil Lives a Thriving Muslim Sexuality," The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), Aug. 30, 2008; Joan Wallach, "France Has the Burqa All Wrong," Salon, Apr. 12, 2010; Joan Wallach, "Don't Ban Burqas — Or Censor South Park," BigThink.com, May 21, 2010; Yvonne Ridley, "How I Came to Love the Veil," The Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2006.
[4] Marnia Lazreg, Questioning the Veil: Open Letters to Muslim Women (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), p. 62.
[5] Wolf, "Behind the Veil Lives a Thriving Muslim Sexuality."
[6] Nussbaum, "Veiled Threats?"; Leon Wieseltier, "Faces and Faiths," The New Republic, July 27, 2010.
[7] Nussbaum, "Veiled Threats?"; Wolf, "Behind the Veil Lives a Thriving Muslim Sexuality."
[8] Wieseltier, "Faces and Faiths."
[9] Lazreg, Questioning the Veil, pp. 62-3.
[10] Bernard-Henri Levy, "Why I Support a Ban on Burqas," The Huffington Post, Feb. 15, 2010; Samia Labidi, "Faces of Janus: The Arab-Muslim Community in France and the Battle for Its Future," in Zeyno Baran, ed., The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 116-9; Melanie Philips, in "Should France Ban the Burqa?" National Review Online, July 23, 2010; Elham Manea, in Valentina Colombo, "Europe: Behind the Burqa Debate," Hudson Institute, New York, Mar. 12, 2010.
[11] Stuart Schneiderman blog, "Burqaphilia," July 17, 2010.
[12] Farvardyn Project, "Pahlavi Literature," accessed Aug. 25, 2010.
[13] M. Sadeq Nazmi-Afshar, "The People of Iran, The Origins of Aryan_People," Iran Chamber Society, accessed Aug. 25, 2010.
[14] Amin Qasim, The Liberation of Women and The New Woman: Two Documents in the History of Egyptian Feminism, trans. Samiha Sidhom Peterson (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 2000).
[15] Reina Lewis and Nancy Micklenwright, eds., Gender, Modernity and Liberty: Middle Eastern and Western Women's Writings: A Critical Sourcebook (New York: I.B. Tauris and Co., 2006), pp. 36-7; Afaf Lufti al-Sayyid Marsot, "The Revolutionary Gentlewomen in Egypt," in Lois Beck and Nikki Keddie, eds., Women in the Muslim World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 261-76.
[16] Colombo, "Europe: Behind the Burqa Debate."
[17] Sarasota Herald Tribune, Jan. 26, 1958.
[18] Rhea Talley Stewart, Fire in Afghanistan 1914-1929: Faith, Hope, and the British Empire (New York: Doubleday, 1973), pp. 127, 376-8.
[19] Rosanne Klass, Afghanistan: The Great Game Revisited (New York: Freedom House, 1987), p. 39; idem, Land of the High Flags (New York: Odyssey Books, 1964), pp. 202-3.
[20] The Muslim Observer (Farmington, Mich.), Jan. 31, June 19, 2008.
[21] Hamideh Sedghi, Women and Politics in Iran: Veiling, Unveiling, and Reveiling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 85.
[22] Ibid., pp. 85-7.
[23] Author interview with the wife of an Arab ambassador to the United Nations, New York, 1980.
[24] BBC News, Sept. 26, 2006.
[25] Ibid., Oct. 6, 2006.
[26] Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1975).
[27] Ibid.
[28] Nurjaanah Abdullah and Chew Li Hua, "Legislating Faith in Malaysia," Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2007, pp. 264-89.
[29] BBC News, July 19, 2010.
[30] The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 5, 2009.
[31] Colombo, "Europe: Behind the Burqa Debate."
[32] Phyllis Chesler, "Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2010, pp. 3-11.
[33] Phyllis Chesler, The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), chap. 6, 7.
[34] David Ghanim, Gender and Violence in the Middle East (Wesport: Praeger, 2009), chap. 2, 4.
[35] Author interview, New York, 2008.
[36] "Women's Lives under the Taliban: A Background Report," National Organization of Women, Washington, D.C., accessed Aug. 25, 2010; The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 12, 2008.
[37] Author interview, New York, 2005.
[38] "Equality Now Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee: Algeria," United Nations, New York, July 1998.
[39] Reuters, Aug. 21, 2010.
[40] See, for example, Roya Hakakian, Journey from the Land of No (New York: Crown Publishers, 2004); Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran (New York: Random House, 2003).
[41] Associated Press, Apr. 23, 2007; The Daily Telegraph, Apr. 27, 2010.
[42] BBC News, Mar. 15, 2002.
[43] Labidi, "Faces of Janus," pp. 117-8.
[44] Chesler, "Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings."
[45] Author interview, New York, 2010.
[46] "Egyptian Newspaper Roz Al-Yousuf Criticizes Phenomenon of Compelling Egyptian Women to Wear a Hijab," The Middle East Media Research Institute, Sept. 6, 2010.
[47] The Times (London), Oct. 28, 2006.
[48] Los Angeles Times, Jan. 12, 2005; Al-Jezeera TV (Doha), Sept. 17, 2008.
[49] See, for example, CBN News, Oct. 15, 2009; David Raab, "The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas," Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jan. 1-15, 2003.
[50] "Discrimination in the Name of Neutrality," Human Rights Watch, New York, Feb. 26, 2009.
[51] The Guardian (London), Feb. 2, 2010.
[52] The Daily Telegraph, May 18, 2010.
[53] Islam in Europe Blog, Aug. 4, 2010.
[54] The Foreigner (Raege, Norway), May 28, 2010.
[55] BBC News, Apr. 30, 2010.
[56] Associated Press, July 20, 2010.
[57] The Swedish Wire, Aug. 5, 2010.
[58] Benjamin Ismail, "Ban the Burqa? France Votes Yes," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2010, pp. 47-55.
[59] Associated Press, May 6, 2010; "Brussels Barqa Ban Backfires When City Ends up Paying Fines for Muslim Women on Welfare," Militant Islam Monitor, Aug. 26, 2005.
[60] The Daily Telegraph, June 3, 2010.
[61] Ibid., Apr. 16, 2010.
[62] The Daily Mail (London), July 2, 2009.
[63] ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, July 19, 2010.
[64] The Guardian, Aug. 1, 2010.
[65] Penelope Tuson, Playing the Game: The Story of Western Women in Arabia (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003), pp. 149-50.
[66] The Daily Telegraph, July 18, 2010.
[67] Islam in Europe Blog, July 2, 2009.
[68] The Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2009.
[69] BBC News, Feb. 20, 2007.
[70] Daniel Pipes, "Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats," Lion's Den: Daniel Pipes Blog, Nov. 4, 2006.
[71] The Daily Times (Lahore), Mar. 23, 2010.
[72] The Daily News Egypt (Giza), June 7, July 27, 2010.
[73] Colombo, "Europe: Behind the Burqa Debate."
[74] Kuwait Times (Kuwait City), Oct. 9, 2009.
[75] Colombo, "Europe: Behind the Burqa Debate."
[76] Pipes, "Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats."
[77] The Daily Telegraph, June 22, 2009.
[78] See, for example, Reuters, July 7, 2009.
[79] Edward Hunter, The Past Present: A Year in Afghanistan (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1959), chap. 4, 5.
[80] Jean Sasson, Princess: A True Story of Life behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia (Georgia: Windsor-Brooke Books, 2010), pp. 94-5.
[81] Author interview, New York, 2009.
[82] Reuters, June 25, 2007.
[83] The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 13, 2010; "Iran: End Executions by Stoning," Amnesty International, Jan. 15, 2008.

Phyllis Chesler is emerita professor of psychology and women's studies at the Richmond College of the City University of New York and co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women's Health Network. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Nathan Bloom in the preparation of this paper.

This appeared in Middle East Quarterly Fall 2010

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanual A. Winston, November 10, 2010.

With your patience, allow me to repeat myself on Israel's "Homeland Security". The mix of Arab Muslims, including Iran, Syria, their proxies Hamas, Hezb'Allah and Fatah (denials notwithstanding), Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan with an 80% Arab Muslim Palestinian...make it plain that, one way or another, they will target Israeli cities with a saturation missile attack.

Therefore, Israel has no valid reason to follow any rules of retrained warfare. So, at the first indication that these Muslim and Arab nations are mobilizing to attack, Israel cannot wait to be struck first to enable the Europeans and the Americans under President Barack Hussein Obama to say that Israel had "justification" for a counter-strike.

Consequently, Israel's rules of engagement should first authorize pre-emptive attacks to hit all Arab/Muslim cities — including the small towns where Hezb'Allah has implanted missile launchers among their civilians, to strike every military base and, specifically, to take out key leaders hidden in their bunkers.

This should be done with tactical nukes, air fuel bombs, sub-munition bomblets, EMP (Electro-Magnetic-Pulse) explosives that disable every computer-driven vehicle or gadget — in addition to every conventional weapon available.

Since the Muslim Arabs intend this to be a fight unto the death of Israel, according to the Arab Muslims, then if Israel limits herself to smart missiles in order to preserve a hostile civilian population on the other side, she is merely setting up a formula for national suicide.

The Arab Muslims have set the "rules of engagement" until now, meaning there are no rules, leaving Israel no viable choices.

As has been prophesized in Tanach (Torah), "The sand will be burnt black; the streams will run with pitch..." So, let it be their sand, their streams and may G-d protect Israel against the primitive barbarians called Arabs or Muslims out of Ishmael and Mohammed.

This below is called "In any Future Conflict, Israel will have to Evacuate Cities and Towns, Ashkenazi says." It was written by Ya'acov Katz and appeared today in The Jerusalem Post.


IDF Chief of General Staff says IDF is already working on target banks for future conflicts with Hamas, Hezb'Allah.

Israel will have to evacuate civilian populations during a future conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip or Hezb'Allah in Lebanon, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said on Tuesday.

"In the future, will not meet the enemy on the traditional battlefield," Ashkenazi said. "Hamas chooses to fight within an urban setting. It could have alternatively chosen to fight in the open areas."

Speaking at the International Conference on Fire and Combined Arms in an Urban Terrain in Zichron Ya'acov, Ashkenazi said that in a future conflict the IDF will use ground forces and standoff firepower in conjunction with one another.

"It would be elegant if we could stop rocket and missile fire with just standoff firepower," he said. "But it is not possible and we will need to combine our capabilities and also to maneuver on the ground."

As a result, Ashkenazi said that the IDF was already working now on creating target banks for future conflicts with Hezb'Allah and Hamas so that the forces will not enter a conflict and need to begin to look for the enemy which hides among civilians.

"During the Yom Kippur War all we had to do was pick up a pair of binoculars and look for the divisions," he said. "Nowadays, there are no divisions...and therefore we will need to make an effort to turn the enemy from asymmetric to symmetric."

As reported recently in The Jerusalem Post, Ashkenazi said that the IDF was looking into procuring new accurate rockets to increase the ground forces' capability to independently destroy targets with great precision and without needing to rely on air support.

"In a future conflict we will need new weapons systems that are large enough to destroy targets but are small enough to minimize collateral damage," he said.

The IDF's Planning Division is currently conducting a review of a procurement plan for new rockets which needs to be approved by the General Staff and if so will be inserted into the IDF's next multi-year plan, set to go into effect in 2011.

One system under consideration is Accular, developed by Israel Military Industries (IMI), a 160 mm. autonomous surface-to-surface missile guided by a GPS system that puts it within 10 meters of a target. The rocket, designed to destroy artillery batteries and infantry command posts, was successfully tested several months ago in the South.  

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 Bill Warner, November 10, 2010.

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained "expert". What could be wrong with this advice?

Let's use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn't really apply today. Don't worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the "expert". This judgment is delivered by a "university expert". We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an "expert" be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an "expert"?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from "experts". You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic "authorities" and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don't think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq's Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed's rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com and visit their website at http://www.politicalislam.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 10, 2010.

We've been there, done that. Plans for building in Jerusalem east of the Green Line are announced, and the world goes slightly berserk. It is really tiresome.

Word from the government here is that 1) these building projects are just in the first stages (is this supposed to give people hope that maybe they'll never finalize?), 2) that the plans were announced many weeks ago, and, 3) that some on the left (Peace Now, which has a propensity for this behavior was mentioned) deliberately called media attention to it now to cause Netanyahu problems while he is in the States.

Could be.


An editorial from the Wall Street Journal criticized Obama for taking this on all the way from Jakarta:

"...So what did President Obama talk about upon arriving in Jakarta yesterday? Israeli construction projects.

"Why Mr. Obama chose to pick this fight from the distance of Southeast Asia is anyone's guess. Israel's decision to proceed with the building of some 1,000 housing units in the Har Homa neighborhood of municipal Jerusalem — a 'settlement' only in the most jaundiced sense of the term — was made in October. Israeli governments of both the right and left have encouraged similar building projects since Jerusalem was reunified in 1967. And construction of the new housing will not begin for months if not years.

"None of that deterred Mr. Obama, who warned the Israeli government that 'this kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.'

"...All Israel has done is insist that Jews have a right to live anywhere in their capital city, something that might be controversial in Ramallah but ought not to be in Washington. Mr. Obama's public endorsement of the Palestinian view of what constitutes a settlement only puts the negotiated peace he seeks further out of reach."
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704635 704575604720195910014. html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Jonathan Tobin — whose piece in Commentary is entitled "Charm Offensive Ends as Obama Panders to Muslim World" — reflects similar and even more serious concerns:

"Obama chose to use his visit to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, as the venue for comments directly criticizing Israel...

"...now that the election is over, Obama is back to his old tricks, seizing upon an announcement that can have no impact on any theoretical peace deal in order to pander to a Muslim world that seeks Israel's destruction. By making a statement about Jerusalem while in Indonesia, Obama is signaling that the United States regards Jewish Jerusalem as being no different from the most remote settlement in the West Bank: an illegal outpost that must be destroyed and its inhabitants removed. Such a statement helps fuel the Arab irredentism that has been the primary obstacle to peace since Israel's birth in 1948.

"Obama's pandering to the Muslim world is also a signal to Jewish Democrats that their party's leader is once again throwing Israel under the bus in pursuit of popularity in the Third World..."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/ blogs/index.php/tobin/380719


Prime Minister Netanyahu's response to Obama was pointed and on the mark, as far as it went. His office put out a statement that said:

"Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. Israel has never accepted upon itself restrictions of any kind on construction in Jerusalem...including during the ten months in which construction was suspended in Judea and Samaria.

