Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 30, 2011.

A parade of flags in honor of Jerusalem Day


Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at and visit his website: Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by NeverAgainIsNow, November 30, 2011.

This was written by Susan North, Staff Member of Never Again Is NOW (


Today we celebrate the birth, November 30, 1874, of Winston Churchill (d.1965), America's favorite son. His English father and connections, along with his own personal abilities and ambition, made it possible for him to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain in her darkest hour.

According to the law of the day, he could not inherit his American mother's citizenship. Instead, thanks to his own achievements, he was the first person to ever become an honorary citizen of the United States. President Kennedy, upon confirming American citizenship on Churchill, said:

We meet to honor a man whose honor requires no meeting — for he is the most honored and honorable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live. Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty. Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past.

Churchill well understood the value of history and tradition, as he told the House of Commons in 1944, "A love of tradition has never weakened a nation; indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril, but the new view must come, the world must roll forward ... Let us have no fear of the future." He also, at one point, advised his listeners to "Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft."

Churchill understood two things, that "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see," and that "Our past is the key to our future, which I firmly trust and believe will be no less fertile and glorious." He knew history, he made history, and he was a historian; hence he, more than most, was able to see into the future, and in the 1930s he recognized the dangers emanating from Germany and the potential of war, while his political opponents chose to ignore this possibility. Or, as he so eloquently put it when addressing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons after the 1938 Munich Accords, "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war."

It was only many years after the war that his definition of an appeaser as "one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last" was coined. No doubt he had Chamberlain in mind when he said it. Many of his best known sayings were similar to this one, short and focused on principles that are as invaluable in private life as they are in the political arena. Below is a brief selection:

  • Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened.

  • The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

  • A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

  • It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

In a shocking display of ingratitude, the British voters rejected Churchill after he had so successfully led them fearlessly through war. In part, this was a result of sheer fatigue, after so many years of war (for the British it began in 1939 and only ended in 1945). Churchill's electoral defeat was in part a result of the siren song of the Labour Party's promises — promises that handcuffed the British economy from the end of the war until today, with only a measure of relief coming in the 1980s; promises that Churchill understood and clearly recognized as detrimental. His insights into the forms of government, the economy, and law were accurate and to the point:

  • Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

  • The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

  • Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.

  • Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.

  • If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.

  • There is no such thing as a good tax.

  • Will the shutting out of foreign goods increase the total amount of wealth in this country? Can foreign nations grow rich at our expense by selling us goods under cost price? Can a people tax themselves into prosperity? Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?

Churchill frequently spoke on the subjects of liberty, freedom, and tyranny (he was, after all, a wartime president). In fact he seems to have had an opinion on almost everything, including some of his allies (France and America), and in particular America and the Americans of whom he said that:

  • You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they've tried everything else.

  • I want no criticism of America at my table. The Americans criticize themselves more than enough.

He would have understood many of the issues we face today, including the clash between the West and the Islamic world, and he did not hesitate to voice his observations about Islam. Churchill had observed it first hand, and wrote about it in his 1899 book, The River War: An Historic Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. . . . The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. . . No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Winston Churchill was a man ahead of his times, a man much needed in our time, a man who wrote and spoke much about tyranny. He understood, "Tyranny is our foe whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilized, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat." These words were as relevant then as they are today.

Happy Birthday Winston Churchill.

Stanley Zir is founder of Never Again is NOW ( Contact them by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, November 30, 2011.

The numbers are in, and they don't look good. In a wide-ranging study released on Tuesday, the National Insurance Institute pulled the cover off of one of Israeli society's darkest secrets: the existence of widespread hunger and deprivation.

The survey, which was released at the Sderot Conference for Society, found that a whopping 20 percent of Israelis cannot afford to buy enough food for themselves and their families.

Thirteen percent of respondents said they often go without sufficient food, while one out of five of those questioned had to turn to friends or family for help purchasing sustenance.

If accurate, the figures signify nothing less than a pervasive and intolerable crisis.

As the director-general of the Welfare Ministry, Nahum Itzkovitz, noted, "There is a serious problem with nutritional insecurity whereby people are forced to go without enough food or without food completely; in other cases families find food but it is not appropriate or healthy."

Indeed, it is simply inconceivable that so many of our fellow citizens should be going hungry. As heirs to an ancient tradition of charity and extending a helping hand to others, we must take dramatic steps to address this issue, which goes to the very heart of what a Jewish society ought to be.

When looking at the figures, I could not help but think that the priorities of our government and society are often so wildly misplaced, with precious resources and taxpayer money going to waste while thousands of Israelis are compelled to grapple with an empty stomach.

Take, for example, the newly refurbished Habima national theater in Tel Aviv.

With its vast new glass windows and soaring ceilings, the hall reopened last week after being fixed up to the tune of NIS 105 million, with NIS 57.5m. paid for by the Tel Aviv municipality and the remainder coming from the government.

In other words, it was the taxpayer who had to foot the bill.

On top of that, Habima also received an additional gift when the government agreed to forgive NIS 18.5m. of the theater's debt to the state, which dates back to a 1995 loan that saved it from insolvency.

Now don't get me wrong. Culture and the arts are certainly important. But if there aren't enough people out there who want what Habima has to offer, then what justification is there for public funding to keep it going? Why must we collectively continue to pour millions into Habima's coffers, and give them a brand new makeover to boot, if their appeal is so limited that they are incapable of standing on their own two feet?

BELIEVE IT or not, much of what passes for government funding of cultural activity amounts to little more than welfare for the wealthy. Even with the subsidies, Habima concerts and performances cost hundreds of shekels per ticket, meaning tax monies are being used to support the culture habits of those people who can afford those prices.

Does this make any sense? If the government decided to subsidize vacations to Europe or luxury automobiles for the wealthy, there would be howls of outrage, and rightly so. So why should the bankrolling of musicals be viewed any differently? Government funding of the arts not only makes little economic or even common sense, but there is also a danger attached to it.

It heightens the risk that public culture will become politicized by creating dependency and a sense of obligation toward those who sign the checks. Furthermore, when government is the one paying the bill, it inevitably erodes the sense of personal responsibility that every citizen should feel towards the public good.

After all, when people read that Habima is the recipient of extensive government largesse, they are far less likely to feel the need to contribute of their own accord. Now I know what some of you might be thinking: most people do not place enough value on things such as opera, ballet or even a show. They would much rather stare at their iPods or watch television.

But heck, isn't that what living in a free society is all about? The majority of people have voted with their feet, or in this case with their behinds, and chosen to sit on the couch at home rather than go to Habima.

So why must we compel them, through their taxes, to pay for those who do want a night out at the theater? Here's a radical idea: let's stop pumping money down black holes like Habima and instead distribute those funds to various private organizations that feed the poor.

Let the artists and playwrights and opera singers compete for public attention and income just like everyone else. If the state is going to be laying out tens of millions of shekels for welfare, then at least let it go to those who truly need it.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (, which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term in office. Contact him at This article was published in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at welfare-for-wealthy

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, November 30, 2011.

This was written by Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.


Why are we treating residential communities like Lego structures that can be taken apart at will?

Unfortunately, Israel has created the mistaken impression that it is a Lego state.

It's the only nation prepared to act as a guinea pig for an experiment whose results are known in advance.

Truncated and compressed into the pre-1967 borders, the Jewish state, the dream of millions of people for 2,000 years, the state for which pioneers toiled and soldiers died over 10 decades, is a miniature and indefensible outpost, like a big Givat Assaf or Migron, whose homes are now under threat of demolition.