Israel sees no connection between the diplomatic process and planning and building policy in Jerusalem, which has not changed in 40 years. All Israeli governments in the past 40 years have built in all parts of the city. During this period, peace agreements were signed with Egypt and Jordan, and for 17 years, diplomatic negotiations have been conducted with the Palestinians. These are historical facts. Construction in Jerusalem has never hindered the peace process.

The disagreements with the US over Jerusalem are well-known. They are not new and have continued for 40 years. We hope to overcome them and continue to advance the diplomatic negotiations.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/ Spokesman/2010/11/spokejerusalem091110.htm

In a TV interview yesterday, the prime minister elaborated:

"You are talking about a handful of apartments that really don't affect the map at all, contrary to impressions that might be perceived from certain news reports."


Mr. Netanyahu will not be holding his breath waiting for an opportunity to end the disagreements with the US over Jerusalem. That much is clear.

If I have unease it is because his statements are only about Jerusalem and say nothing about Judea and Samaria and building there. Tomorrow he meets with Clinton regarding ways to re-start the process.


As would be expected, PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat has milked this for all it's worth: "The international community must respond to Israel's unilateral measures by instantly (instantly?) recognizing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders(sic)."

The international community must intervene immediately, he said, to salvage the two-state solution, which would be a "natural response" to the measures of Jerusalem. "...Palestinians could no longer remain idle in the face of Israel's practices that consolidate the occupation..."

The man's a clown, albeit a potentially dangerous one.


For a sense of deja vu about this issue, as well as an explanation of the strategic significance of Har Homa, see Lenny Ben-David's blog, here:
http://lennybendavid.com/2007/12/ is-har-homa-settlement-strategic.html


Also lending an air of deja vu to the news is Obama's statement yesterday (alluded to by Tobin, above) that,

"With respect to outreach to the Muslim world, I think that our efforts have been earnest and sustained...

"We don't expect that we are going to completely eliminate some of the misunderstandings and mistrust that have developed over a long period of time, but we do think that we're on the right path."

This is going to increase US security, you see.


I wrote recently about the problem of rock-throwing by Arabs. Nothing is more perverse and difficult to explain than the fact that Israeli ambulances are attacked with rocks even though Arabs have full and equal access to Israeli medical care. An Israeli ambulance might be carrying an Arab patients — or, actually, an Arab doctor.

Khaled Abu Toameh, who is doing a splendid series of articles with Hudson-NY, addresses this issue:
http://www.hudson-ny.org:80/1654/ palestinians-attack-doctors-ambulances


According to the Iranian news agency Fars, Hamas Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmed Yousef in Gaza has extended an invitation to Iranian president Ahmadinejad to visit. This will give a boost to the "resistance front."

Oh joy.


On the brighter side, I have this from an inside source: Anne Bayefsky's report on the forthcoming Durban III to take place in NYC in September 2011 notwithstanding, there may be reason to hope that this will not materialize.

Bayefsky's information is solid in terms of what is being discussed in the halls of the UN. But my source is well enough connected to be aware of political goings-on that might "discourage" the plans.


I pondered recently whether it would be necessary sometime soon to take pre-emptive military action against our enemies at our borders. I have no information on this, but find it at least minimally reassuring that there is indication that the IDF is at work planning new strategies for the next time — strategies that would help to protect our fighters in the context of urban fighting and deal with an enemy that uses its own people as human shields. It is felt that civilian populations will have to be evacuated from cities or towns that will be attacked, either in Lebanon or Gaza.

Presumably this will allow us to more readily hit rocket storage and launching sites.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 10, 2010.

Message to the easy-to-seduce Jews of America and Israel:

Non-Jews, and others such as the SC4Z, who support the sovereign rights of Israel, stare in disbelief at the absolute ridiculousness of the Jews who believe that if they help their worst enemies plant yet another Islamic state or two on Israel's borders then Israel will be the lion that lies down with the as yet to be tamed Islamic lamb. The arabs think this is a funny joke and that these Jews are silly jokers, not long for this world.

Well, folks, the world is now convinced that the tidy, smug, well-fed Jews, who imagine they are safe in New York and who constantly prattle about "making the peace" by helping the arabs steal yet another large chunk of land from Israel, are as dense and naive as the Jews who put their all in the hands of Bernie Madoff. Yehrite, it's so lovely to treat arabs as if they were children who will be reborn as trustworthy colleagues by the simple act of trusting them. So shmaltzy, these true-believers (especially the wealthy New Yorkers and frightened British Jews) who bought into the dream that their Jewish Wonderfulness will convert their worst enemies into best friends after they help them conquer the rest of the Middle East. Dream on, boobies. Ever read the Koran? Ever question whether your Jewish Wonderfulness and your fine bagels and pastries will eradicate decades of inculcated hatred toward non-Muslims and Jews? Hatred that has cemented the jihadist's faith in his allah? Yep. We thought not. And this is because the arabs are perfectly Janusian and can turn, without any qualms, their most sincere and flattering smiles to your naive faces whilst snickering at YOU, behind your backs.

The arabs need sentimental Jewish poets and romantic peace-dreamers to help them concentrate the Jews of Israel into smaller targets — It's so much easier to exterminate a small compressed target than a large, well-defended region. (Isn't this exactly what Jimmy Carter himself had in mind when he rushed to aid his dear friend, that thankfully dead Egyptian terrorist butcher, Yasser Arafat?) The NIF are disgusting. But members of The Israel Project who believe talking politically correct talk will save the world are the ones who still don't understand the sophistication and compulsions of the arab mind. And they won't "get it" because they feel they ought to behave as if deaf to the screams of the Israeli Jews who are maimed and slaughtered by the New Israel Fund's "dear arab friends." But soon they will awake, unfortunately too late to help themselves, when their Christian neighbors scream with horror upon realizing that they, too, are on the Islamic extermination list.

Israel must remove every trace of the arabs who re-invented themselves as "palestinians"; and eradicate the works of the Muslims, whom the silly Jews are at this very moment allowing to invent a faux "kultur" and concoct an entirely false history for themselves. (The fascist remnants in the British Foreign Office are abetting the Muslims. But, don't waste your time on searching for their motivations, just put them down!) The only true Palestinians are the heirs of the Jews who lived for centuries in the region then known as "Palestine," long recognized as "The Jewish Homeland." The British did their best to wipe out most of these Jews, but the Jews who survived British pogroms and deceit knew how to fight and defend Israel and this was true until after Israel won the 1967 arab war against Israel. It was then that the romantic, poetic, naive, starved-for-love, easy-to-seduce Jews of israel whimsically came to the fore and decided to "think different." They would gain fame and notoriety (and maybe here and there a free lunch) by doing something new: These naive and romantic, impractical Jews decided to offer tribute to their vanquished would-be conquerors "for to purchase the peace" instead of keeping the spoils of their victory, as was then their absolute right. They were in the catbird seat and they had a duty owed to people of Israel to set the conditions for peace, as was also their absolute right. But nooo. These Jews wanted to do something different. So with a little help from the Baptist Jew-hater, Jimmy Carter, they bowed and scraped and tugged their forelocks and behaved like serfs and thereby ushered in the next wave of disrespect for the nation of Israel. Their spoiled and soft women were even worse, because they, too, swooned at the slightest hint of flattery (not to mention their love for the pearls placed around their pudgy necks by the vanquished but smarter arab invaders.)

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z. (Not right. Not left. Just 4 justice 4 Israel.)

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 10, 2010.

Israel's radical left is obsessed with the word "fascist."

Israel is the only country in the Middle East where people vote and enjoy free speech, a free press, due process and habeas corpus, but none of that makes any impression on an increasing number of Israeli left-wingers whose definition of fascist seems to be any government that doesn't adopt left-wing policies.

At any rate, with Israel's leftist chattering classes so eager to label virtually anyone and anything as fascist, perhaps it's necessary to clarify just what such people mean when they use the word.

  • It's fascist to allow Israeli voters to dictate the decisions of the Israeli government. Those voters cannot be counted on to support correct policy choices.

  • It's fascist to allow Zionist students to hold rallies on campuses against anti-Israel groups that also hold campus rallies, such as those organized by Arab and Jewish leftist students.

  • It's fascist to complain that the Israeli media are dominated by leftists who prevent non-leftists from expressing themselves.

  • It's fascist to allow non-leftists to hold academic posts teaching political science, sociology, education, etc. These departments should serve only to instruct students in leftist ideas.

  • It's fascist to suggest that people applying for Israeli citizenship be required to express a commitment of loyalty to the country. (It's OK, though, for other countries to require it.)

  • It's fascist for Israel to have a dominant ethnic majority. That makes it an apartheid-like entity. (It's OK, though, for other countries to have one.)

  • It's fascist for Israel to ignore UN resolutions.

  • It's fascist for Israel to use force to defend its citizens. Terror should be dealt with by Israel only through capitulation.

  • It's fascist for Israel to allow people to express opinions and ideas with which the Left disagrees.

  • It's fascist for anyone to object to the use of university classrooms for anti-Israel political indoctrination and ideological brainwashing.

  • It's fascist for Israel to reject the ideas preached by the international Left.

  • It's fascist for Israel to expect Arabs to obey the law.

  • It's fascist for Israel to interfere with the smuggling of explosives and other weapons to Hamas in Gaza.

  • It's fascist for Israel to allow Jews to live in neighborhoods within Jerusalem.

  • It's fascist for Israel to refuse to turn half of Jerusalem over to terrorists.

  • It's fascist for Israel to allow Jews to move to and live in the Galilee.

  • It's fascist for Israel to allow Jews to live in lands outside the "Green Line" pre-1967 borders. It's also fascist for anyone to suggest Jews should have the right to live in the West Bank even if a Palestinian state is someday erected there.

  • It's fascist for Israel to allow people to criticize judicial activism or other politicized behavior of the courts.

  • It's fascist for Israel to expect Arabs to pay taxes.

  • It's fascist for Israel to refuse to bail out Arab municipalities that have refused to collect taxes.

  • It's fascist for anyone to suggest that Israeli Arabs should do some form of national service.

  • It's fascist for Israel to defend its borders.

  • It's fascist to allow soldiers in uniform to attend classes in universities.

  • It's fascist to allow non-leftist students to criticize leftist professors.

  • It's fascist for Jews to shoot back.

  • It's fascist to remind leftists of how they have been wrong about almost everything.

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 10, 2010.

This is by Ziv Goldfisher and was published in Maariv. It is archived at

"We do not call for the execution of leftists at the marketplace. When I draw a rector's attention to the fact that a certain lecturer calls for the boycott of the institute he works for and by doing so he harms the livelihood of his colleagues, that rector will summon that lecturer and will ask him why is he harming his colleagues."


Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Until two years ago Dr. Mordechai Kedar was almost unknown publicly. The lecturer from the Department of Arabic at Bar Ilan University has led a rather tedious academic life, teaching and guiding students and participating at academic conferences now and then. There is nothing that will make one's life more interesting or fill one's blood with adrenaline than this.

A short interview in the Arabic language at the Al-Jazeera television network turned the Raananna resident orientalist into a star, mostly among people of the right wing. In fluent Arabic, he attacked the interviewer, who criticized Israel for its decision to build in East Jerusalem: "We were building in Jerusalem when your forefathers — pagans who worshipped idols — were drinking wine." He bluntly threw a curve at the stunned interviewer who was on the verge of a stroke.

Since that interview, Kedar's life has changed. He became a popular interviewee, his articles and commentaries were published in newspapers and as from the beginning of this year, he acts as chairman of 'Israel Academia Monitor' — a right wing non-profit organization monitoring left-wing extremist Israeli academics that work in academic institutions in Israel and abroad. Kedar, in his own manner, does not hesitate to flog at researchers who doubt Zionist arguments and messages. "Those leftists act under academic freedom, and there is no greater vileness than this ", according to Kedar, who attacks using non-academic anguage. "If they think that Israel is an apartheid state oppressing the Arabs, let them go to the place that they love."

Exposing the Leftists

In two months, Kedar (57) will go on a lecture tour of the United States. He will lecture on the Israeli-Arabic conflict, Jerusalem and Iran, where he will be addressing Jewish communities and Christian audiences. This is not the only connection between Kedar and the American public. "Israel Academia Monitor,' which is headed by Kedar, sends information to the Jewish-American public on a weekly basis about Israeli extreme-left wing academics — those called 'Post-Zionists' or Anti-Zionists' — who poignantly criticize Israeli policy and Israel's Jewish identity.

This week's victim was Prof. Moshe Zuckermann from Tel Aviv University, who during a lecture in Germany, predicted the end of the state of Israel. "We invite our honorable readers to write a message contradicting the anti-Israeli arguments stated at the academy in Israel," says the email message written in English.

"All we do is expose to the public the hypocrisy of those whose actions are contemptible while sanctimoniously they adorn themselves as impartial humanitarians," Kedar explains, using a Talmudic proverb on hypocrisy. "One of the donors of Tel Aviv University who was aware of the use of his donations demanded they discuss the matter at the board of governors. After being silenced by the university directorate, he drew his own conclusions, took his money and transferred his donations to another university".

Let me understand, you persecute the leftists in order to silence them or get them fired?

"We do not call for their execution at the marketplace, nor do we have gallow trees. We do not demand that they get fired. That final conclusion is for the academic institution to make. When I draw a rector's attention to the fact that a certain lecturer calls for a boycott of the institution that he works for and by doing so he harms the livelihood of his colleagues, the rector will summon that lecturer and will ask him why he is harming his colleagues. Anyway, who authorized all those academics, who call for a boycott of Israel, to harm their colleagues livelihood?".

Would you like those academics to be deposed of or fired?

"I would like them to behave honestly. If the state and its institutions commit apartheid, as they claim, then let them stand up and boycott the institutions that feed them."

Indeed, these lecturers left, but there is a growing hatred towards Israel at campuses worldwide. Let me tell you a story. A few months ago, the Museum of Science in Boston, Massachusetts presented the achievements of the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion). Two lecturers from Tel Aviv University appealed to the museum demanding them to remove the exhibits of the Israel Institute of Technology claiming that the institute is a part of the arm that oppresses the Palestinians. We exposed the fact that these honorable lecturers called to boycott the Israel Institute of Technology. I can tell you that the shouting behind the scenes between the Israel Institute of Technology and Tel Aviv University flew sky high. There were shouts, "So what? Did it contribute anything to Israel?" "Do you think it has no impact? The president of Tel Aviv University is reprimanded by the president of the Israel Institute of Technology: What business do your lecturers have sticking their stinking noses into our affairs? Stop their nonsense and make them leave us alone."

What difference does it make anyway?