The outposts control strategic points for the IDF. The Jewish residents thought that the great wave of terrorism had finally convinced everyone to follow their path, the Jewish presence in the territories at all costs.

Beyond these communities you have Jordan, Iraq and Iran. Can Israel imagine having rockets deployed five hundred meters from the Ben Gurion Airport?

Haifa has already been bombed by Hizbullah, as have Ashdod and Ashkelon by Hamas. The citizens of the Judea and Samaria communities are the edge of a people besieged and tormented by terror.

Can Israel imagine having rockets deployed five hundred meters from the Ben Gurion Airport?

"If there are no outposts, the army isn't allowed to stay in the region", tells me Lt. Col. Yitzhak Shadmi, one of the leader of the regional council of Judea and Samarai: "And if the IDF leaves the hills, what will happen in case of a regional war between Israel, Iran and Syria?".

From the beginning of the renewal of Jewish settlement, the general idea was that the army would operate and defend from the same locations in which there were Jewish residents. If there was no Jewish settlement to defend, the army and the government would find any excuse to retreat.

Consequently, 60 years ago the IDF patrolled and set up ambushes in the regions of the kibbutzim in the south, Nahal Oz, Nirim, and others, solely because Jewish pioneers were living there.

There are now two methods of destruction. The state can bulldoze Migron, as it did in Gaza. Or it can ensure that a community becomes isolated. Once you turn it into a ghetto, it will decay or fall prey to "external" forces.

This is a Machiavellian policy which hates and despises the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and those Jewish families who made their homes there, saying: let them fall and waste away by themselves. The more their lack of security increases, the faster they will themselves abandon their homes.

In a recent New York Times' report titled "Mapping Mideast Peace", there are three possible scenarios, in which 59.782, 79.805 and 94.226 Jewish settlers are abandoned to their fate, along with 77, 82 or 88 communities.

"Netanyahu wants to build only in the big settlements, but if you remove the smallest towns it will be a domino effect for the entire state of Israel", tells us Hillel Weiss, Professor of Literature at Bar Ilan University and one of the mentors of the 'hilltop youth'.

"If the army can't protect us, the state should allow the residents to defend themselves. Today in Judea and Samaria there are about 600.000 Jews, the same number there were when the state of Israel was proclaimed in 1948. It's a shame that the Jewish people survived to Hitler and today tsome are talking about dismantling the outposts".

It's like in Arthur Koestler's 1946 classic "Thieves in the Night", in which he showed how Jewish youth outwitted both the British authorities and the Arab marauders and terrorists of the day to set up settlements in the furthermost corners of the land of the Jews. They worked the fields by day, and at night, stood guard to fight off intruders.

Peace Now's claims about the outposts resemble the Arabs of Jaffa at the beginning of the century, who accused the Jews of "illegal settlement" even when they were well recompensed for the land which they sold in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, the Jezreel Valley, and Galilee.

The British Mandate adopted these definitions when they imposed the "White Paper" on Jewish immigration into Eretz Israel, on the purchase of land and settlements.

Based on this charge sheet, the entire Jewish state itself is therefore "illegal". From Bruchin's outpost you can see the Azrieli towers in Tel Aviv. On the right, the chimneys of Hadera. On the left, the port of Ashdod. The outpost holds in its palm of hand half of the Israeli coast. Down below you have Ramat Aviv, a prosperous neighborhood suburb, where there are many supporters of the Left.

This is the location of the Tel Aviv University campus, where there are numerous professors and lecturers who, in their lectures, support the establishment of a terrorist Arab state and the uprooting of the Yesha communities. But Ramat Aviv stands on the land of an Arab village, Sheikh Munis, whose inhabitants abandoned it in 1948. No one evicted them. They fled, together with the inhabitants of Jaffa, after believing the Arab leaders who promised them that the invasion of Israel by the Arab armies on May 15 of that year would be followed by an Arab victory. They would then be able to return also to conquered Tel Aviv itself.

Do the Israelis really think that if they uproot the outposts in Judea and Samaria the Arabs will forget their claims to Sheikh Munis, Sheikh Bader and Kafr Sumeil and will allow the Jews to live there "in peace"?

For the Islamic world, everything Jewish here is "illegal".

Everything is "stolen land".

Dismantle the Samaria's communities and the next in line will be the Ramat Aviv's yuppies.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, November 30, 2011.

The Obama administration's censoring of photographs of the late Osama bin Laden, lest they "offend" Muslims, is one thing; but what about censoring words, especially those pivotal to U.S. security?

Weeks earlier, the Daily Caller revealed that "the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive."

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial. In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials. Maintaining the training materials in their current state "will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community," al-Marayati wrote. Multiple online sources detail MPAC's close alignment with CAIR. In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI "issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community" and "establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials."

Accordingly, after discussing the matter with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton said "I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated."

Even before these Muslim complaints and threats, President Obama alluded to censoring words when he said soon after taking office: "Words matter ... because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle ["war on terror"] is through the battle of [Muslims'] hearts and minds" (followed by oddities like commissioning NASA to make Muslims "feel good" about themselves).

As if there were not already a lamentable lack of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies — including in the Pentagon and U.S. Army War College — the administration's more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters. Last year's QDR, a strategic document, does not mention anything remotely related to Islam — even as it stresses climate change, which it sees as an "accelerant of instability and conflict" around the world.

This attempt to whitewash Islam certainly has precedents, such as a 2008 government memo that not only warned against "offending," "insulting," or being "confrontational" to Muslims, but tried to justify such censorship as follows:

Never use the terms "jihadist" or "mujahideen" in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means "striving in the path of God" and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions. [emphasis added]

Aside from the fact that the above definitions are highly misleading, the notion that the words we use can ever have an impact on what is and is not legitimate for Muslims is ludicrous: Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government — that is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel — to define Islam for them. For Muslims, only Sharia determines right and wrong.

The U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims and worry more about providing its intelligence community — not to mention its own citizenry — with accurate knowledge concerning the nature of the threat.

Without words related to Islam, how are analysts to make sense of the current conflict? What are the goals and motivations of the "jihadists"? What are their methods? Who might be "radicalizing" them? Whom are they affiliated to? Who supports them? These and a host of other questions are unintelligible without free use of words related to Islam.

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The more generic the language, the less precise the knowledge; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the current conflict, to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.

This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam — starting with the word "Islam" itself, i.e., submission to a worldview based on Sharia, a code of law antithetical to Western common law. It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine — without fear of reprisal, such as when counter-terrorism strategist Stephen Coughlin was fired by the Pentagon for focusing on Islamic doctrine and therefore being politically incorrect.

In short, it means America's leadership needs to take that ancient dictum — "Know thy enemy" — seriously.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at This article appeared in Hudson New York and it is archived at obama-administration-bans-knowledge-of-islam

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 30, 2011.

This was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and it appeared November 28, 2011 in Commentary Magazine.


Those Middle East observers who prefer to focus on Israel's actions or inactions as the only source of tension in the region generally ignore the greatest obstacle to peace or even coexistence: the deep and abiding hatred for Jews that has become entrenched in Arab political culture. No better example of the utter irrationality of that culture and its obsessive nature exists than how the news of the renovation of a ramp leading to Jerusalem's Temple Mount has become the subject of intense controversy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Friday that plans to demolish a temporary structure that allowed access to the Temple Mount would be indefinitely postponed due to the threats of violence not only from Palestinians but also from Egypt and Jordan. As with the case of previous efforts to either modernize or create better access for this historic and sacred area, any actions by Israel have been regarded by denizens of the so-called "Arab street" as a conspiratorial plot to destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount or otherwise offend Muslim sensibilities. The fact that even an anti-Israel institution like UNESCO — which has routinely denounced archeological digs in the city by Israelis — regards the ramp demolition as in no way compromising Muslim rights or shrines is meaningless to Israel's Arab foes. While frustrating for Israel, these threats ought to clearly illustrate to the world the irrational aspect of Arab and Islamic critique of Israel. The resentment the Temple Mount project has generated is rooted in a belief that Jews have no right to be in Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with anything Netanyahu or his government might do.