"It does make a difference, because maybe tomorrow, struggling against the Council for Higher Education over budgets, Tel Aviv University will need the assistance of the Israel Institute of Technology. What will the Israel Institute of Technology tell them? 'Kiss our ass, we will not assist you. This is the price Tel Aviv University will pay for the damage these two lecturers caused to the Israel Institute of Technology. Do you think that there are no unsettled accounts between these institutions? What is going on behind the closed doors of appointment committees, where lecturers are getting their promotions is one of the big secrets. I would like to believe that before promoting someone, the institution considers his statements." Do you refer to Ilan Pappè? (a Haifa University anti-Zionist researcher who left Israel after his promotion had been stopped). "Yes, for example. Do you know how he embarrassed the Haifa University by the Teddy Katz affair? (Teddy Katz, a leftist graduate, claimed that the Alexandroni brigade slaughtered the Arabs of Tantura during the War of Independence. He was sued and it has been made clear that the research is incompatible with academic norms. Pappè demanded that Haifa University be boycotted for disqualifying this research., ZG). What a shame! So, the Haifa University showed Ilan Pappè the door."

The leftists are acting vile

The website "Israel-Academia-Monitor.com" states that its purpose is to expose Israeli extremist academics who abuse academic freedom in order to advocate measures that deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Some may call it "McCarthyism" and political persecution while others may interpret it as trying to enhance Israel as a Jewish state. According to Kedar, left wing academics are willing to sell the state for their personal promotions. "Nowadays, there are anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish tendencies in many departments of Israeli academia".


"There is a reason for it. Natural sciences are based on the scientific method. You go to the laboratory to test every theory and find out whether it works. On the other hand, there is no humanities laboratory in which you can test whether your ideas are correct. Therefore, you may reach unrealistic or imaginary solutions."

Then, why do they choose to be anti-Zionists? They could just as well be right-wing.

"These fellows chant the chants that the world wants to hear. The world nowadays, mostly in Europe, has neglected the issue of the nation-State. In academia, it is expressed by Israelis chanting the European chants. They have given up their ethnic and religious identity and were accepted into the academic inner circles. Academic promotion is based on your colleagues' opinions about you and their reviews of your books.

"Since there are no laboratories in humanities and social sciences, and they can not prove theories by lab experiments, the researcher is dependant on his colleagues to accept whatever he says. Therefore, they broadcast the chants that Europe wants to hear. Humanities academics are captured in their European colleagues ideology and they will sell the state history and the future for their personal promotion.

But eventually you harm academic freedom.

"They use academic freedom as a pretext, and there is nothing more vile than that. For example, there is a certain researcher who found out that Israel is an apartheid state (i.e. the racial segregation policy practiced in South Africa until 1994. Z.G). I have no problem with this provided he gives freedom of speech to those that prove him wrong. You see, in South Africa, black people were not allowed to live everywhere. There were buses, hospitals and schools for white people only. No such phenomena exist in the state of Israel.

Was your personal promotion or career harmed as a result of your right-wing opinions?

"No. Personally, I never asked anybody for a scholarship, because I am free and economically well off. I do what I like. I have a part-time job and I guide more graduates for second and third academic degrees than all my colleagues do. Furthermore, sometimes I am invited to conferences as the "Devil's Advocate." There was a conference at Tel Aviv University on the Islamic movement. The organizer asked me to give a lecture from the opposing point of view. He approaches me a priori assuming that I will give a lecture contrary to all the post-Zionists living in Tel Aviv. He does not want his conference to be one-sided, so he invites me because I do not chant the chants of the herd."

Is there a boycott against you?

"Not really. Moreover, all the world courts us and they come to Israel to study Oriental studies and to be with the Israelis, because they understand that we have tremendous value. We live in the active volcano. We are able to feel the Middle East better. Not to mention the fact that our researchers know Arabic and I am one of them. Academic Middle East researchers all over the world do not know Arabic or Persian. This makes the study of the Middle East mediocre or even less".

The Arabs contribute nothing

Long before he marked the leftists as a sitting target, Kedar has won himself a reputation as a keen Orientalist and a Middle East researcher. The Syrian President Bashar Assad surely does not know that he and his late father, Hafez al Aaasad, are responsible for the academic career of Kedar. In the late 1990s, he wrote his doctorate thesis, entitled "The public political language of Assad's regime in Syria".

"I came from an Ashkenazi family and my mother tongue is Yiddish," says Kedar. Thanks to his excellent command of the Arabic language, his fluency and ability to convey right-wing Zionist messages, he became a popular interviewee in the Arabic networks, especially on Al Jazeera. His interview with the interviewer Gammal Rayen in which Kedar attacked the criticism of Israeli building policy in Jerusalem' made him a culture hero. "Al Jazeera invited me as a punching bag, but in my case the punching bag punched back," he says proudly. "They have boycotted me in the past for a year, because during the beginning of 'Operation Cast Lead,' I published an article recommending that they be closed down because they advocate Jihad. They came back to me recently."

How did Islam become identified with violence and unwillingness to compromise?

"Islam is a religion designated to replace all other religions and to abolish idolatry. Islam, according to its own point of view, is compatible to every culture, every people, every background and every person. From the Islamic point of view, peace is possible only when all accept the essence of Islam. Therefore, peace is principally impossible under the Islamic umbrella."

Nevertheless' the western world undergoes a wave of becoming Muslim. We recently heard about the sister-in-law of Tony Blair, Britain's former prime minister, who became a Muslim believer. "In this matter, European and American society is a society in which all values have been broken. It is a society with millions of lonely people, a society where man thinks he does not have to be married in order to bring children to the world. There are millions in New York, Paris and London that are searching for true meaning. Suddenly, they see the Muslims. They see family, people caring for each other; they see a socially coherent group with mutual guarantees. The Muslims invest a lot in it. On a visit to Scotland I saw, outside a mosque, Muslim clergymen standing at tables full of booklets in English about Islam, offering the Koran free of charge."

I am listening to you and I wonder why they did not appoint you to be an Ambassador to the Arab World.

"A few years ago, when Silvan Shalom was Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Israeli Ambassador to Egypt had retired and for several years nobody was appointed to replace him. I met a staff member of the Israeli Embassy in Egypt, who told me that the Egyptians were offended by the fact that Israel does not think it is important to appoint an Ambassador to Egypt. I immediately wrote a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, offering to volunteer to be an Ambassador to Egypt, without salary. Silvan replied that he appreciates my offer but it is impossible for him to appoint me because all the positions that the minister is allowed to appoint are already occupied and any other appointments are reserved for Ministry staff. That bureaucracy prevented my appointment to serve as the Israeli Ambassador in Cairo".

A Left Wing Researcher: Kedar Harms Democracy

Prof. Oren Yiftachel from Ben Gurion University attacks "Israel Academia Monitor": "They spread lies and destroy academic research. They should find other areas of practice."

Prof. Oren Yiftachel, from the department of Geography in Ben Gurion University was one of the researchers starring in the publications of "Israel Academia Monitor." Yiftachel, who specializes in political geography, developed the ethnocratic model, by which he analyses the policy of resources allocations in Israel and concludes that the state is systematically discriminating against the Israeli Arabs. In response to Kedar, he says: "The sort of bodies like "Israel Academia Monitor" are willing to exterminate freedom of speech and research for their political ends. The Monitor is engaged in incitement against scientists and their researches and opinions that are unacceptable by the organization. By doing so, it introduces aggressively irrelevant considerations into the academia, which is being conducted on the basis of the quality of researches rather than on political attitudes. The organization is using typical methods of nationalist anti-democratic right wing bodies, while detecting, denigrating and snitching on researchers deviating from the straight path, which means blind support for the regime, notwithstanding its deeds and crimes." Prof. Yftachel adds: "the Monitor is using cowardly illegitimate methods like planting spies in classrooms and spreading lies all over the world under the cover of "report." This has been done in the McCarthy era in USA ; this is being done in nationalistic Arab states like Syria and Egypt and now they are trying to do it in Israel. Organizations like the Monitor are afraid to cope with the facts emerging from the criticism of researches and they do not even try to amend Israeli society. Instead of acting in order to minimize gaps and to put an end to the devastating occupation of the territories as the critical researchers do, the organization tries to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. Like a child who hates what he sees in the mirror, the Monitor prefers to shatter it. This is sick denial rather than love of Israel. The Monitor organization acts bluntly against freedom of research, freedom of speech, and against democracy, by intimidating scientists and students. It is destructive for universities based on values of freedom of science and thinking and on open and independent research. Therefore it is preferable for members of the organization to find other areas of activity lest the damage they inflict on the Israeli academia becomes irreversible".

Contact IAM by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com and visit their website: http://www.Israel-Academia-Monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, November 10, 2010.

"And Isaac sowed in that land, and harvested a hundredfold that year; and HASHEM blessed him. And the man waxed great, and continued to prosper, becoming very great indeed. For he possessed great flocks of sheep and goats, and great herds of cattle, and a great household; and the Philistines envied him. And all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines sealed up and filled with earth." (B'reshith-Genesis 26:12-15)

HaRav Shimshon R'phael Hirsch z'l notes that we would expect to read here "wayqanu bo" (the normal usage with the verb "to be jealous"), i.e. envy of his possessions. What we find, however, is "wayqanu otho" — "and they envied him", the man. They envied him not on account of his wealth, explains Rav Hirsch; they felt themselves injured by the position and respect which he enjoyed. In Hebrew this is called Ssaruth 'Ayin, 'narrowness of eye' — the inability to accept the success of another.

Still, ssaruth 'ayin is one thing; a willingness to cause oneself harm in order to deny another the fruits of his success is quite another. That is not jealousy; that is an obsession.

The Philistines filled in the wells. Why not just steal the water? After all, "Stolen water tastes particularly good" (Mishle-Proverbs 9:17). You only fill in a well — at the cost of denying yourself the life-giving water — if your true purpose is to ensure that its rightful owner be unable to enjoy his success.

The common and oft-repeated "wisdom" is that if Israel were to hand over large tracts of the Land of Israel that it presently controls and allow a Palestinian state to be established therein, peace would break out in the Middle East, and Moslem hostility towards the West would end.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason the Moslem world cannot abide the West generally, and Israel particularly, is jealousy. Jealousy — and something else: Moslems cannot understand why non-believers are so materially successful, while Moslems world wide wallow in squalour.

HASHEM, the God of Israel, is the God of Morality, Love, Reason and Wisdom. As such, His people have understood that if they do not live up to HASHEM's expectations of them, they will have to learn the hard way — this is a central tenet of the Tora. Klal Yisrael, the historical-covenantal Jewish Nation, has been taught to learn from its mistakes, repent and look forward to the future. Klal Yisrael has infinite patience, and believes, indeed knows, that even when reality falls short of expectations there is hope. They know that History belongs to God, that there is a Plan, and that Klal Yisrael transcends the here and now.

Allah, the Moslem god, is the god of material success and victory. Moslems are called to prayer with the words: "I bear witness that Muhammad is the prophet of God. Come to prayer, Come to prayer, Come to success, Come to success." Moslems are supposed to enjoy great rewards and initially they did, exploding out of the sands of Arabia and conquering an immense swath of territory from the borders of China in the east to Spain in the west. Conquest, victory and tangible benefits formed the foundational ethos of Islam. Failure is unthinkable, humiliation unendurable.

Moslems live only in the here and now. Islam has been in decline for a millenium, and Moslems know it. That the Ummah, the Moslem Nation, should be backward and failing is incomprehensible.

As long as Eress Yisrael was a land of swamps and desolation, a backwater of the disintegrating Ottoman empire, the agglomerate of Arabs (Egyptians, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese) who subsisted in the Jewish homeland never felt the need for much of anything, least of all independence. Not a single Moslem on the planet saw the Turks as invaders or usurpers. After all, they were Moslems, and that's what Moslems are supposed to do.

But now it's controlled by non-Moslems, kafirs. So what if they are the true sons and daughters of the Land? Worse still, with their labour and intellect, they strived and succeeded where Moslems had only failed.

How appropriate that these mongrel Moslems now became Palestinians (from the Roman Palestina, which in turn stems from the Biblical P'lesheth, the land of the Philistines). There is no Palestinian language or culture or history; there is no justification for a Palestinian state. But that's not the point, is it? The Jews, and the West, cannot be allowed to succeed, thus showing up the Ummah for what it is.

So you strap on your explosive vest, catch a bus, and blow up some Jews. And burn down an forest in the land you claim is yours. And set fire to your own oil wells. And fly a plane or two into the WTC. Anything but turn your gaze inward and discover the truth about yourself.

Rabbi David Bar-Hayim lives in Machon Shilo. Contact him a almorah@gmail.com. And visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 10, 2010.

Christians in Iraq have been, and not for the first time, deliberately targeted in a major terrorist attack. Indeed, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Iraq, from the Gaza Strip to Egypt to Sudan to Nigeria, Christians are being assaulted, intimidated, and murdered by militant Muslims.

Yet virtually never do Christians in any of these countries-perhaps with some occasional exceptions in India--attack Muslims. In the West, there have been no armed terrorist attacks on Muslims or the deliberate killing of Muslims. There does not exist a single group advocating such behavior.

Have you seen any of this in the Western mass media? Have any Christian church groups-some of which find ample time to criticize Israel-even mentioned this systematic assault? Indeed, on the rare occasions that the emigration of Christians is mentioned, somehow it is blamed on Israel, as one American network news show did recently.

I'm not writing this to complain about double standards, since one takes this problem for granted, but out of sheer puzzlement. Presumably, much of the Western media and intelligentsia-along with a lot of the church leadership, assumes that it is impossible for a non-Western, "non-white" group to ever be prejudiced. There is also a belief that if one dares report the news about pogroms carried about by Muslims against Christians it will trigger pogroms by Christians against Muslims.

The Catholic Church is quiet because it fears that complaints will increase persecution. Indeed, at a recent high-level Synod for the Middle East, leading Catholic clerics from the region blasted Israel and talked about how wonderfully Christians are treated in Muslim-majority countries. Iraq was singled out as a country where there were no problems in Muslim-Christian relations. Apparently, though, appeasement isn't working.

The al-Qaida terrorists said that all Iraqi Christians would be "exterminated" if two "Muslim women" in Egypt were not freed. Apparently, these were two young women, both married to Coptic Christian priests, unlikely candidates for conversion to Islam. They were in fact kidnapped and forcibly converted.

Thus, aggression against Christians is turned into a rationale to persecute Christians, a pattern we have often seen used elsewhere by Islamists. Yet many of the attacks in these countries are not carried out by revolutionary Islamist groups but simply by regular people, sometimes in large groups.

Here's a very partial chronology of such attacks and for the situation in Egypt go here.