Renovation of the ramp, which is a temporary structure put up in 2003 after an earthquake and a severe winter storm caused the old access ramp to collapse, in no way harms the mosques on the Temple Mount or interferes with Muslim rights to worship there. Indeed, the carrying on about anything Israel does with the adjoining Western Wall or the tunnels leading to it have never been about any harm to Arabs or Muslims. After all, in an act of magnanimity that has never been equaled in the annals of war, Israel handed over control of the Temple Mount — which is the most sacred spot in Judaism — to the Muslim Wakf almost immediately after the city was unified in 1967. For the first time in history, one of the contestants for control of the city did not destroy the shrines of other faiths or convert them to other uses as Christian and Muslim conquerors had done. But Israel got no credit for Moshe Dayan's attempt to appease Islamic sensibilities. In the decades since this gesture, the Wakf has redoubled its efforts to foment violence. Even more to the point, it has conducted excavations on the historic site that resulted in the trashing of antiquities.

The only period when all religions were allowed free access to their holy sites in the city's history has been the last 44 years of Jewish sovereignty. Yet Muslims still react to any Jewish presence in the Old City much as they did in 1929 when extremists fomented rumors of a Jewish plot to destroy the Temple Mount mosques that resulted in riots that took the lives of many Jews, including the massacre of the ancient Jewish community of Hebron.

It speaks volumes about the way Israel remains the boogeyman of Islamic culture that even in the midst of the convulsions that have racked Egypt in recent weeks, demonstrators in Tahir Square found time to obsess about a harmless ramp renovation project in Jerusalem. Though seemingly a minor affair when compared to the great conflicts over territory and the struggle for democracy, the threats over the ramp allow us to see the deep-seated nature of anti-Israel bias.

If there is to be any hope for peace between Israel and its neighbors it will have to wait until there is a sea change in the political culture of a Muslim world still stuck in their irrational hatred for the Jews.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, November 30, 2011.

If the German-born theorist was a racist, collaborator with a leading Nazi intellectual and probably an anti-Semite, why were her work and ideas ever respected?

Hannah Arendt, the German-born Jewish political theorist, is still widely admired in the West and in Israel. Her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the Banality of Evil has recently been translated into Hebrew.

In universities, those who are exposed to Arendt's theories are told, time and again, that they are exploring something new, something that is supposedly challenging the old and stale ideas with brilliant theories of human evil and totalitarianism. In general, those who have questioned Arendt's findings have tried to challenge them intellectually, but it is worthwhile to go beyond that and ask why her work and ideas were ever respected in the first place, especially in light of the fact that she was a raving racist, collaborator with a leading Nazi intellectual, and probable anti-Semite.

To get an idea of the vast exposure and influence of Arendt one must only read her admirer's comments. Cynthia Haven at Stanford University writes: "The 20th-century world of philosophy did not, as a rule, create superstars. Hannah Arendt was an exception... thirty-five years after her death, the German-Jewish political theorist... is an international industry."

There is a Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College, where much of her personal library is located, and now a Hannah Arendt movie is being filmed.

Reviewing a recent book by Deborah Lipstadt in which the author criticized Arendt, the Center's blog noted: "Thanks to Hannah Arendt, most people have come to understand [Adolph] Eichmann as a herald for the terrifying possibility of ordinary people displayingand promoting true evil. In other words, the popular belief is that this particular Nazi was just a normal person driven by his desire to succeed, rather than any true hatred or criminal intent, to facilitate the murder of millions."

ARENDT WAS born in 1906 in Germany but spent her young life in the East Prussian city of Konigsberg (now the Russian military district of Kaliningrad). She studied at the University of Marburg where she met Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher who became her lover and a leading Nazi intellectual.

Because of the rise of Nazism, she fled Germany and lived in France until the German occupation forced her to flee again, this time to the United States. She was employed by the Joint Distribution Committee, a Jewish NGO, as part of a project called "Jewish Cultural Reconstruction" after the war, before becoming a roving academic and intellectual, securing posts at many of America's most prestigious universities.

She is famous for her works The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963). In her two books her main contribution has been to show that Nazism was not unique; in its totalitarian aspects it was like the Soviet Union and its individuals were primarily "clowns" (the word used to describe Eichmann) or mere bureaucrats. She absolved the Germans of any special guilt regarding the Holocaust and support for Nazism by arguing that all people were capable of producing such evil.

WHAT HAS often been missed is that Arendt was a German nationalist and a raving anti-Semite who only escaped being called such by being Jewish.

In Origins she blamed wealthy Jews for the rise of nationalism because of their support for the monarchy. "The Jews had been purveyors in wars and the servants of kings," she wrote. In Eichmann she argued that had it not been for the Jews who worked with the Nazi administration, in the ghettos and camps, the death toll in the Holocaust would have been lower. This anti-Semetic tripe and Holocaust marginalization has passed for pseudo-intellectualism at the finest universities.

Arendt also hated Israel and Zionism. In 1948 she wrote that Menachem Begin's Herut Party was one of the "most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." She also compared the Eichmann trial was a show trial.

BUT IT is her racism for which she must be finally taken to account. Those who love Arendt often ignore this fact or bury it in a footnote, as Steven Aschheim did in his book, Arendt in Jerusalem.

When she was in Jerusalem, she wrote to her German philosopher friend Karl Jaspers: "On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic...

they would obey any order. And outside the doors, the oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country.

In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all the reasonable people here."

In her judgment that the Germans, "the best," are properly placed on top we find an Aryan supremacy that would not have been un-welcomed in Himmler's ministries. In her view that the police would "obey any order" we find a comparison of Jews to Nazis. In her comments about the "Oriental mob" and the creepy feeling of seeing people that "look Arabic" we find the racism, the hatred of Arabs and the hatred of Jews from Middle Eastern countries. In her contempt for the religious Jews we find the typical hatred that German Jews had for the ostjuden, their supposed brethren from the east.

Hannah Arendt's letter should be required reading in any university course that mentions her name. Her racism against Arabs and her Eurocentric views all should be made known before anyone opens her books. Just as Henry Ford's racism has harmed his long-term reputation and the fascism of Ezra Pound destroyed respect for him, it is time to overcome Hannah Arendt, and to leave her in the dustbin of history where she belongs.

Seth J. Frantzman received his PhD from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute of Market Studies. Contact him at and visit his website: These essays appeared on his website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Stephen Kramer, August 3, 2010.

I recently attended this season's first lecture sponsored by the English Speaking Friends of Tel Aviv University. The subject was the Arab Spring and its impact on the Middle East. The lecturer was Professor Asher Susser of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University (TAU). He was the Director of the Center for twelve years and has taught for some thirty years in TAU's Department of Middle Eastern History. Susser has been a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago, Brandeis University, and the University of Arizona. His most recent book is Israel, Jordan and Palestine — The Two-State Imperative.

Susser believes that the term "Arab Spring" is exaggerated. Virtual reality and influence in cyber-space, Twitter and Facebook especially, have been confused with real political power. Technology has been overrated because social networking ignores age-old traditions in the Middle East. Susser said the media coverage in America was misleading, citing the example of The New York Time's Maureen Dowd, who wrote that Twitter would create democracy in Egypt, a country where 30% of the population is illiterate and only 20% use computers.

Secularism is in retreat in the region. Susser asked, What were the Libyans fighting for? Surely not liberal democracy. Reports published by the United Nations show deficits in creativity, education, women's rights and more. The disempowered and dispossessed masses, especially in the non-oil producing Arab countries, have risen up against the alliance of tyranny and corruption. Population growth adds to the pressure. There are currently 360 million Arabs. That will rise to more than 400 million by 2020! Those numbers mean that 50 million jobs will have to be created in the next decade, just to maintain the (woefully inadequate) status quo. The Arab countries can't reach that goal, according to Susser, ensuring repeated bouts of instability ahead.

All societies have differences. The so-called "Other" of the Middle East are really different from us and those differences — religion and culture — can't be ignored for politically correct reasons. Giving "respect" to Middle Eastern countries because Arabs are the "Other" is a trap. Islamist politics, religious sectarianism and tribalism are the Arabs' main attributes, while secularism has lost it's former momentum.

Though columnist Roger Cohen lauded the recent Tunisian revolution, comparing Tunisia to Cuba, Susser said Cohen was totally mistaken. Castro is still in control in Cuba, while the Islamist al-Nahda Party has just won the first elections in the post-revolutionary era, displacing the young Twitter crowd.

Despite the Arab Spring, Egypt still puts bloggers in jail. The revolution there has been hijacked by the military. Susser noted that this result is best for Israel, because the army is the most pragmatic leadership in Egypt. This is especially so since the recent sacking of the Israeli embassy, when Egypt's military rulers were caught napping and felt embarrassed.

Susser reminded us that early in Egypt's Arab Spring demonstrations, a liberal, Westernized Internet executive was lauded as a potential leader by President Obama and the Western media. Wael Ghonim, a marketing manager for Google, claimed that he was behind the Facebook page that helped spark "the revolution of the youth of the Internet." That activity earned Ghonim twelve days of imprisonment. His cohort, the mostly young revolutionaries, later voluntarily left the center of the revolt, Tahrir Square. Much was made of that by media.

Running things in uneasy coexistence with the army is the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization which has been active in Egypt since the 1920s. While Islamists joined the Egyptian revolt late, they were careful not to be usurped by the military. A much later "million man protest" at the square started, significantly, on Friday after prayers, with a radical Muslim imam as principal speaker.

Susser also pointed out that Mohamed ElBaradei, former IAEA director and leader of the National Coalition for Change, was a significant leader during the Egyptian revolt, but he wasn't even allowed to vote in the referendum because of a technicality. So much for his chance to be president. The winner in the referendum was the Muslim Brotherhood, which means elections will come soon, an advantage to the well-organized Brotherhood. It's much the same throughout those Arab countries which participated in the Arab Spring: the most organized groups, the Islamist ones, win or retain power.

Nevertheless, said Susser, in theory democracy can coexist with Islam. But not with Sharia law, which according to the Koran is God-given. Sharia would have to be secondary. This won't happen, Susser predicted. Minorities won't have equality. Freedom of speech and freedom for women aren't likely to happen. So, what's left is skepticism about the legacy of the Arab Spring.

One hundred years ago, the Middle Eastern peoples looked to the West and wanted to be equals. No more; the West is in trouble economically and politically and doesn't provide a desirable model. The Arabs also admired the Soviet model, but that system is obviously obsolete. Arab nationalism (Arabism), which Susser pointed out is language-oriented more than racial or religious, also failed. The Arab world has lost its momentum, except for its oil production. Not one Arab state compares to Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt (1956-1970) and brought Arabism to its peak.

Islamists on the one hand, and the military on the other, have been most adept in seizing the reins of actual power in the wake of the regional turmoil, reacting to the fact that the current leaders of the Middle East are the non-Arab states of Iran and Turkey, which are largely religion-oriented. (Israel is a big factor too.) The modernization, Westernization and secularization that the Middle East has undergone in the last two centuries has waned. Sectarianism (primarily Sunni and Shia Islam) has replaced secularism, both domestically and internationally. Susser noted that this fact counts much more than Twitter.

The world has changed in the last few generations. America has failed in Iraq because Iraqis don't want to be Americans, unlike in Germany and Japan after WWII. Cyberspace is not reality and youthful rage isn't a solution. The emigration of young Arabs is the only solution, but one which brings its own problems. Susser told us that expatriate Tunisians living in France voted for Islamists in the Tunisian elections more than domestic Tunisians did. Arab emigrants to Europe are alienated outsiders and many would vote for Islamists in their adopted countries.

In conclusion, Professor Susser said that the next twenty years are crucial. Israel must take a solitary path, disengaging from the volcanic situation in the Middle East. He reminded us that only a few years ago, Israel was ready to alleviate its need for fresh water with purchases from Turkey, instead of building more desalination plants. That should teach us something, he noted. As for the Americans, they try to be "on the right side of history." But Susser teased, who knows what that means?

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey ( for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." Contact him at and visit

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2011.


The government of Iran denies that the huge explosion on 11/28/11 struck the Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at Isfahan. On the other hand, The Times reports having seen satellite images disproving the denial. The photos display destruction and smoke.

How did Iran react? First, the city's governor claimed that a military exercise caused the explosion. Then government agencies denied there had been any explosion that the governor attributed to a military exercise.

Iran condemned the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent report on Iran's work constructing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it has such a program.

Israeli intelligence officials assert that the explosion was "no accident." Indeed, this is the second explosion at an Iranian nuclear facility that month. The first time it was at a military base outside of Tehran. The blast killed the head of Iran's missile defense and about 30 Revolutionary Guards. Satellite images show the damage there.

Iran admits to the earlier explosion, but claimed it, too, was an accident, occurring while testing a new weapons system. Israeli officials said it was not accidental but part of a systematic defense by means of offense. They believe that important storage areas were damaged. They do not comment on who was responsible, except to say that many parties would like to stop Iranian nuclear weapons development. Some parties rely on sanctions and others resort to force.

Besides those explosions, a former Israeli intelligence officials said, there were at least two others that destroyed Iranian bases for the Shahab-3 medium-range missile, to which nuclear warheads could be attached. That destruction, too, is what the whole West wanted, he said.

(Sheera Frenkel, The Times, 11/30/11, world/a-second-iranian-nuclear-facility- has-exploded-as-diplomatic-tensions rise-between-the-west-and-tehran/ story-e6frg6so-1226209996774 from

Do you remember all the accidental explosions in Gaza, where terrorists were preparing or storing explosives in civilian areas? Hamas tried shifting the blame to Israel, claiming that Israel raided the buildings. Storing explosives in civilian areas appears to be a war crime; instead Hamas claims that Israel committed the war crime by bombing civilian areas.

Now Iran denies the mounting evidence of its nuclear weapons development. Some foreigners still believe Iran, but they have to ignore facts and logic in order to do so.

Iran also claims every week of having developed or deployed advanced weaponry home-made. If their claims are to be believed, they are a match for American forces. Military experts have noted a tendency for the clerical regime to seek to intimidate by boasting. But I do not find public news reports of assessments of the Iranian military. Shouldn't there be?

While some of our leaders suggest that the U.S. raid Iran's nuclear facilities before it is too late, they do not discuss what forces Iran has to oppose the raiders and to wreak other havoc, and what forces the U.S. has to squelch the counter-attack. Such a fact-based analysis should be a prerequisite to raids.