According to the Iraqi terrorists' statement, the church was a, "Dirty place of the infidel that Iraqi Christians have long used as a base to fight Islam." Increasingly, Islamists are making it clear that any presence of Christians in Muslim-majority countries is unacceptable, just as the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East is unacceptable.

I just cannot understand how this factor and these attacks so often go unnoticed, and certainly unprotested. Isn't it time for Christians to try to help their persecuted brethren before they are wiped out--or at least forced to flee--altogether?

PS: I'm tempted to write an article entitled, "Why Do Feminists Remain Silent About the Persecution of Women in Muslim-Majority Societies." But Phyllis Chesler has already covered that subject extensively.

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
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/11/ why-do-christians-remain-silent-about-the-persecution- of-christians-in-the-middle-east

To Go To Top

Posted by BenAmi, November 10, 2010.

This was a speech given by Pilar Rahola at the Daniel Pearl Award
http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/CONFERENCIAS/ default.cfm?ID=1866

"The problem isn't the Muslim religion, but the totalitarian ideology that shouts "Hurray for death" while praying to Alla"


My name is Daniel Pearl.

Dear friends, good morning.

Without doubt, he must be afraid. He faces the camera, but... where is his gaze aimed? Perhaps towards his family, his ancestral memory, his identity... or perhaps he is looking beyond, towards the broken future, the woman he loves, the son he will never know... His last words... "My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California USA". Today is February 1st, 2002, he is 38 years old and is about to be brutally murdered. "My father's Jewish, my mother's Jewish, I'm Jewish..." The Yemeni that will decapitate him will take almost two minutes to cut off his head. He will begin very slowly, under the ear, to reap the vocal chords and prevent the shout. "My family follows Judaism. We've made numerous family visits to Israel..." From this point on, the brutal narration of a murder whose details, masterly described by Bernard Henry-Levi, would horrify even Dante's own Inferno. The victim turned into a metaphor of the beauty of life. The assassin, symbol of the human being devoid of soul, of the defeat of humanity. Who has turned him into a monster? "Back in the town of Bnei Brak there is a street named after my great grandfather Chaim Pearl who is one of the founders of the town". And all will be over. His hopes, his loves, his dreams... "My name is Daniel Pearl..." And the executioner will triumphantly display his cleft head before the camera, as a trophy.

Thank you. First of all thank you for this moving day, which commits me beyond doubt, beyond frailty and beyond fear. To be granted the award that bears the name of Daniel Pearl is more than an extraordinary honour, it is a duty. My name is Pilar Rahola, I was born in the old Sepharad, in Catalonia, from a Catholic family, I consider myself a left-winger and I am a journalist. But as a civil-rights fighter, and as a journalist who searches for reported truth, my name is also Daniel Pearl, I was born in Encino and I am Jewish. All those of us who love civilization, those of us who conceive the world under the values of modernity, are and will always be Daniel Pearl. Because beyond our ideological, religious or cultural differences, we are part of a civic inheritance which commits us to democracy. And they have declared war against that inheritance. Daniel Pearl's assassins do not only decapitate helpless victims, murder hundreds in the world's trains, or kill thousands in the cities' skyscrapers. Above all they try to behead the principles of freedom. Daniel Pearl's death, as do the deaths of all those who have fallen under the insanity of Islamic Fundamentalism, concerns us all, and not only for the sake of compassion. It concerns us for it is a bullet that is aimed at each one of us, regardless of our origin. Every woman that breathes with her own lungs and conquests her future, every man who loves culture and progress, every child who is educated to be tolerant and free, every God which doesn't hate but rather loves, every one of them has a bullet with their name written on it. We are faced with a new totalitarianism, natural heir to Stalinism and Nazism, as horrendous as both of them, and perhaps more lethal. The question now is, as it always was: are we doing the right thing to defend ourselves?

I am only a labourer of ideas, and it is not up to me to define the intelligence strategies that fight this ideology. Yet I uphold my critical spirit regarding many political and military decisions, and I do not always like our leaders, nor their actions. However, it is also true that the Islamofascist ideology has left us baffled and frightened, and has shown our weaknesses. Today, free societies are technologically more advanced, militarily stronger, and are more intercommunicated. But our enemy is also stronger than ever. It is the Global Jihad, with the brain and heart in the 8th century, but connected by satellite with 21st century technology. Look at Iran, how it has laughed at the world and moves on, inexorably, towards the fearful nuclear domination. An Islamic Hitler with a nuclear bomb. Who can or wants to stop him? A useless UN, incapable of reacting, beyond rhetoric and bureaucracy? Poor Eleanor Roosevelt, should she wake up and see into what has become her dream of the League of Nations! Can Europe stop it, trapped in its economic ambitions, its infighting and its political incapacity? If the UN doesn't know what is its rôle in the world, Europe doesn't even know what it is itself. Will countries such as China or Russia, countries which are rather allies to this madness, stop it? Will the USA, which every day seems more lost regarding its own rôle in theinternational arena, stop it? Sincerely, the world's only hope seems to be Israel, which, as it defends itself from a monster, defends us all. Dear ADL friends, those of us who believe in a free world have to trust in Eretz Israel: a lighthouse in the heart of darkness.

And beyond Iran, it is also evident that we are unable to stop the ideological phenomenon which sustains Global Islamic Fundamentalism. How many youths, in this precise instant, are reading jihadist texts? How many thousands are being indoctrinated in hatred of the West and in a renewed anti-Semitism, in the schools of "friendly" countries? How many, in our cities' mosques, are nursed with contempt of democracy? How many learn to love their God, hating their neighbour? How many are, right now, using the invention that a Jew helped to develop, Internet, to transmit their deadly ideas? Look at the World. Millions of enslaved women, subjugated by medieval laws, before international indifference. Millions of children who live in enormously rich dictatorships, condemned to poverty and educated as fanatic automatons. Who will prevent their tragedy? In Europe itself, the advance of fundamentalism is enormous, and our democracies seem incapable of stopping it. And it must be remembered that the problem is not a religion, nor a culture, nor a God. The problem is the totalitarian abuse of God.

There is, certainly, an Islam of life and of good harmony with others. But in the World today, there also exists an Islam which is very ill, and that, in its delirium of planetary domination, drags millions of people to their own perdition. So it's not about a clash of civilizations nor of religions. It's about civilization versus barbarity. And within civilization are all those Muslims murdered in busses, trains and in the market queues; the women who struggle for their freedom in the petrodollar dictatorships; the Iranian students, the dissidents... Within barbarity are Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Jihad Islamiya, the beheaders of people, and those imams who feed their flock with hatred in the World's mosques... The problem isn't the Muslim religion, but the totalitarian ideology that shouts "Hurray for death" while praying to Allah. An ideology that leads, in its macabre death toll, to the death of thousands.

Let us be conscious of something tragic. Despite the mirage of our superiority in all fields — military, political, moral — while we are not losing the battle, neither are we winning it. It's as if we were at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, when Communism seemed to be a liberating ideology. Or in the 1930's, when Hitler only seemed to be a stupid clown, and Chamberlain honoured him. Then, as now, and before the beginning of a global menace, our capacity to respond is poor, timid and erratic. And in some cases, it's directly collaborationist.

Allow me to talk of my planet, the planet of ideas. Intellectuals, journalists, writers, people of thought, are they up to the historic moment they are living? And the leftist groups, who so noisily criticise democratic countries, yet remain silently absent in the struggle against the great tyrannies, are they? No. They are not up to the historic moment.

I take advantage of your enormous prestige, the ADL's prestige, pioneers in the defence of civil rights, and I take advantage of the extraordinary award you place in my hands, borrowing Emile Zola's words, to elevate a sad, but direct, "J'accuse"! (I accuse!). Today most intellectuals and journalists remain deaf, blind and mute before the most serious threats that freedom suffers. And some of their strident proclamations, are the most efficient help that this totalitarian ideology has in the free world.

I accuse journalists and intellectuals of remaining silent before the barbaric oppression of millions of women, condemned to live under medieval laws which amputate them as human beings. No demonstrations, no Obama declaration, no boycott, nothing. These victims interest nobody, perhaps because Israelis or Americans cannot be blamed for their misfortune. And only anti-Americanism and anti-Israelism mobilizes their selective ire. I accuse journalists and intellectuals of remaining silent before the permanent slaughter of hundreds of Muslims, victims of Islamic bombs, whose plight interests nobody because one cannot put the blame on Jews nor on Americans. I accuse journalists and intellectuals of criminalizing Israel to the point of delirium, and of helping to create a mentality that is understanding with Palestinian terrorism.

I accuse them of the new anti-Semitism which hits the World, whose politically correct leftist character, makes it into a very dangerous phenomenon.

I come from a state, Spain, which has suffered the most deadly terrorist attack in Europe. Do you think that that has vaccinated us against intellectual imbecility, against ideological stupidity, against blind dogmatism? Quite the contrary, today the European country most obsessed against Israel is Spain, one of the most anti-American and the most anti-Semite of the continent. There have been some who have even blamed the Israelis of the Atocha railway terrorist attack in Spain. As I wrote quite some time ago, many educated and intelligent people, turn into imbeciles when talking about Israel. In my own home town, Barcelona, the hatred towards Israel has become a left-winger's sign of identity, they are capable of refusing to commemorate the day of the Shoah, due to solidarity with the Palestinians. I have been defamed and menaced, and they have even invented the "crime" of "negationist of the Palestinian holocaust" to try to take me to court. The list of deliriums which present-day Spain generates regarding Israel and the Jewish people only reminds one tragically of Medieval Spain and its expulsion edicts. Today we love the Jewish stones of Toledo and Girona, but we disdain the living Jews, we criminalize Israel and we turn terrorists into heroes. And yet, if our ethical, civic and political ally is not Israel, then which country of the Middle East can it be? The religious dictatorships, the oppressors of women, the fundamentalist fanatics? Spanish intellectuals, and with them a large part of the World's intellectuals, especially the left-wing intellectuals, look upside down, think upside down and upside down establish their hatreds and alliances. Medieval Jews represented culture, medicine, knowledge, and yet they were the ones who were persecuted. Today, Israel, beyond the legitimate criticism of its mistakes, represents the metaphor of all that we must preserve: freedom, the right to exist and religious tolerance. Despite this, Israel is the World's most hated country. Thus, while Islamic fundamentalism grows, exercises violence, kidnaps and kills, the World's liberals look the other way, abandon the victims and scream their slogans against the only country in the World which is menaced with destruction.

These journalists and intellectuals call themselves solidary, liberators, liberals, and yet they are a lunatic left, dogmatic and anti-historical, which abominates solid democracies, while it pardons brutal tyrannies. They are the new Chamberlains, unconscious collaborators of the totalitarianism which is overtaking the World. For we must not forget that freedom is not only won in the political or military battlefield. It is also won in the field of ideas.

That is why my name is Daniel Pearl, and also Guilad Shalit and Wafa Sultan and Ayan Hirsi Ali and Gordon, Edelmiro, Maria Rose, Andrew and Vincent; every one of the names of those murdered in the Twin Towers, in the London Underground, in the trains of Madrid, in the busses of Jerusalem. My name is Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman who had been condemned to be stoned to death in Iran. And all those who have been lapidated. If we are not them, then who are we? If we do not call ourselves with their names, then how do we call ourselves? If we do not defend their values, then which monsters are we defending?

Here, before the ADL, with the immense honour of receiving the Daniel Pearl Award, today, three days before Daniel's birthday, I reaffirm my ethical, journalistic and human commitment. I will not stop being critical with Israel, nor with the United States, nor with my own country. I will not stop explaining the truth, wherever I see it. But I will always remember on which side of the scale I am. The side of freedom, against that of tyrants; the side of women, against that of their oppressors; the side of Jews, against that of anti-Semitism; the side of culture, against that of fanaticism; the side of Israel, against that of its destroyers; the side of commitment, against that of indifference.

Elie Wiesel said: "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference between life and death".

Indifference is the anteroom of evil. And against that evil I will always struggle.

Thank you.
Pilar Rahola

Contact BenAmi by email at farmer@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 9, 2010.

This was written by Rachel Avraham. Shie is an MA student at Ben-Gurion University and a researcher for Israel Academia Monitor.


During the spring 2010 semester, I took a problematic course as part of the MAPMES program. The MAPMES program is a masters program for Middle Eastern studies which is taught in English at Ben-Gurion University. Almost all of the students in the program don't have Israeli citizenship and the few that have Israeli citizenship spent a considerable portion of their lives living outside of Israel. The class was entitled "Selected Topics in the Geography of the Middle East," which was jointly taught by Dr. Oren Yiftachel and Dr. Nir Cohen. I was deeply disturbed by the anti-Israel sentiment expressed in the class and after suffering through hearing a constant barrage of anti-Israel propaganda, I decided that I wanted to expose Dr. Yiftachel and Dr. Cohen for what they were, anti-Israel activists attempting to impose their ideology on international students from Canada, Germany, and the United States. I only chose to go to Israel Academia Monitor with my experience after I sat through four awful lectures where only one opinion was viewed as legitimate by the professors and all alternative opinions were marginalized. While I was given the opportunity to express my objections in the class, it still nevertheless bothered me to be told constantly that my views were wrong by professors who were supposed to be impartial just because my political opinions were not in accordance with their ideology. Unfortunately, since I did not want to hurt my grade, I was forced to do my first two exposes on one of the worst readings that we read and on a lecture by Dr. Cohen anonymously. However, when Dr. Yiftachel figured out that the person writing the exposes for Israel Academia Monitor was me, I was intimidated into silence. However, now since I have finished the course and received my grade, I have the freedom to expose my experiences studying under these two anti-Israel ideologue without fearing repercussions.