Meanwhile, we have seen first an assault on Iran's nuclear facilities by computer viruses and now by explosions. The explosions are not preceded by declarations of war, which older Americans remember as the original practice. Our government sometimes seeks to save us from risk by putting us under risk without consulting us or eliciting our support or advising us of what sacrifices we may have to endure.


Just a day after the supreme ruler of Iran condemned Britain, and Iran's parliament passed a resolution to expel the British Ambassador, hundreds of young Iranians yelled, "Death to England," as they stormed into and smashed things in Britain's embassy. Unlike the much earlier attack on the U.S. embassy there, no hostages were taken. Iran has let similar protests go on for a time, before halting them. That is how Iran communicates with foreign countries it opposes.

Iran's state media admits that the youths belong to the Basij militia [the plainclothes thugs that the regime sets on Iranian protestors]. President Obama noted that the Iranian government forfeited its international responsibility in letting a mob run riot. Usually, security forces keep protests under tight control.

The government expressed regret; some of its officials seemed surprised by the outbreak. On the other hand, the regime may have been showing defiance as Britain imposed more sanctions on Iran. The message is that the more Iran is antagonized, the worse it behaves, so the West cannot win. In a similar sentiment to Pres. Obama's, Britain declares the Iranian regime responsible for the attack. Indeed, security forces initially merely watched the attack without intervening (Robert F. Worth & Rick Gladstone, NY Times, 11/30/11, A6).

Want another example? Arafat had terrorists seize the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum and murder its top two officials.

Britain holds Iran accountable, does it? To what effect? Pres. Obama's remark misses the point. Iran did not forfeit its international responsibility. Iran does not recognize international responsibility. The clerical regime considers its only responsibility to be to jihad and greed.

When Iranian Islamists first captured the U.S. embassy all those years ago, Americans were shocked at their barbarity. It took centuries to establish the sanctity of diplomatic immunity. The West still does not realize that Islamist fanatics consider nothing sacred but their interpretation of their religion. Not civilians, not the temples of other faiths or even their own, not diplomats, not the laws limiting war, and not the truth. The Supreme Ayatollah or Attila, what is the difference?


Turkey keeps threatening Syria (as well as Cyprus and Israel). Syria threatens to carve out a safety zone in Syria for people fleeing Syrian government forces. As Turkey puts it, the zone would be imposed if Syria doesn't stop killing citizens who demand democratic change. Turkey also is diverting trade away from Syria. As Turkey puts it, it opposes Syrian "oppression."

Turkey still expresses disapproval of any possible military action against Syria (except for invading it and setting up a Turkish-controlled zone in it).

The Arab League authorized Arab states to impose sanctions on Syria. The UN Human Rights Council denounced "patterns of summary execution, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, torture, sexual violence, and violations of children's rights. Syria blames foreign-financed gangs (Sebnem Arsu & Neil MacFarquhar, NY Times, 11/30/11, A12).

Look a little deeper into self-righteous denunciation of Syrian oppression against democracy-demanders. Peer deeper, especially as one supposedly democratic movement among the Arabs turns into an Islamist movement.

There are Syrians who demand real democracy. But their protest may enable the Moslem Brotherhood there to oust the Shiite-like Alawite rulers. The Brotherhood would replace the Alawites with Sunni Islamists.

Who else are Sunni Islamists? The Arab League states that voted sanctions against Iraq but not against genocidal but Sunni-ruled Sudan. The regime in Turkey. The Turkish regime is in the process of consolidating power in the name of democracy, so it has not yet committed similar atrocities. It crushes independent journalism, military centers that might fight to retain the secular republic, the judiciary, and academia. It did encourage terrorists running the partial blockade of Gaza.

The real surprise is the action by the UN Human Rights Council. Mostly that Council busies itself fostering antisemitism and denouncing Israel on false grounds. It usually is controlled by dictatorships, which see to it that it does not intervene against them. But Assad seems vulnerable, so perhaps they intervene against what appears to be a lost cause anyway.


In most political controversies, interested parties frame the issues not objectively but advantageously for their sides. Selective with the facts, they misrepresent motives, objectives, and likely results.

One such issue is that of Israeli legislative reaction to foreign governmental funding of Israeli political NGOs.

The Knesset reaction been presented as anti-democratic, and being so by bills that would prevent the NGOs from participating in public policy debates. Here Dr. Lerner of IMRA re-frames the controversy with perspective.

The bills and public opinion do not bar people from joining and supporting leftist NGOs, nor do they bar those NGOs from participating in public debate. Nor do the proposed bills bar foreign individuals from donating funds to Israeli NGOs. The bills address public concern over foreign government funding of those NGOs.

Take Peace Now. Half of its budget is provided by foreign governments. Those governments finance Peace Now and other Israeli NGOs in order to promote foreign governmental policies in Israel.

Restricting such foreign funding of political organizations in Israel has nothing to do with freedom of speech or other democratic values.

What the proposed restrictions would do is keep foreign governments from blatantly interfering in Israeli democratic debate about public policy.

They try to put their policy views over on Israel and perhaps try to do so by bribing Israeli NGOs. That is the undemocratic aspect of the controversy, not Israeli attempts to keep foreign governments from interfering in Israeli domestic affairs (Dr. Aaron Lerner,, 12/1/11).

One point of proposed legislation is to make donations transparent, so Israelis know who is financing which groups to what extent. Israelis have a right to know to what extent Israeli NGOs are Israeli NGOs and have what Israeli support, and are not proxies for European governments.

The people of Israel elect representatives purportedly in behalf of certain policies. The EU supports NGOs that seek to overturn those policies. That is not democratic. As reported before, many of those NGOs pretend to be civil libertarian, but really are political advocacy groups. It happens that their advocacy is against public policy and usually anti-Israel. In previous articles, I summed up their activities as subversive and in behalf of jihadists seeking to destroy Israel. These European subsidies are hostile acts.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by FLAME, November 30, 2011.

The United Nations' Durban III Conference Reasserts Its Racist, Anti-Israel Agenda

Dear Friend of FLAME:

While those of us who support Israel know that the United Nations consistently, hopelessly stands against Israel, surely the epitome of this bias is reflected in the U.N.'s Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee.

Way back in 2001, this group organized the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which was held in Durban, South Africa and hence dubbed Durban I. That conference adopted the notorious Durban Declaration, which singled out Israel for condemnation among all 192 U.N. member states and reasserted the U.N.'s 1975 resolution stating that Zionism is racism.

It's been downhill from there. At the Durban II conference in 2009, Iran's president Ahmahdinajad famously gave a speech that attacked Israel and denied the Holocaust. Now, most recently, Durban III is being held in New York City, and this week it put forward a restatement of the Durban Resolution, which casts the Jewish state of Israel as racist oppressors of the Palestinian victims.

Unsurprisingly, last Wednesday, the U.N. General Assembly approved a draft resolution of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) — with a vote of 126 in favor, five opposed and 43 abstentions. The countries that heroically voted against this nefarious resolution — which in itself is far more racist than anything it accuses Israel of — may be considered Israel's strongest friends: Australia, Canada, Israel, the Marshall Islands and the United States.

Let's be clear on two issues related to the United Nations. First: Its votes are dominated by several blocs — primarily the Arab-Muslim states and the so-called developing nations, which includes most African and many Latin American countries. These countries comprise a majority and can be counted on in most cases to oppose Western (and Israeli) initiatives and to support those condemning the West and/or Israel.