Before I go into the details of what was stated in the class, I think that it is very important to expose the biases that existed in the syllabus. For first week of classes, Dr. Yiftachel held a lecture entitled "The Making of Israel/Palestine." While I was not able to attend this class because I had just gotten back from the BGU Spain trip that was organized by the Middle Eastern Studies department for students that were interested in learning about Muslim history in Spain and thus was very exhausted, the reading for the class was still nevertheless chapter three of Dr. Yiftachel's book "Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine." In this book, Dr. Yiftachel argues that Israel is an ethnocracy and not a democracy, so we have a clue about what kind of lecture this was. Then, the next class was entitled "Settler Societies, Post-Colonialism," which featured Dr. Cohen. I already discussed this lecture in quite some detail for my second expose, where I mentioned that not a single reading for this class was from the pro-Israel perspective. Week three featured a lecture entitled "Ethno-nationalism, ethnocracy, and homelands," which featured Dr. Yiftachel and which only had one pro-Israel reading out of four possible readings. Regardless, the professor dismissed this one pro-Israel article in the class as an example of why such pro-Israel people are wrong in declaring that Israel is not a colonial state. For week four, the lecture was entitled "mobility, migration, transnationalism, and Diaspora." Fortunately, the readings for this week were just about general theories, but that did not stop Dr. Yiftachel from using those theories to demonize Israel and Jewish nationalism in particular. Week five's lecture was entitled "Zionism/Israeliness." However, Dr. Cohen, instead of assigning readings that would teach these international students about Zionist philosophy and Israeli identity, chose to assign chapter one of Peled and Shafir's book "Being Israeli," which argued that Israeli society is based on an interaction between democracy, ethnic nationalism and colonialism; that the Zionist movement is a "Euro-centric colonial project that excluded Palestinian Arabs and women from its benefits;" and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based not on a rivalry between two legitimate nationalist communities fighting over the same land, but a struggle between Zionist colonialists against "indigenous Palestinians." During that same week, Dr. Cohen also assigned a piece by Baruch Kimmerling, which although it was not problematic enough to comment on, it was still no counterweight to Peled and Shafir. Dr. Cohen's teaching during week five was more in accordance with the ideology of Peled and Shafir's article than in accordance with the ideology of Baruch Kimmerling's article.

Week six was entitled "Religiosity and Ethnicity" and taught by Dr. Yiftachel. It was an ok lecture and was not anti-Israel in comparison to the other lectures. It was one of the few lectures where both the readings and the lecture were ok. Week seven's lecture was entitled "Orientalism and the Jewish other: the Case of the Mizrahim." This lecture was taught by Dr. Cohen and the readings featured Ella Shohat and Sami Shalom Chetrit, who are both anti-Israel Mizrahi scholars that advocate that Mizrahim are really Arabs, have been mistreated by Israel in a similar manner that the Palestinians have been mistreated, and should seek to return to their Arab roots instead of assimilating into Israeli society. Dr. Cohen's lecture was in accordance with this worldview. While the Mizrahim do have legitimate issues regarding discrimination in Israel, most Mizrahim would object to being classified as Arabs, being compared to Palestinians, and reject attempts to have them become again a part of the Arab world in lieu of them being a part of Israeli society. For week eight, the lecture was entitled "Palestinians in Israel" and was taught by Dr. Yiftachel. All of the readings for this lecture emphasized issues of discrimination against Israeli Arabs, without showing whether or not Israel was any worse than any other democratic country in the world regarding her treatment of minorities. While Dr. Yiftachel spent half of the lecture continuing to discuss the Mizrahim, the other half of the lecture was spent discussing the Israeli Arabs. Although Dr. Yiftachel recognized, unlike the readings, that Arabs have been included in the government and that there has even been an Arab sports minister, he still emphasized the negative over the positive. Week nine was spent discussing "New diasporic/migrant groups: Soviet and Ethiopian Jews." This lecture was taught by Dr. Cohen. While this lecture emphasized that Ethiopian Jews have suffered from racism in Israel without putting any thing in perspective by comparing the Ethiopian Jewish experiences of racism with that of blacks in the US, for example, it was definitely not one of the more offensive lectures. Nothing false was stated in this lecture, at the very least. Week ten was dedicated to "New Diasporic/Migrant Groups: Israelis Abroad, Labor Migrants" and was also taught by Dr. Cohen. In this lecture, discrimination against labor migrants was emphasized and Dr. Cohen compared Israel to Saudi Arabia in her treatment of labor migrants.

Week eleven was devoted to "Land and Democracy in a divided society" and was taught by Dr. Yiftachel. For readings, one author argued that Arabs are a normal minority in a mainstream Jewish democratic state; another author argued that Arabs are living in an enclave and that Israel is not a true democracy, and a third author argued that Arabs are in-between the two and that Israel is an ethnic democracy. Dr. Yiftachel argued for the most part that Israeli Arabs are between the two. Nevertheless, he thinks that Israel is an ethnocracy, not an ethnic democracy. Week twelve was devoted to discussing the Bedouins. While one reading gave the pro-Israel perspective, the two other readings certainly did not. Regardless, Dr. Yiftachel dismissed the pro-Israel reading as an example of why it was wrong, kind of like he did with the sole pro-Israel reading from week three. He expressed a lot of anti-Israel sentiment during this lecture. And the last lecture, on "Future Scenarios," was also taught by Dr. Yiftachel. As could be expected, Dr. Yiftachel ended the class by repeating and over-viewing a lot of the themes that he expressed through out the course, which ensured that students would take from the class a series of anti-Israel ideas, such as that Israel is guilty of colonialism.

Starting out with week three, Dr. Yiftachel denied that the Jews were expelled by the Romans, in order to establish his claim that "Israel was abandoned by the Jewish Diaspora," implying that Jews did not have a right to reclaim what they willingly abandoned. All I have to state in response to this claim is that if he has ever been to Istanbul, he did not bother to notice the old Roman tablet that stands in front of the Hagia Sophia that states specifically in Latin that the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem. But aside from that, Eric Cline wrote in "Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel," "Dio Cassius says that fifty important outposts and 985 famous villages were burned to the ground during the Roman suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt. Moreover, five hundred and eighty thousand Judean men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. Dio Cassius also says that the Romans sold so man Judeans prisoners as slaves that the price of slaves in the Mediterranean area dropped drastically in the years following the suppression of the revolt: so may Judeans were carried off that almost the whole of Judea was made desolate. [...] The emperor expelled all remaining Jews from Jerusalem and forbade them to ever live there again. Jerusalem was now renamed Aelia Capitolina and Judea renamed Syria Palestina. And so the Diaspora of the Jews began" (132-134). Dio Cassius was a Roman historian who was alive during the period of time that the Jews were expelled from Ancient Israel. If he claimed that the Romans made Judea desolate through murder, plunder, enslavement, and expulsion; then I think that we can believe him more than Dr. Yiftachel.

But as if this claim that the Jews abandoned Israel was not bad enough, Dr. Yiftachel went on to assert that "no one really scholarly challenged the colonial thesis on Israel," which denied validity to Ran Aaronsohn and a series of other pro-Israel scholars who challenge him on this point. Dr. Yiftachel claimed that Israel was guilty of the "colonialism of refugees." By equating Zionism with colonialism, Dr. Yiftachel dismissed the scholar Ronald Hurvath, who asserted that colonialism "has been seen as a form of exploitation, with emphasis on economic variables" and "as a culture-change process." Horvath believes that this conception of domination is closely related to power. As Aaronsohn proved, economic exploitation did not play a role in the Zionist movement. Regarding a culture-changing process, the Jewish settlers never tried to impose their culture on the Arabs, like the French imposed their culture on the peoples in North Africa, so one really cannot claim that there was a culture-changing process.

After equating Zionism with colonialism, Dr. Yiftachel compared Israel to South Africa by stating "even the South Africans created a myth for wanting to take over the land." While the Afrikaners might have created a myth that they are indigenous for taking over South Africa, Jewish roots in the land of Israel are definitely not a myth, but a fact. There is so much archeological evidence to prove this point. If the ancient Judean state was a myth, then how come archeologists like Eric Cline spoke of coins that were found that prove that the dynasty of King David really existed? How come archeologists found the remains of a home in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City that was destroyed by the Romans during the first Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire, complete with ancient Jewish coins and other proofs of the Romans suppressing the Jews? Yiftachel needs to read Eric Cline's book if he has any doubt about the scientific proof of the existence of Ancient Israel and how the Jews were forced out of their ancestral homeland.

Dr. Yiftachel then explained that there are four types of colonialism: military, plantation, mixed, and pure settler. According to Dr. Yiftachel, ""Zionism started out as plantation and shifted to pure settlement." As Ran Aaronsohn demonstrated quite well, just because the First Aliyah and some moshavot up until the Arab Revolt hired Palestinian laborers does not mean that the First Aliyah consisted of plantation colonialists, since the Palestinian laborers worked for the Zionists out of their own free will and enslavement accompanied by exploitation of workers is a key element of plantation colonialism. Regarding the settler colonialism accusation, according to Caroline Elkins book "Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century," settler societies sought to illuminate the native population and not to exploit them. "They wished less to govern indigenous peoples or to enlist them in their economic ventures than to seize their land and push them beyond an ever-expanding frontier of settlement" (2). While Elkins falsely believes that Israel fits into this category, she is wrong. According to the American archeologist Eric Cline, who demonstrated in his book "Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel," "few would seriously challenge the belief that most modern Jews are descended from the ancient Hebrews. [...] The origin of the Arab peoples in the region of modern Israel are less certain. [...] Claims that modern Palestinians are descended from ancient Jebusites are made without supporting evidence. [...] Historians and archeologists have generally concluded that most, if not all, modern Palestinians are probably more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and other countries than they are to the ancient Jebusites, Canaanites, or Philistines. The major movements of those Arabs into the region occurred after 600 CE, more than 1,600 years after David and the Israelites had vanquished the original inhabitants of the land". Given these facts, how come Jews are considered settler colonialists? The Jews are nothing more than the oldest surviving people who are indigenous to Israel that reclaimed their lost homeland.

This is especially true given that prior to 1948, every inch of land that the Jews bought was purchased through legal means, not illegal seizures, and the rest was gained legally through the UN Partition Plan, promises guaranteed in the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, and wars of self-defense. But aside from this fact, Elkins asserted that settler colonialism is defined by "ongoing negotiation and struggle amongst four key groups: an imperial metropole where sovereignty formerly resides, a local administration charged with maintaining order and authority, an indigenous population significant enough in size and tenacity to make its presence felt, and an often demanding and well-connected settler community". Elkins herself admitted that the early Zionists lacked an "imperial metropole where sovereignty formerly resides." I go further than her and argue that not the Palestinians, but the Jews, are the closest thing to an indigenous people of the land. And furthermore, the early Zionist settlers were not well-connected. If they were well-connected, then there would have been no White Papers, British officials working in Palestine would have been more sympathetic to the Zionist cause and the Ottomans would not have been so antagonistic towards them. But as if the insistence upon teaching the colonial thesis regarding Israel was not bad enough, Dr. Yiftachel stated that one "can't understand what is happening without understanding colonial framework," thus dismissing every one who disagrees with him as ignorant of the reality in Israel.

Dr. Yiftachel then proceeded to repeat that "colonialism of refugees" existed in Israel from 1905 till 1947. After that, from 1947-1949, there was the war of independence/Nakba. Dr. Yiftachel did not address during this particular lecture how the Palestinians created their own Nakba by rejecting the UN Partition Plan. Then, from 1949 through 1967, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that there was internal colonialism. While it is true that Israeli Arabs lived under military rule up until 1966, Horvath believes an example of internal colonialism is how Sudan treats their Christian minority and Dr. Yiftachel does not provide any evidence that Israeli Arabs had it that bad under military rule. He also does not mention that even when Israeli Arabs were under military rule, they still had a right to vote, a right to healthcare, and a series of other benefits that I am sure that Christians in Sudan could only dream of. Then, from 1967-1993, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that Israel engaged in external colonialism. The fact that Israel won these territories in wars of self-defense and that Israel offered to give back these territories in exchange for peace more than once did not stop Dr. Yiftachel from labeling Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories as a colonial adventure. Then, from 1993 onwards, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that Israel engaged in "oppressive consolidation." Dr. Yiftachel gave zero contexts regarding how terrorism influenced Israel to crack down on the Palestinian territories. He concluded the lecture by insisting that we all learn to understand Israel based on the colonial framework.

During week four, Dr. Yiftachel started out by stating "territory and identity are merged as one, overlapped and this is one of the main functions of nationalism. This is an artificial construct. In the process of making your own country, you must work on it and can end up erasing others. Nationalism is a dangerous force." Dr. Yiftachel then proceeded to assert that Jews claimed sovereignty over a land where they were in a minority and "Israel's declaration of independence does not mention borders, but mentions myths, however nationalism is all about myths. The claim that the Jews were expelled by the Romans is a national myth." While nationalism can be a dangerous force, as the Nazis demonstrated, the fact that nationalism can also be a force for good and help establish a people's national pride was neglected by Dr. Yiftachel. The fact that Druze are often Israeli patriots based on their connections to the land, despite being a minority, should prove to any one that Israeli nationalism is not intended to erase minority cultures. I already proved in depth why the fact that the Jews were expelled by the Romans is a historic fact, not a national myth.

Dr. Yiftachel then went on to assert that Israel did not accept Palestine, but Palestine accepted Israel's right to exist. I can't think of a greater distortion of the truth than this. In 1948, Israel accepted the UN Partition Plan, which called for the creation of both a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine. The Arabs rejected this offer from the UN because they rejected Israel's right to exist. Up until 1967, before Israel controlled the Palestinian territories, the Arabs states insisted that there could be no compromise with Jewish nationalism and that any new state in the area must be Arab. All the while, Jordan and Egypt took zero moves to create an independent Palestinian state on the lands that they captured in 1948 and the world considered both the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza to be illegal. Nevertheless, the Palestinians did not make an intifada against illegal Jordanian and Egyptian rule, only because both countries are Muslim and Arab.

Right after the 1967 war, Israel declared that she would be willing to negotiate the return of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in exchange for peace. The Arab League replied with the infamous Khartoum Declaration, where they declared there would be no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, and no recognition of Israel. The Khartoum Declaration would remain official policy for all Arab leaders until Anwar Sadaat decided to make peace with Israel in exchange for the Sinai Peninsula during the Camp David Agreements in 1979. In 1988, the Palestinians sought to unilaterally declare a state, without seeking any sort of compromise with Israel. While it is true that the Palestinians referenced documents like the UN Partition Plan and other official UN resolutions that recognized Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders as part of their statement, it is also true that the official Palestinian declaration of statehood made no mention of Israel's right to exist and most importantly, the Palestinians sought to create their state without negotiations with Israel.

Thus, it is quite misleading to state that the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988, as Dr. Yiftachel implied through out the course. After the First Intifada, there were negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, where both sides agreed to mutually recognize one another. However, while Israel kept her end of her agreements, by handing over certain cities to PA control, the Palestinians did not keep their end of the bargain by ending incitement against Israelis, stopping terrorism, and in the end, reneged on their recognition of Israel by walking away from the negotiations table without a counter offer. It is also important to remember that while the Palestinians spoke about recognizing Israel in English, in Arabic they were telling their people that gaining Palestine within the 1967 borders was merely the first phase for the total liberation of Palestine. In sum, the Palestinians were not sincere about their recognition of Israel and this remains true to date, since Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist outright and Fatah refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, while most Israeli politicians, from Avigdor Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu on the right to Amir Peretz and Haim Oron on the left, recognize the right of the Palestinians to form a state in Gaza and most of the West Bank if only they would be willing to make peace with us.