The second issue is that these countries support the notion that Israel is a colonial invader of the Middle East and oppose the notion that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination and that the Jewish state has a right to exist in its ancient and continuous homeland of Palestine.

This week's FLAME Hotline, by Anne Bayefsky, exposes the travesty of Durban III and issues the dire warning that more Durbans and more attempts to delegitimize Israel will follow. Her article, below, was written two days before the U.N. General Assembly vote.

Bayefsky is Director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former Canadian delegate to the United Nations. Her analysis should inspire those of us who support Israel to continue our unstinting work, fighting back against those who are oh-so-patiently determined to destroy the Jewish state.

[FLAME calls] for the world to shift its focus away from the Middle East's only democracy and for once to condemn the blatant racism and sexism of the Arab world. Please review it here: "Apartheid in the Arab Middle East: How can the U.N. turn a blind eye to hateful, state-sponsored discrimination against people because of their race, ethnicity, religion and gender?" With the help of Israel supporters like you, FLAME ran this position paper in national media reaching more than 10 million readers, including college newspapers. It was also sent to every U.S. senator and representative. If you agree that this kind of outspoken public relations effort on Israel's behalf is necessary, I urge you to support us now. Go to


In yet another effort to demonize Israel on the political battlefield, the U.N. General Assembly — which can bear a striking resemblance to the game of Whac-A-Mole — will adopt a new resolution this week to promote the Durban "anti-racism" declaration.

Back in September the U.N. sponsored "Durban III," an event intended by Islamic states and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to breathe new life into the ten-year-old anti-Israel vendetta which began in South Africa in 2001. Despite the unprecedented boycott by all Western veto-holding members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain and France — Durban and its insidious message have popped up a mere two months later.

The regenerative nature of U.N. armaments, in the form of cyclical resolutions and "follow-up" mechanisms, makes them not merely annoying but dangerous. Due to this circuitous nature, battles that are won must be fought again and again. This is particularly true of the libelous 1975 U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism, which was revitalized in the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA), accusing only one state among all U.N. members of racism — Israel — and casting Palestinians as the victims of Israeli bigotry.

By all accounts — except the one emanating from the U.N. press office — Durban III failed to deliver the credibility boost that its fans were craving. In a strong rejection of the Durban III political program, 14 nations, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, the United States and, of course, Israel all boycotted. A simultaneous counter-conference held directly across the street from the U.N., involving Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel and a bipartisan group of Jewish and non-Jewish luminaries, mounted a resounding historic challenge to the U.N. campaign.

The U.N. response, however, has been to rewrite history. On September 22, 2011, at the opening ceremonies of Durban III, South African President Jacob Zuma fictionalized the original conference, saying "in Durban the world spoke with one voice" — notwithstanding the very public departure of the United States and Israel. A few hours later, the General Assembly adopted a "political declaration," "reaffirming" the DDPA and calling the declaration "united against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Today, the U.N. website says of Durban III that "world leaders adopted by consensus a political declaration," paying no notice to the fact that the world's leading democracies had already voted with their feet.

The U.N. has even issued a document titled "frequently asked questions" which purports to answer charges of U.N. discrimination against Israel. Ironically, it confirms the worst.

Question: "Why is Israel the only member state mentioned in the DDPA?"

Answer: it is "a reflection of the international concern about the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian situation." In other words, spotlighting Israel, and what the DDPA labels Palestinian "victims," is properly part of an "anti-racism" manifesto.

With the transcripts of Durban III now available and the U.N. spin-masters hard at work for the vote this week in a "follow-up" to the event, the details of what actually took place on September 22 warrant exposure.

The day was comprised of three parts: an opener in the General Assembly Hall, two roundtables and a closing session summarizing the day's output. Only six state representatives were selected to speak during the opening session. The 55 states in the African group chose Sudan — a country whose president has been indicted by the U.N.'s own International Criminal Court for genocide.

Here is a sampling of what Durban's enthusiastic supporters contributed over the course of the day:

  • The foreign minister of Tunisia, co-chair of one of the roundtables, said that the Durban anniversary provided an opportunity "to highlight...first and foremost, the Palestinian people" so as to avoid "exacerbating intercultural tensions."

  • The foreign minister of Iran ranted about "the racist Zionist regime" while proclaiming the DDPA to be "one of the richest record of achievement of humanity in today's world against racism."

  • The Lebanese minister of foreign affairs denied the meaning of anti-Semitism: "Anti-Semitism is not known in the Arab world because Arab nations are Semitic." He then manifested his own anti-Semitism by objecting to the "Jewish character of Israel" as "contrary to any vision of a future based on peace and tolerance."

  • The Syrian U.N. ambassador complained about "unpleasant practices in our region" — by which he didn't mean his own government's habit of butchering its people — but "the racist concept of a 'Jewish state of Israel," "the Facist racism of Israel" and "the mass racist violations by Israel."

Durban III was also a golden opportunity for countries to attack the West, undermine democratic freedoms and play dress-up as a human rights advocate.

  • The deputy foreign minister of Cuba railed against "subjugated" Palestinians and against institutionalized racism "in Europe and North America."

  • The Islamic Republic of Mauritania hailed Durban's "significant achievements, in particular, condemning slavery," and Mauritania's stellar record of following Durban's directions — despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are enslaved in Mauritania and that its government jails anti-slavery activists.

The Saudi Arabian "undersecretary for multi-relations affairs" never showed up, but, in an extraordinary breach of protocol, the U.N. uploaded his "speech" to the Durban III site anyway.

Here are the words of the world's leading practitioner of gender apartheid and the country which criminalizes public displays of religion other than those of Islam: "Islam calls upon us to refrain from offending other religions and faiths;" "the Kingdom established...agencies that call for the spread of human-rights culture;" "freedom of speech should never be used as a tool for injustice;" and "the highest degree of racism and discrimination...the clearest illustration of such comprehensive racial discrimination lies...against the Palestinian people."

Durban III also had its carefully-orchestrated non-governmental message. NGO participants had to be vetted and only those NGOs not vetoed by a U.N. member were permitted to attend. Organizations dedicated to eradicating discrimination against Dalits,sometimes called untouchables, were barred from this anti-intolerance charade. The one individual chosen to represent all of civil society in the main opening session could be counted upon to condemn the United States. Sarah White of the Mississippi Workers' Center for Human Rights denounced racism in America where, she said "black workers are still...forced to work under conditions that look a lot like slavery."

The U.N. meticulously chose ten of the 88 registered organizations to speak at the roundtables. Here's why:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union opened with "We thank you for the opportunity to call attention to racial discrimination in the United States."

  • The "December 12 Movement International Secretariat (US)" claimed the United States was guilty of "undermining the development of over 40 million black people in its borders" and "the forced under-development of African people within the US."

  • The director of the "Malcolm X Center for Self-Determination" appealed to the U.N. for help in implementing the DDPA "on behalf of all US counter-intelligence-program-era political prisoners and persons currently held on US racist death rows across the country."

In fact, the only specific state directly criticized by the U.N.'s hand-picked NGOs in a global anti-racism conference was the United States.

At day's end, with grand aplomb back in the General Assembly Hall, Prime Minister of Swaziland Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini summarized the contributions of Durban III. In two contiguous sentences, he managed to lay bare the twisted dishonest U.N. game. "Several speakers referred to...the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. The importance of not singling out a specific region or country was also emphasized."

In short, Durban is not a "united" front against racism, but a divisive anti-Semitic and anti-Western bonanza. Nevertheless, the Durban license for intolerance continues.

Only a month later, the U.N.'s "Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the DDPA" met in Geneva to produce recommendations "on the role of education in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." They began with a draft set of recommendations which mentioned the Holocaust. They ended on October 28, 2011 with the Holocaust having been excised.

Their initial draft said the U.N. should: "encourage Governments to ensure that textbooks and educational materials reflect accurately historical facts, in particular with regard to..." among other things, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust. What happened?

As soon as negotiations began, the EU demanded that all specifics be deleted — anything after the words "historical facts" — because the list "looked like a Christmas tree" and "will introduce a hierarchy of victims." The EU was unhappy about being the target of the trans-Atlantic slave trade reference and was unperturbed about ditching the Holocaust along with it.

The rest of the negotiations consisted of various parties demanding additions and subtractions to the list that would be unpalatable to others so that, in the end, the no-list argument prevailed. In the final minutes, Belgium and Turkey made a deal to incorporate a reference back "in particular" to the "list in paragraph 99 of the DDPA," which names only "slavery, the slave trade, the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide."

There was plenty of indication that reference to the Holocaust was an uncomfortable subject at a Durban "effective implementation" meeting. Russia said that they wanted to add "other crimes committed by the Nazis" because "the Holocaust was just one of these crimes that had its own name," while Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, complained "why do we have the word Holocaust when it doesn't exist in paragraph 99 of the DDPA?"

Evidently, Durban "follow-up" is the fruit of a very poisonous tree.

All of this brings us to the present and the latest resolution now before the General Assembly, which promotes the DDPA along with Durban III. Last year, when the Assembly decided to hold Durban III, not a single Western member of the U.N. voted in favor. With Durban III over, however, the push is on to win back the fickle Europeans and move them at least into the abstention column. France and Britain boycotted when the prospect of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Iran and Syria at an "anti-intolerance" affair would have been publicly embarrassing, but pushing forward the already-existing handiwork of Iran and company might be easier for anemic diplomats and could possibly be overlooked. After all, the vote will take place in the recesses of the organization and will not be webcast.

The U.N. formula for propagating moral confusion and delegitimizing the Jewish State? Just wear down the opposition.

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, November 29, 2011.

One has to wonder why the United Nations must continue to exist? It has long ago outlived its purpose as a unifying successor to the League of Nations. It is now a den of vipers, controlled by the Muslim world, which sees as its main function the delegitimization of Israel.

How can this be tolerated? Why should U.S. taxpayer money, and New York City's valuable real estate, be fed into this insatiable, destructive organization?

The article below on the UN's Nov. 29 travesty was written by Joseph Klein and it appeared in Front Page Magazine. It was entitled, "The UN's International Day of Solidarity Against the Jews."


There is no single issue on which the United Nations expends more time and energy than its advocacy of the Palestinian cause. It dominates the agendas of various UN bodies, supported by American taxpayer dollars, including the UN Human Rights Council, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

The UN's obsession over Palestine has led to the world body's repudiation of its own original two-state solution, spurned by all of the Arab countries and the Palestinians themselves back in 1947.

Beginning in 1977, the United Nations has sponsored the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" on November 29th, the date in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved its Palestine partition resolution. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called November 29th a "day of mourning and a day of grief." The event takes place every year at UN headquarters in New York and at the UN Offices at Geneva and Vienna and elsewhere.

In other words, every November 29th, the United Nations publicly mourns the passage of its own peaceful solution to the Arab-Jewish dispute, which had called for the establishment of an independent Arab state and independent Jewish state. Every year the UN commiserates over the adoption by the General Assembly of the 1947 partition resolution under which the Palestinians could have been living in their own independent state for the last sixty-four years if the Arabs had only accepted it. Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has conceded that the Arabs' rejection of the partition resolution was a big mistake, but the day of mourning and grief over the Palestinians' self-inflicted wounds go on anyway at the United Nations.

This year is no exception. In addition to a series of pro-Palestinian speeches denouncing Israel, the meeting is featuring an encore showing of the film titled La Terre Parle Arabe (The Land Speaks Arabic). The film purports to equate Zionism with Nazism. It depict the alleged "expulsion of the indigenous Arab population" and the alleged "ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist movement."

The following is an excerpt from the film's script:

Christians and Muslims alike...unite in their hatred of Zionism...I preferred to die as a martyr rather than be governed by the Jews ...The children cried ...The Hagana had no mercy, no pity. Zionists! They were Zionists!...

Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at; or by accessing its website: Helen Freedman is Executive Director.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, November 29, 2011.

NGO Monitor's research on Breaking the Silence (BtS) — an NGO that claims to speak to Israeli audiences — has revealed that extensive European funding allows the group to hold numerous events for international audiences. These foreign activities stand in sharp contrast to the NGO's mission of "expos[ing] the Israeli public to the routine situations of everyday life in the Occupied Territories....pushing Israeli society to face the reality whose creation it has enabled"

As explained in the YNet op-ed below, "In the past year, BtS has addressed the Irish Parliament, a crowd in Washington that included the United Arab Emirates UN Ambassador and the First Secretary of Pakistan to the UN, and numerous college campuses in the US, among other similar engagements. At one event in Sweden, BtS activist Yonatan Shapiro even stated, 'We are the oppressors, we are the ones that are violating human rights on a daily basis. We are creating the terror against us, basically.'"

More than 75% of the organization's 2010 budget came from government funding sources. The New Israel Fund (NIF) also contributed $152,540 to BtS in 2010.

Additional information on BtS funding and activities is available in NGO Monitor's report, Breaking the Silence Outside of Israel. NGO Monitor also published an op-ed on this research in the Hebrew daily, Maariv.

This was written by Anne Herzberg and Naftali Balanson. Anne Herzberg is legal advisor of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution dedicated to promoting universal human rights and to encouraging civil discussion on the reports and activities of nongovernmental organizations, particularly in the Middle East. Naftali Balanson is managing editor of NGO Monitor.


From November 13-16, Hebrew University sponsored a conference on "The Potential Role of Transitional Justice in Ongoing Conflict." Several of the panels addressed the Arab-Israeli conflict and what local groups are doing to promote its resolution. In particular, the panelists highlighted the work of Breaking the Silence (BtS). They concluded that BtS may offer an interesting perspective on the conflict, but ultimately, the impact of its work is questionable.

Although the panelists touched on some of the reasons for BtS' limited effectiveness, the primary causes were not discussed. Namely, in contrast to the perception that BtS is rooted in Israeli civil society and addresses the Israeli public, the organization, in fact, focuses on lobbying and advocacy before foreign audiences. BtS exemplifies a serious problem, which has triggered a robust debate in the Israeli public and Knesset about the role of NGOs and NGO funders.

Breaking the Silence describes its mission as "expos(ing) the Israeli public to the routine situations of everyday life in the Occupied Territories....pushing Israeli society to face the reality whose creation it has enabled." Yet, as NGO Monitor has documented in its report on the frequent international campaigning of Israeli NGOs, BtS conducts a significant amount of its activities outside of Israel.

In the past year, BtS has addressed the Irish Parliament, a crowd in Washington that included the United Arab Emirates UN Ambassador and the First Secretary of Pakistan to the UN, and numerous college campuses in the US, among other similar engagements. At one event in Sweden, BtS activist Yonatan Shapiro even stated, "We are the oppressors, we are the ones that are violating human rights on a daily basis. We are creating the terror against us, basically."

In May 2011, controversy erupted when another BtS official was scheduled to speak at an event in Ramallah, hosted by a German NGO. The event was subsequently cancelled.