After that, Dr. Yiftachel shocked me by stating that "the crucial factor is that the Palestinians were not allowed to come back and that the details are only important to historians, not geographers." Every academic should care about details, because without details, how can one master the complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

Dr. Yiftachel sited an example of "Israeli ethnocracy." According to Dr. Yiftachel, the construction site of an emergency room of a hospital in Ashkelon was moved just because some religious people thought that it was going to be built on top of ancient Jewish graves. To him, this was an example of ethnocracy. How is respecting archeological treasures and holy sites an example of ethnocracy?

But as if the absurdities could not get any worse, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that "Israel is like Sudan in ethnocratic structure" and that "Israel imposes Judaism on her Palestinian citizens." The idea that a liberal democracy like the Israeli state, which grants equal rights to her Arab citizens and does not wantonly murder Palestinians because they are of a certain ethnic group, is compared to a country that is currently committing a genocide and goes out of her way to deny any sort of basic human rights to the majority of her citizens would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. The same goes for the idea of asserting that Israel, by stating that her country is the national homeland of the Jewish people, is imposing her religion on the Arabs. Unless Israel did what Isabella and Ferdinand did during the Spanish Inquisition, by telling Jews that they must chose conversion, expulsion, or death, how can one even claim that Israel is imposing the Jewish religion on the Arabs? We never forced them to pray in synagogues. We never told them that they have to celebrate Jewish holidays. We never barred Halal slaughtering from the country, like kosher slaughtering is barred in certain countries. We never barred them from eating in public on Jewish fast days, while in many Muslim countries; non-Muslims are barred from eating in public during Ramadan. We allow them to sell bread during Passover in their villages. We allow them to open their stores on Shabbat if they chose to do so. I think that the Jews of Spain in 1492 would have been grateful if Isabella and Ferdinand treated them how we treat Israeli Arabs today.

After I questioned Dr. Yiftachel on this point, he stated, "Israel imposes separation and Judaizaition and ethnic control, not so much the religion." So, in other words, according to Dr. Yiftachel, just by having separate schools for Jews and Arabs (which gives Arabs the right to focus on their language, history and religion instead of the Hebrew language, Jewish history and religion), by having most Arabs live in separate villages from Jews by their own free will, and just by having a majority of Jews living in Israel and thus controlling the country because they constitute a democratic majority, we are imposing Judaism on the Arabs. When I questioned Dr. Yiftachel about his Sudan statement, he stated "Israel is not like Sudan but still gives minority's minimal ability to impact what happens, like Sudan." If Dr. Yiftachel can't see the difference between living in a liberal democracy that has a parliamentary system that is designed to give minorities more of a voice and living under an authoritarian dictatorship that supports genocide, then there is not much that one can say in response. For lecture number eight, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that the "Ashkenazis colonize the Mizrahim." He never provided any supporting evidence proving that this was indeed the case. While it is true that Mizrahim faced discrimination during the early years of Israel's statehood, to label such discrimination colonialism demonstrates utter ignorance on what is colonialism. During this same lecture, Dr. Yiftachel repeated the accusation that the "whole Israeli state is what you call an ethnocracy" because elites evidently use their power to exclude certain groups, like the Mizrahim. I guess the fact that former Israeli President Moshe Katzav and that one of Israel's current four Deputy Prime Ministers is Eli Yishai, are Mizrahi means nothing to Dr. Yiftachel. But as if this was not bad enough, Dr. Yiftachel claimed Israeli "hegemony" has "wiped out the substantive Mizrahi culture" because the Mizrahi Jews today don't see themselves as Arabs.

As mentioned previously, most Mizrahi Jews would reject the notion that their culture has been wiped out by Zionism because most Mizrahi Jews don't view themselves as Arabs. My husband is a Mizrahi Jew of Moroccan and Iraqi origin, and he got very insulted every time I told him that Dr. Yiftachel claimed that his identity was Arab and that it was only due to Zionist persecution that he doesn't see himself as Arab. My husband stated that even when his mother's family lived in Morocco and his father's family lived in Iraq, before they came to Israel, they did not view themselves as Arabs.

During the second half of lecture eight, when Dr. Yiftachel discussed the Arabs, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that Immanuel is a colony, that Israeli settlements are illegal, and that the consensus on the Israeli right is to evict Israeli Arabs. He also stated, "on the right, [...] you will find elements of deep racism" in Israeli society, and while discussing Yisrael Beiteinu's role in the last election, Dr. Yiftachel stated, "if apartheid can legitimately run for election on the ticket of denying citizenship, [...] that means the boundary is very shaky in terms of including all the citizens." The fact that the League of Nations under the Palestine Mandate gave Jews the right to settle in Gaza and the West Bank, is not mentioned by Dr. Yiftachel. The fact that the West Bank and Gaza has never constituted an independent state, that the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of these territories was never recognized by the world, and that international laws against settlement in occupied territories only apply if a territory was part of a sovereign nation state is not mentioned. After all, for something to be considered occupied, it needs to have been an independent nation beforehand. The truth of the matter is that with the exception of Muhammed Ali's brief ten year occupation and the Jordanian and Egyptian partial control of Palestine that was not recognized by the world, the Arabs have not controlled Palestine since before the Crusades and even then, Palestine was not an independent state but part of various Arab empires. The fact that the Arabs lived in Palestine is irrelevant. Ownership is what matters, legally speaking. But regardless of this fact, only a fringe group on the Israeli right talks about expelling Israeli Arabs. It is definitely not a consensus in the Israeli right like Dr. Yiftachel claims. Most people on the Israeli right today are not racists, to the contrary of what Dr. Yiftachel claims, and would sign off on a fair peace agreement with the Palestinians if only the Palestinians were serious about peace. Yisrael Beiteinu is not promoting apartheid and actually supports a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, like the Likud and most other Israeli political parties do.

During week eleven, Dr. Yiftachel claimed that while the Israeli Arab community is the most developed Arab community in the Middle East and has a reasonable economic and educational level; Israeli Arabs still nevertheless have "ghetto citizenship" for there is "no common citizenship between Jews and Arabs." The fact that Israeli law, as well as the Israeli declaration of independence, grants Jews the same rights as Arabs is not taken into consideration by Dr. Yiftachel when he made this statement. I am pretty positive that the Jews who lived in the ghettos of Poland would have been very appreciative if the Third Reich granted them the same "ghetto citizenship" that Israel grants to Israeli Arabs.

For week twelve, Dr. Yiftachel stated that Israel treats her Bedouin citizens in a very similar manner to how Israel treats Palestinians in Area C and that their Israeli citizenship is not worth a thing. The fact that Bedouin citizens of Israel have the right to vote in Israeli elections, serve in the Knesset, attend Israeli universities, serve in the IDF, and a series of other rights that non-citizen Palestinians in area C lack did not stop him from making this statement. After that, Dr. Yiftachel stated, "the racism of Israeli society has been fully exposed. Haneen's participation in the Flotilla was aimed against the occupation and is more than legitimate. What is illegitimate is the fascist attempt to make every opposition to Israel's colonialism betrayalism. Those calling her a traitor attempt to push all Arab citizens into a ghetto and run the country and the occupied territories for Jews only. We shall never stop struggling against this, never." Despite the fact that Arab society is much more anti-Semitic than Israeli society is anti-Arab, Dr. Yiftachel never calls Arab society racist. The fact that not a single Arab country would tolerate one of their parliament members going on a solidarity mission to Sderot or on a flotilla to help Gilad Shalit did not stop Dr. Yiftachel from claiming that what Haneen Zoabi did was legitimate.

Dr. Yiftachel also displayed utter ignorance of what fascism is by labeling Israel's actions against people who seek her destruction to be fascist. Fascism is an ideology that seeks a totalitarian state in order to preserve national identity and views both pluralism and individualism to be dysfunctional. Israel has never rejected pluralism or individualism and is not a totalitarian state. Wanting to take actions against people who seek the destruction of Israel by labeling Israel's very existence to be colonialism is mere self-defense and not fascist. All nations would take actions against activists that seek their destruction, regardless whether they are democratic or not. Just because we want to take action against such activists does not mean that Arab Israelis don't have rights, that we want to push Arabs into ghettos, and that we think that Israel should be for Jews only. The fact that Israel has a twenty percent Arab minority and that we grant these people equal rights negates what Dr. Yiftachel stated.

Although I obviously did not include every anti-Israel statement made in the class in order to avoid repetition of ideas, I hope that this sample of the worst of the worst demonstrates how much Dr. Yiftachel utilized indoctrination in order to teach international students to be against Israel. While such indoctrination did not work on me, there were unfortunately a number of international students who left the course more anti-Israel than they were before they took the course. One Canadian student told me that she came to Israel just to learn without any sort of preconceived biases and I know for a fact that by the end of this class, the influence of Dr. Yiftachel combined with Noah Slor, last year's social coordinator, had made her into a very anti-Israel person. Nevertheless, despite such documented indoctrination and the fact that Dr. Yiftachel attempted to intimidate me into silence, Dr. Yiftachel is still teaching international students as part of the MAPMES program, while more balanced scholars, like Dr. Benny Morris, are not teaching international students in the MAPMES program this year. To make matters even worse, the MAPMES program has imported more anti-Israel scholars to teach international students this year. Thus, current MAPMES students are in grave danger of being even more thoroughly indoctrinated this year than the MAPMES students of last year were.

Contact IAM by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com and visit their website: http://www.Israel-Academia-Monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 9, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Gordis and it appeared in Commentary and is archived at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ viewarticle.cfm/the-other-existential-threat-15530

Daniel Gordis is senior vice president of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author, most recently, of Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War that May Never End (Wiley), which received a 2009 National Jewish Book Award.


In August, two pieces of news about Iran's nuclear ambitions were revealed almost simultaneously. The first was that Iran had fired up its first nuclear reactor. The second, delivered in an ostentatious leak to the New York Times, was that the Obama administration had determined that Iran was at least a year away from a "dash" necessary to complete a working nuclear weapon — and that the White House had succeeded in convincing Israel that there was no imminent threat.

The reactor news suggested the seriousness with which Iran was pursuing its nuclear ambitions. The "dash" story suggested the degree to which the United States was determined not to view the working Iranian reactor as a crisis requiring immediate and determined attention. Despite the Times article's sense of certainty that Israel's leaders had achieved a state of sangfroid about the approaching danger, the August news unquestionably accelerated the sense inside the Jewish state that action against Iran would be unavoidable, and that Israelis would not be delivered from the overwhelming burden of taking action themselves.

It is critical to explain precisely the danger posed to Israel by a decision to strike Iran — without question the most difficult, complex, and perilous military mission in the state's 62-year history. One need only recall the universal condemnation of Israel's 1981 attack on the Iraqi reactor at Osirak and the more muted, but still palpable, criticism of Israel's destruction of Syria's nuclear-reactor-in-progress in 2007 to imagine the scope of the worldwide outrage that would follow Israeli attacks on Teheran's nuclear facilities and infrastructure — likely causing in the process far greater civilian casualties than did either of those previous missions. The claim that Israel had to act to prevent a nuclear attack on its cities would be quickly dismissed: "With an appreciable nuclear arsenal of its own, Israel has second-strike capabilities that would almost certainly have prevented Teheran from attacking first," it will be said. And, many would insist, why didn't repeated American assurances that the U.S. would resoundingly punish any attack on Israel stay the Jewish state's hand? What possible justification could there be for Israel's precipitous military action?

What must be understood is that the threat to srael is not that Iran will one day use the bomb. No, Iran merely needs to possess the bomb to undermine the central purpose of Israel's existence — and in so doing, to reverse the dramatic change in the existential condition of the Jews that 62 years of Jewish sovereignty has wrought. The mere possession of a nuclear weapon by Iran would instantly restore Jews to the status quo ante before Jewish sovereignty, to a condition in which their futures would depend primarily on the choices their enemies — and not Jews themselves — make.


For hundreds of years, Jewish life in Europe was a matter of either hoped-for toleration or a struggle to survive against the periodic outpourings of violent Jew-hatred. During the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition some 200 years later, the state-encouraged pogroms that would sow terror in Jewish communities across the continent intermittently in the centuries that followed, and the culmination of all this hatred in the Nazi death machine, there was little Jews could do in the face of the onslaught. Oh, there were episodic (and largely ineffective) pockets of resistance, and powerful liturgical, poetic, exegetical, and literary traditions emerged from the tragedies; but the Jewish experience inEurope was fundamentally one of defenselessness. What happened to the Jews was whatever theirenemies determined should happen to them.

The creation of the State of Israel fundamentally changed not only that reality but also the self-perception that accompanied it. It was in pre-statehood Palestine, after centuries of utter passivity, that the Jews finally took up arms to defend themselves. Unlike the 1943 uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, one of history's most moving acts of hopeless defiance, the newfound Jewish willingness to fight was not destined to defeat, and the Jewish willingness to die was not merely symbolic. Against what seemed to be insurmountable odds, ragtag warriors — outmatched and outgunned — defeated the numerous armies that most people expected would drive the Jews back into the sea and actually expanded the borders of their newly created state. The creation and survival of the Jewish state in the late 1940s ended a millennium of abject Jewish vulnerability and brought to an astonishing close a long and anguished history in which Jews were assigned the role of victim-on-call.

Many people are put off by the Israeli national affect, which they take to be a mix of arrogance and bravado. This is a misperception of an attitude that is born, in truth, out of collective relief: We Jews no longer live — and die — at the whim of others. That sense of security would evaporate the minute Iran had the weapon it seeks. Even if Israel does possess a second-strike capability, and even if the U.S. could be counted on to punish a nuclear attack on the Jewish state, the existential condition of the Jews would still have reverted to that experienced in pre-state Europe. It would mean that Jews by the tens of thousands could die because someone else determined that it was time for them to do so. No action that Israel could take in response would change that fundamental reality.

The dramatic change in Jewish self-perception that Israel has wrought can perhaps be best appreciated by recalling two photographs — each, in its own time, the iconic representation of what it meant to be a Jew. The first, taken in the Warsaw Ghetto, depicts a terrified young boy, his arms raised helplessly in the air, as a Nazi points a submachine gun in his direction. This little boy, a victim in every way, is dressed in his finest but seems likely to die. He is alone; no adults have come to his aid, and even if they chose to, of course, there would be nothing they could do in the face of the armed Nazis standing just feet away. To be a Jew is to be a victim.

Flash-forward to June 1967, when the Israeli photographer David Rubinger photographed three paratroopers at the Western Wall shortly after they had captured it from Jordan during the Six-Day War. It was the virtual undoing of the condition reflected in the Warsaw Ghetto photograph. The boy in the photograph is alone; these three men are surrounded by comrades. The boy is pure victim; the Israeli soldiers are victors. The gun in the former photograph belongs to the Nazi; there are no weapons in the 1967 picture, but had there been, they would have belonged to the Jews. The boy in the Warsaw Ghetto seems certain to die; the victory these soldiers had just wrought would breathe new life into the Jewish state, inspiring Soviet Jews (who almost immediately demanded permission to emigrate) and American Jews (who took a sudden great pride in the Jewish state and expressed it more openly and unabashedly than at any time before) to new heights of Zionism.

Interestingly, the paratroopers in this photograph have their heads uncovered, and they face away from the Wall, not toward it, as would be the case were they praying. There is one combat helmet, and though it is visible, it has been doffed. Rubinger's is neither a religious nor a military image. It is, instead, the image of the "new Jew" that Israel had created, the Jew who could shape his or her own destiny rather than waiting for it to be shaped by others.

This notion of Jews as the masters of their own destiny, as defenders of their own lives, is the deepest core of the Jewish state. In the space of eight days each spring, Israel commemorates Holocaust Memorial Day, then Memorial Day for Fallen Soldiers, then Independence Day. It is a period of profound national consciousness, punctuated with public rituals neither political nor religious. Each and every year, the speech delivered by the head of state, Israel's president, on Holocaust Memorial Day boils down to one simple claim: had Israel existed then, this would not have happened.

On the evening of Holocaust Memorial Day and then, a week later, on both the morning and evening of Memorial Day for Fallen Soldiers, the nation freezes in place as a siren is sounded — cars come to a halt on highways, their drivers stand at attention just outside their vehicles, and people on sidewalks become immobile. All that can be heard is the harrowing groan of the air-raid siren as the nation mourns its thousands upon thousands of sons and daughters, soldiers who died in defense of the country. Coming as it does a week after Holocaust Memorial Day, the calendrical point requires no emphasis. Better we should die on battlefields, armed and defending our homeland, than be shepherded into camps in someone else's country, utterly defenseless. For better and for worse — better because it's true, and worse because the society established on this basis is of necessity extraordinarily complex and fraught — that is the point of the Jewish state.

Periodically, as my 21-year-old son heads back to the army at the crack of dawn on a Sunday morning after a weekend at home, I'll kid with him as he's walking out the door with all his gear, mimicking conversations we might have had when he was a teenager. I'll ask, in a falsely harsh tone, "Just where do you think you're going at this time of the day?" To which he'll smile and say, "To defend the homeland."

It has become ritualized family banter, but only because the first time my son responded that way, he did so without thinking, without humor, and without irony. It was, in point of fact, exactly where he was headed. He was going to defend the homeland. The thousands upon thousands of young Israelis who serve their country this way, some of whom volunteer for roles more daunting than could possibly be described, do what they do, day after day and year after year, because they believe themselves capable of defending the homeland. On land, in the air, and at sea, they have proved decade after decade, war after war, that periodic failings notwithstanding, they can keep the country safe. They leave their homes behind, and risk life and limb to ensure the safety of their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, and often their children.

And all this — these national rituals and this still pervasive willingness to serve — would lose all meaning were Jews returned to the status of European victims-in-waiting. Which is precisely what an Iranian nuclear weapon would do.

My son and his cohort, then and now, could stop the Soviet fighter aircraft the Egyptians used in 1967 and the Soviet tanks the Syrians used in 1973; they could act against those who fire Qassam rockets from Gaza at Sderot and (with increasing accuracy) neighborhoods in Ashkelon, and they could move into West Bank towns and build the fence that would bring an end to the Palestinian suicide bombers. But there is nothing these soldiers could do to stop an Iranian nuke on its way to Israel. There would be no time to stop it. Instead, Israel's military deterrent against the greatest threat to its existence and the continued existence of the Jewish people would be intellectual, theoretical, a matter of international nerve and round-robin negotiations, the proffering of carrots, the hoped-for intervention of the "international community" to keep Iran sane. Israel's safety and future would no longer rest in the hands of its people, its soldiers, its reservists, its young and its old. It would no longer be my son defending the homeland but something else — a "second-strike capability." A worldwide attitude. An American threat that might well be hollow would be all we could rely on.

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, November 9, 2010.

France has been at an unusually high level of alert over the past few weeks. Multiple terror warnings derived from credible intelligence sources have convinced the French authorities to warn the public of an imminent threat. And, as if that were not enough, Osama bin Laden recently delivered a taped message that was devoted to France.

The French are now in rare company. Bin Laden had before only devoted the entirety of one of his diatribes to one other country, the United States. His recent message and the reasons behind the heightened state of alert in France raise the question whether France has become al Qa'eda's top priority, and if this is the case, why?

Al Qa'eda's leadership has mentioned France consistently since they began delivering audio and video messages. But usually France has been mentioned in passing and alongside a slate of other countries. Still, the organisation has been consistent in its justifications for animosity against France: the presence of French troops in Afghanistan, the passing of a law in 2004 banning religious symbols in French public schools, and the "colonial" attitude of France in North Africa.

There may be recent events that have motivated al Qa'eda's uncommon focus on France. According to terrorism expert Roland Jacquard, French special forces have twice come close to killing bin Laden. And while in his latest message, bin Laden evoked al Qa'eda's three basic points of contention with France, adding to them the recently passed ban on Islamic face-coverings, he expressed them with a vehemence that is rare even for bin Laden.

Discussing the new face-veil ban, bin Laden said: "If you unjustly thought that it is your right to prevent free Muslim women from wearing the face veil, is it not our right to expel your invading men and cut their necks?" If this threat was not clear enough for the audience, bin Laden added: "It is a simple and clear equation. As you kill, you will be killed. As you capture, you will be captured. And as you threaten our security, your security will be threatened."

What may be more noteworthy is that the taped-message contained al Qa'eda's first public endorsement of its branch in North Africa, al Qa'eda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Bin Laden discussed the recent kidnapping by AQIM in Niger of a group of five French nationals as a feat of his own and called it a response to "France's oppression of Muslims". This amounts to a public rapprochement between AQIM and al Qa'eda's central leadership who have not always seen eye to eye. France has always taken second place to the Algerian government as AQIM's favoured target. France was a target more because of the support it provided Algeria through strong trade and diplomatic ties. This hierarchy seems to have disappeared.

Certainly, pulling off a spectacular attack on French soil would lend a huge boost to AQIM's credibility within the larger organisation. But bin Laden's recent message seems to indicate that it has already proven itself worthy to the central leadership.

While AQIM is reported to have sleeper cells all over Europe and a logistical network to support them, the French authorities have so far thwarted their plans before they became operational. When the third-ranking member of AQIM was arrested last year, he was reported to be on his way to France to co-ordinate multiple attacks.

Meanwhile, this summer, a French-Mauritanian operation failed to free a French hostage held by AQIM. After six AQIM members were also killed, Abdelmalek Droukdel, the group's commander, announced that the hostage, Michel Germaneau, had been executed. Droukdel called for revenge and the unleashing of a major war against France.

One of AQIM's favourite targets, the Eiffel tower, was also an obsession for the organisation that was its parent, the Algerian GIA. The group hijacked a plane in 1994 and wanted to crash it into the Eiffel tower. French Special Forces stormed the plane and thwarted the plot. Acting on credible intelligence from Algeria last month, French authorities evacuated the Paris landmark twice.

The rise of "the Libyan", Abu Yahya al Libi, within the ranks of al Qa'eda's commander structure may also have something to do with its intensifying focus on France. Al Libi is said to detest France more than any other nation in the world. Intelligence reports also suggest that al Qa'eda's efforts to attack France are not limited to AQIM. Its branch in Yemen also appears to be trying hard to do the same.

What may concern authorities in France the most, however, is not these efforts beyond its borders. The French have done an admirable job of countering threats that have emerged on foreign soil but they may be unaware of homegrown threats to security.

Indeed, with his most recent message, bin Laden may have been trying to reach out to those who have been radicalised in France. It is this threat that may worry French security services most of all.

Olivier Guitta is a security and geo-political consultant based in Europe. You can view his latest work at www.thecroissant.com/about.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 10, 2010.

This comes from the Daled Amos website and is archived at
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2010/11/ bush-memoirs-strike-on-syrian-nuclear.html


Reuters has an advance copy of George Bush's memoir Decision Points, in which Bush writes that he received--and turned down--a request by then-Prime Minister Olmert to bomb the Syrian nuclear plant:

Former President George W. Bush says he considered ordering a U.S. military strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Israel's request in 2007 but ultimately opted against it.

Israel eventually destroyed the facility, which Syria denied was aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.

In his memoir, Decision Points, to hit bookstores on Tuesday, Bush wrote that he received an intelligence report about a "suspicious, well-hidden facility in the eastern desert of Syria" that looked similar to a nuclear facility at Yongbyon, North Korea. This prompted suspicions that Syria was trying to develop a weapons program with North Korean help.

Shortly afterward, he spoke by phone with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"George, I'm asking you to bomb the compound," Olmert told Bush, according to the book, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

Bush said he discussed options with his national security team. A bombing mission was considered "but bombing a sovereign country with no warning or announced justification would create severe blowback," he wrote.

As it turned out, Israel went ahead and attacked the Syrian facility on its own--a mission that for which Bush did not give the green light, nor was he asked for it.

And what was Bush's reaction to Israel's attack?

Bush wrote that Olmert's "execution of the strike" against the Syrian compound made up for the confidence he had lost in the Israelis during their 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Bush feels had a mixed outcome.

Keep in mind that the war with Hezbollah began in July 2006--yet the Bush administration apparently had begun to lose confidence even before then.

According to a post on IMRA back in April 2006, Bush did not think that Israel was up to the challenge of the war against terrorism:

Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel's hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also see Israel's failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran's belligerency.

...Bush's attitude toward Israel has changed as well. Until 2002, Bush saw Israel has a powerful ally of the United States and able to deter its enemies. Today, the president sees Israel as weak and Bush has publicly pledged to protect the Jewish state from an Iranian attack. Quietly, Israeli defense officials dismiss Bush's pledge was little more than symbolic given the start of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

"The feeling in both the administration and among belatedly among many conservatives in Congress is that Israel has to accept the fate of a small nation reliant on a superpower patron," a leading U.S. analyst who is close to the administration said.

So which is it: did Bush start losing confidence in Israel because Israel was hesitant to engage Hezbollah, among others, or because it did engage Hezbollah--but fought it to a draw (at best)?

Either way, the Syrian attack would have eased the doubts that Bush had.

Of course, today it is a moot point--Bush's concerns are not Obama's and Obama has shown no real interest in Israel as a military asset, let alone as an ally. If anything, the current president would welcome a more hesitant Israel.

Following the midterm elections and the Republican resurgence, however, a more assertive Israel might not only be more welcome, but also more appreciated as well. If indeed the Republicans are in favor of a more aggressive policy towards Iran, Israel may once again be perceived as an asset and not as the roadblock to peace in the Middle East.  

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Rubinek, November 10, 2010.

You understand how the left brands anyone or any organization which stands in their way as part and parcel... "Hate Groups".

My mother never received a pension due to the greed of Jewish council leaders. These same kind of council leaders in Europe decided which Jews lived and who were first to die. Here monies are kept until the last Holocaust survivor perishes in the worst type of poverty.

The leftists Jewish or not are the most evil kind of humans on earth.

Where is the media once again?

These leftist organs fund the propaganda machines of faux civil rights, create public disdain and clearly have high jacked memory and souls of Holocaust survivors themselves.

I myself as a child survivor lived in abject poverty loosing my mother at 16 and a sickly distraught father thereafter his death when I was 24.

Today's Jewish leftist have found a new anti Socialist organ Jew to cast into an inferno... Israel.

Many Holocaust survivors took to their graves the truth and as such, the left preys on us all to this day.

The following article was published in Israel by Isi Leibler. It is archived at
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2513 Contact Isi Leibler at ileibler@netvision.net.il This column was originally published in Hebrew in the Israeli Daily Israel Hayom. (See also: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2581). Ralph


This weekend, Israel Hayom, the Hebrew daily with the largest circulation in the country, published an extensive analysis by me about the Claims Conference. An English version of the article is set out below. The slightly abridged Hebrew version, as published by Israel Hayom, is linked here.

During my stay in New York I was also interviewed on the subject by Shalom TV. I will endeavor to post a link to this interview when it becomes available online.

I have received many calls from readers asking how they can assist to reform this organization, initiate a forensic audit and ensure that Holocaust survivors in need are able to live out their remaining years in dignity. I would urge those seeking redress for Holocaust survivors to canvass organizations affiliated to the Claims Conference whose representatives participate as directors in board meetings. They have the capacity to bring about change.

The Claims Conference is one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in the world

  • It controls billions of dollars — earmarked for the welfare of Holocaust survivors, many of whom are living in abject poverty

  • Recently, embezzlement of millions of dollars was discovered — but the organization, already facing many difficult questions regarding its allocation of funds, acts as if there is no problem

  • The lesson, as far as they are concerned, is to invest in public relations

  • This is what happens when the executives are not replaced

Click here to access the Hebrew version.

The "Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany" (Claims Conference) is one of the most important global Jewish organizations. Founded in 1951 to negotiate with the German government for material compensation for Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, it subsequently also served as the conduit for the disbursement of other postwar restitution schemes.

In recent months, widespread criticism has been voiced at the manner in which this body has been conducting its affairs. It was also charged with lacking compassion and failing to prioritize the needs of survivors, who are now elderly and many of whom are living in dire poverty.

This culminated with the recent disclosure of massive misappropriations of funds which could well prove to be the ugliest organizational Jewish financial scandal of our time.

In February, it was disclosed that the Claims Conference had dismissed three employees, one of whom was the supervisor of the Hardship Fund, over a fraud amounting to $350,000. Two of those sacked, allegedly returned to Russia. Subsequently, the New York Jewish Week published the shocking revelation that the FBI was investigating fraudulent misappropriation of at least seven million dollars from the Article 2 fund created in 1992 by the German government to provide monthly pensions for eligible Holocaust survivors.

At their subsequent annual meeting, the Board of Directors was officially notified about the fraud. The directors were informed that that the scam had been going on for more than 10 years and that the $7 million already identified related only to the facts obtained since the computerization of records initiated in 2007. The Treasurer Roman Kent added that $7 million was "only the tip of the iceberg". The board was also informed that the German government could hold the Claims Conference accountable for the missing funds.

To make matters worse, the auditors KPMG, declined to sign off on the accounts pending further clarification of the actual amount of funds misappropriated. Since then there have been rumors rampant in Claims Conference quarters that $40 million, or even more, had been stolen. Repeated attempts to obtain an estimate of the amount missing from the chairman of the Claims Conference yielded no response beyond a statement that the FBI were still investigating the matter. The rumor that in excess of $40 million had been stolen was never denied. One would have assumed that a scandal of this order involving restitution funds would have created a major stir throughout the Jewish world. Yet the response seemed muted. Indeed, the Claims Conference tried to play the whole matter down. The chairman had the chutzpa to say that "no survivor payments were affected". Of course he failed to point out that when it was discovered, Hardship Fund payments to legitimate claimants, including many in dire need, were frozen for three months.

Adding to the insult, Executive Vice President Greg Schneider blithely informed the media that there had been no failure in standard operating procedures.

Every organization is susceptible to fraud. But for a charitable organization to shrug off and trivialize a fraud involving millions of dollars over a 10 year period, insisting that nobody was responsible because there was no deviation of standard procedures, is surely unconscionable. It is, after all, obligatory for the administrators of the largest global Jewish foundation to ensure that foolproof procedures are in place. Allowing for the absence of malfeasance, there is a question of accountability, not to mention transparency. It was thus somewhat bizarre for a director, in response to this scandalous fraud, to publicly boast that "the Claims Conference is well led, well governed, well-staffed and manages its restitution funds in a manner consistent with best practice and probity".

No responsible public institution encountering a fraud of this magnitude would respond in such a cavalier manner. Such arrogance enrages those concerned with the administration of this crucial organization, especially survivors.

Haim Roet, a former Claims Conference director from Israel, insists that had the internal audits — which are undertaken by one person on a part time basis — occupied a higher priority, this multimillion dollar scam may have been averted.

Three years ago, in the wake of questions involving Avraham Hirshson, the disgraced former Israeli Finance Minister currently serving a jail sentence for fraud, relating to the use of Claims Conference funds by the March of the Living, there were calls for an independent forensic audit to review the broad spectrum of controls within the organization. The calls were ignored.

More was to come. At the most recent Board meeting, Avraham Biderman, a veteran Agudat Yisrael director, announced that in order to deal with the latest scandal, the executive had appointed Howard Rubinstein and Associates, "the biggest and the best PR organization in the United States", to refurbish the Claims Conference image. This is despite the Claims Conference already having a fully staffed public relations department. An additional $500,000 was set aside for lawyers and accountants. It is astounding that not a single board member saw fit to challenge the decision to hire the PR firm.

The distorted perspective by which the Claims Conference perceive their role as dispensers of restitution funds is reflected by the nature of tributes frequently extended to them by organizations who are beneficiaries of their largesse. Nowhere is this more offensive than at Yad Vashem where a major plaque appears naming every member of the executive of the Claims Conference in appreciation of their contribution. As the principal national Jewish institution commemorating Holocaust memory, it is entirely appropriate for Yad Vashem to be a recipient of such funds. But it is surely odious for a plaque to be erected in honor of executive members suggesting that they were donating the funds rather than acting as a bureaucratic body disbursing restitution funds provided by the German government.

The key problem confronting the Claims Conference today is undoubtedly the acute and deteriorating plight of the survivors. Chairman Julius Berman did concede that "tens of thousands of Jewish victims of Nazism throughout the world are living in need, unable to meet bare expenses or to properly care for themselves in old age".

What Berman failed to say was that this deplorable state of affairs was entirely due to years of neglect and a failure to prioritize the needs of survivors. It is indisputable that had a greater percentage of the $70 billion already allocated by the Claims Conference over the years, been set aside for survivors instead of other charities — many not even Holocaust related — we would not today face the scandal of survivors unable to meet their basic food, medical and utility bills.

Admittedly, many of these charities were worthy. But they failed to account for the desperate needs of survivors. Substantial funds were provided to hospitals, nursing homes and general welfare operations in which survivors in many cases were still obliged to pay the standard fees, and only benefited as a small percentage of the overall population. As Leo Rechter, Director of the National Association of Jewish Child Holocaust Survivors says: "That is like subsidizing the railroads because some survivors sometimes take the subway". This applies particularly in Israel where funds were provided for welfare facilities that the government would otherwise have been obliged to provide.

Substantial amounts were also paid out to worthy causes such as Birthright and even haredi Yeshivot. This was rationalized on the basis that participants to Birthright visited Yad Vashem and that the Yeshivot taught Holocaust studies! In addition to this, there were many other grants extended to organizations that were only peripherally related to the Holocaust.

The Claims Conference also has an "Investment" portfolio (defined as such in the Claims Conference Financial Statement) amounting to $1,086,810,179, which in the last financial year grew by $33 million. Whereas the President and Treasurer insist that these funds are all committed for the future, it is disappointing that not one of the 64 directors felt obliged to ask the obvious question: could not more of this one billion dollar plus sum have been set aside for the few remaining ailing Holocaust survivors, whose lifespan is now extremely limited?

In an unrelated area, there is also growing anger about the failure of the Claims Conference to protect the interests of heirs of German property and their descendants. Claims Conference leaders have adopted a Robin Hood approach in relation to this issue, arguing that the proceeds of these properties should be directed to other Claims Conference enterprises. Today they argue that diverting these funds from their rightful heirs could possibly mitigate the plight of the survivors.

Roman Kent, the Treasurer of the Claims Conference, recently provoked another storm by making the extraordinary assertion that the Claims Conference refuses to provide access to the list of German properties published in 2003 because heirs would "think that they could file claims but will not be able to do so because the Claims Conference sold many of these properties since the 1 March 2004 deadline". Denying heirs and their children access to such information for the sake of historical truth is unconscionable. However, Kent failed to mention that the 2003 list of 59,198 names, released by the Claims Conference only after pressure from the German and UK governments, were only circulated for six months after which it was withdrawn. As a consequence, many legitimate heirs only learnt of their right to reclaim their properties after the deadline had expired. In 2008, again in response to pressure, a virtually useless list of 11,500 addresses without names was released.

This should also be viewed in tandem with the huge uproar and litigation which arose over the manner in which the German properties were managed. In response to allegations of questionable practices related to the sale of properties — amounting to up to $7 billion — two internal audits were carried out, the findings of which to this day have been suppressed. And until now, the Claims Conference refuses to provide an estimate of the values of the properties it has retained or to which they still claims title.

Allegations of an absence of "transparency and democratic accountability" in these areas resulted in the current investigation of the Claims Conference by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the findings of which are to be released shortly.

All of this begs the question: How could a Board comprising of 60 distinguished well intentioned Jewish representatives from all over the world tolerate such a situation?

The reality is that despite an external façade of governance, the Claims Conference operates like a private club.

The organizational representation is outdated and completely out of sync with the current realities of Jewish life. Defunct or near defunct organizations, such as the Jewish Labor Committee and the Anglo Jewish Association retain equal representative status to a body like the Jewish Agency. It is noteworthy that the chairman of the nominations committee after many years remains the representative of the Anglo Jewish Association.

The chairman of the Claims Conference, Julius Berman, has held office for over eight years. This is unhealthy in any democratic organization, but especially so in one disbursing billions of dollars. Without implying personal malfeasance, but in the absence of adequate checks and balances after a long period in control, it is tempting, some would say inevitable, for a chairman to begin behaving as though the organization was his personnel fiefdom.

He is enabled to do so by virtue of the fact that the organizational representatives meet just once a year and are unable to absorb the complexities and intricacies of the organization. Besides, many face a conflict of interest as their organizations are frequently on the receiving end of funds from the Claims Conference and do not wish to rock the boat.

However, dissent from survivor groups and others is not tolerated. In May 2009, a $200,000 loan was withheld from the "Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel" until they were willing to undertake not to criticize the Claims Conference. The Claims Conference only relented after the Israeli media exposed the matter and Haaretz stated that "Welfare organizations in Israel are on the brink of bankruptcy and the Claims Conference is trying to take advantage of this. It is worse than offering a bribe: it's a dictatorial attempt to silence opposition".

The centralized control is augmented by the extraordinary personal power that Julius Berman has amassed. Not only is he chairman of the Claims Conference, but he has taken upon himself to act as chairman of five of the most crucial committees including the all-powerful Allocations Committee. Another is the Advisory Committee for Social Welfare Allocations — not merely for the United States but amazingly also the committee dealing with Israel. He is also a member of three other committees which do not list a chairman.

The Claims Conference argue that he does not exercise voting rights but in this context that is utterly irrelevant, especially if one takes account of Berman's autocratic style. With such concentration of power in the hands of one person, checks and balances disappear and governance inevitably becomes corrupted. It also raises major questions about the entire decision making process of allocating funds. It is thus hardly surprising that directors cannot recall a single occasion when the board has not automatically rubber-stamped all the allocation recommendations.

This was expressly why Haim Roet, a former Israeli director and himself a Holocaust survivor, resigned, stating in a letter to Berman: "I am too experienced and old to be a rubber stamp for the autocratic majority of the Claims Conference board and its management." He deplored the fact that the allocations committee had ignored recommendations by the Israel Advisory Board "as well as explicit recommendations by the Knesset". Such behavior, Roet said "is unbelievable and unacceptable" and can only be described as "chutzpah". He also bitterly protested that Berman repeatedly failed to respond to his communications or act on his repeated demands to circulate to the Board protests concerning the cavalier manner in which the Israeli recommendations had been overruled.

The issue peaked on September 28 this year, when seven key members, of the Israeli Advisory Committee for Allocations (all of whom were Holocaust survivors), wrote to Claims Conference Chairman, Julius Berman (who also chairs the Advisory Committee) and Executive Vice President Greg Schneider, informing them that they would no longer participate in future meetings.

They claimed that the Claims Conference "does not practice what it preaches", accused Berman of ignoring recommendations made by the Committee and then refusing to submit their objections to the Board as a whole. They told Berman that they considered that his behavior reflected "contempt towards survivors in Israel."

The Executive Vice President Greg Schneider responded, trying to mollify the group, expressing the hope that the matter could be amicably resolved at a forthcoming meeting scheduled for November.

As one investigates further, new issues arise. For example, I only recently learned that Burt Neuborne is one of the three members of the Claims Conference "Goodwill Fund Late Applicants Committee". This committee decides on payments for claimants who filed their claims after the German deadlines for properties which the Claims Conference had already taken possession of or received compensation. Since its inception in 1994, the fund has disbursed close to $1 billion, with more than $85 million over the past two years.

That Neuborne can be a member of this important committee is obscene. In an op-ed in the New York Post in 2006, Menachem Rosensaft, the founding chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust survivors, disclosed that early in 1997, Neuborne had accepted an invitation from US district judge Edward Korman "to serve in a pro bono capacity as co-counsel for the plaintiffs" in the Swiss Bank litigation. Two years later he was appointed lead counsel on the assumption that he was serving free of charge. He stated in October 2000 that "every penny in the $1.25 billion Swiss Bank case will go to Holocaust victims" and ridiculed as "absurd" another lawyer's $4 million dollar fee request. As late as September 2005, he boasted that "I am the lead settlement lawyer in the Swiss case in which I served without fee now for almost 7 years."

But suddenly in December 2005, he had a change of heart and demanded $4.7 million, finally extracting $3.1 million (aside from $4.4 million he had already pocketed from the settlement of Holocaust related claims against other German corporations). He even went to the extent of demanding that two months interest be added to his bill for late payment. Needless to say all this was at the expense of survivors.

This despicable behavior of repeatedly falsely claiming that he was working pro bono enraged Holocaust survivor groups and led to a formal resolution of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants condemning "his greed which eclipses any consideration for overriding moral and ethical concerns... His actions constitute a moral stain on the legal profession". The anger spilled over into the media, prompting an editorial in the New York Times.

The Claims Conference justifies his role on the grounds that he is performing his current task pro-bono and is an expert in the field. Yet most Jews would consider it unconscionable for a person who behaves in such a manner to be appointed to a leading position in an organization such as the Claims Conference. The treasurer of the Claims Conference, Roman Kent, who had described Neuborne's behavior as "outrageous" was apparently totally unaware that Mr. Neuborne held any position in the organization. That his nomination was not challenged is symptomatic of how the uninformed Board simply acts as a rubber stamp for every decision proposed by its chairman.

What should be done?

An independent forensic audit review should be implemented forthwith in order to allay concerns and instill confidence in the Jewish world that adequate oversight is now being applied.

The Claims Conference Board should also appoint an independent committee to review the structure of the organization and ensure that conflicts of interest are removed from the decision making progress.

The Board should be streamlined, eliminating representation from defunct organizations and co-opting new bodies with legitimate claims to be party to policy and allocation deliberations.

The Claims Conference should cease to operate as an "old boys' club" and must genuinely represent the Jewish people and Holocaust survivors.

Most importantly, term limits for senior elected officers and directors must be instituted. This would allay the fears of survivors that the money is being withheld to enable leaders and functionaries to continue maintaining and allocating funds even after the decease of survivors. This concern is reflected by the submission of the USA Holocaust Survivors Foundation to the Knesset subcommittee reviewing Holocaust restitution in 2007 which refers to the then President of the Claims Conference (who was subsequently forced to step down following disclosure of misappropriation of charitable funds of another organization) having opined that "there would be an abundance of Holocaust restitution money left over to be used for the community's needs ... after survivors were gone".

In addition, the Claims Conference should submit to full oversight by an objective regulatory authority such as the Israel State Comptroller with authority to appraise not only the flow of funds but also the decision making process in order to satisfy the Jewish public that restitution funds are being managed in an exemplary manner.

Above all, there must be a review of the criteria applied for granting assistance to survivors and the ground rules of eligibility for providing grants to worthy organizations or projects.

Instead of a public relations firm to enhance their image, the Claims Conference should appoint an Ombudsman to ensure that survivors and heirs are treated with respect.

But the absolute priority must be to immediately ease the plight of the ailing survivors. Time is of the essence. In view of the appalling suffering and indignities experienced by remaining survivors, every cent not committed to heirs should be diverted towards this humanitarian crisis. And if some projects need to be frozen, so be it. It is obscene that elderly survivors are denied the opportunity of living out their few remaining years in dignity. There is a Jewish obligation on us to raise our voices and cry Gevalt!

In this context, the New York Jewish Week recently dropped another bombshell. In October, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Special Negotiator of the Claims Conference, hosted a concert commemorating the defiance and resistance of Jewish prisoners at Terezin. It was a gala event, including the performance of the National Opera Orchestra and in the presence of members of Oba