Most recently, on November 20, BtS representative Oded Na'aman spoke at the University of Pennsylvania, at an event sponsored by Penn for Palestine (formerly Students for Justice in Palestine), a pro-boycott, anti-Israel organization. One must question why a group that claims to want to impact Israeli society spends so much time speaking to anti-Israel audiences abroad and reinforcing the image of the Israeli soldier as evil doer and "war criminal."

Alienating the mainstream

Another significant problem is that BtS is a patron of several European governments. More than 75% of the organization's 2010 budget — the last available public documents — came from government funding sources, under the pretense of support for human rights and democracy.

However, as repeatedly emphasized by officials from BtS, "the political significance is the only reason for doing it." Within Israel, BtS' political agenda is not illegitimate, albeit marginal. But foreign government support for that agenda is absurd.

It is inconceivable that any European country would accept a situation where another democratic government provided funds to an organization whose primary aim was to trash that country's armed forces before hostile audiences.

It is therefore hard not to wonder if BtS is a genuine expression of Israeli sentiment, or whether its representatives simply serve as the mouthpieces for Europeans. If the goal is "political," then is this not a subversion and manipulation of Israeli democracy? It is equally disturbing and offensive that European officials appear to be blind and deaf to these issues.

Along with Europe, the New Israel Fund (NIF) also funds BtS. But given the myriad of BtS activities outside Israel, the question must be asked — why did the NIF provide $152,540 to BtS in 2010? If BtS were an Israel-focused group, it might make sense, as NIF "strongly believes that (its) job is to work within Israel to ensure democratic accountability." But, the reality, as discussed above, is fundamentally different.

Worst of all, the European and NIF donors do not get value for their funding. As NGO Monitor has documented, BtS publications consist of anecdotal, anonymous, and unverifiable accounts of low-level soldiers, often based on hearsay. And a close reading of their "testimonies" shows that misconduct is punished by the Israeli army, undermining one of BtS' central politicized claims.

Although the scholars at the Hebrew University conference posited that groups such as BtS may foster reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, BtS' activities are counterproductive. They simply reinforce a narrative where Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict, and Palestinians are blameless victims with no agency or responsibility for the current situation.

More importantly, BtS has managed to alienate mainstream Israeli society, while simultaneously drifting toward foreign audiences. BtS is, therefore, but one example of how Europe's and NIF's funding practices make peace even more elusive.

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, November 29, 2011.

This was written by Daphne Anson and it appeared on her website: stars-under-southern-cross-australians.html


Just under a year ago, Melboune-based Luke William Martin, a part-time teacher completing a law degree, who has stood for state parliament in the Liberal interest, inaugurated a grassroots group, Australian Friends of Israel, intended as an expression of the views of what he considers the "silent majority". It consisted mainly of non-Jews, drawn to Israel like himself. By October, the group had 300 members, about 60 per cent of them non-Jews.

As J-Wire noted at that time, the Facebook group has expressed concern over "the increasing rise of anti-Semitic violence and hatred in various sections of the world and even to some degree in the Lucky Country," and unequivocally supports the Jewish State:

"The Jews have as much right as any other people to live in freedom and without fear of harassment or persecution. Israel, the only truly free democracy of the Middle East is a beacon of light to the entire world. Since 1948, it has been transformed into a productive modern industrialized nation. Often provoked with suicide bombings and even invasions from hostile regimes, Israel shows incredible patience and grace towards its neighbours. For such reasons and many more; we stand side-by-side with our ally Israel. Like everybody else, Israelis have a right to live in a secure homeland."

Explained Luke Martin:

"We desperately need to reinvigorate a national consciousness and conversation in support of Israel. Whilst I do not want to over play the Max Brenner protests, they are an illustration of the fragility of the fabric that holds our society together. Without direct police intervention and opposition from the Coalition, Labor and the Jewish community, the prospect of how those ugly BDS protests might have developed is deeply concerning."

And with an admirable sense of history (the Anzacs helped to liberate Jerusalem from the Turks, and Australian "Doc" Evatt played a pivotal role in Israel's birth), he added:

"This is about Israel, and the Australian relationship with Israel. I want Australian Friends of Israel to assist in educating people. I want to remind my fellow Australians of our heritage — a heritage steeped in a love for Israel. Because moderate and respectable Australian patriotism has always been pro-Israel, we are entitled to enshrine our national friendship with Israel in the untouchable mystery and tradition of iconic Australian imagery such as ANZAC Day, Beersheba and the Australian founding fathers. If our founding fathers believed in Israel, so should we. I am doing this for my grandparents."

Now, what began as a group of like-minded Melbourne supporters of Israel has gone from strength to strength and has changed its name to Australians United For Israel. It's fully incorporated at both Victorian state level and federally, across Australia.

Mazal Tov, Luke! Kol HaKavod!

(Incidentally, as Shirlee and an anonymous reader have kindly reminded me, a clear, cogent account of the controversy Down Under provoked by David Landau's visit has been carried by a section of the Israeli press. Read it here.)

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Donald Hank, November 29, 2011.

If you are censored and told what you may or may not say, it probably will not be the result of government action. The government still has First Amendment considerations to contend with, making censorship politically difficult.

If the government decides to censor you, it will leave the dirty work of doing so to an NGE.

What is an NGE, you ask?

NGE stands for Non-Governmental Enforcer. NGEs are generally large corporations, which operate in league with corrupt government and receive generous public funding in return, including bailouts when such are needed. I introduced this term recently when my brother in Christ Julio Severo had his PayPal account closed on the grounds that his was a "hate group." Brother Julio believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says as much in several key verses.

Thus, it is the Bible that ultimately is being censored, and no matter how you feel about this issue, the fact is, this nation, founded in large part by people seeking religious freedom, is inexorably accepting the premise that sexual freedom must take precedence over freedom of creed — freedom of religion.

That is not the only issue into which have stepped NGEs to muzzle dissenters.

The BNP (British National Party) has had its bank account closed by Barclays because they supposedly are anti-Muslim and some low-ranking members have allegedly uttered violent words. (Note that when the Left — for example, the Occupy Wall Street movement — utter violent words, they are ignored or encouraged).

Thus far, the West has succeeded in circumventing the quaint notion of free speech in the areas of homosexuality and Islam.

But if you think it will stop there, you are hopelessly naïve.

Christianity is based on bedrock principles enunciated by Jesus Christ, who said, for example: I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but through me.

Clearly the doctrine represented by this verse excludes all other religions and is offensive to some. That is not at odds with the teachings of Christ, who came "to bring a sword" (that is, not to kill but to divide believers from non-believers).

The idea that all speech must be inoffensive will ultimately lead to the banning of this verse and the censoring of those who dare to utter it in public. Parents may also be banned from teaching it to their children.

It matters not that this is perhaps the key to the Christian faith. The elites see Christianity as an obstacle to their plans.

The West has crossed a line as a result of negligence, and now, unless the people who ignored the issue start to wake up to what is happening, we can only await the end of faith — and hence an end to any protest against government abuse and corruption. The government can now starve you with impunity and without resistance.

The line we crossed could be called the Niemöller line of non-protest. People did not protest the outrage that was perpetrated against Julio Severo because they weren't Christians and they think — erroneously — that he has somehow victimized homosexuals. They did not protest the outrage against the BNP because they were not members of the BNP and they believed the lie that Muslims are inherently victims of Christians.

Westerners are like a herd of wild animals attacked by a lion. A herd of kudo antelopes could hold off a lion attack. But they are content just to escape individually, while their fellows are killed.

Let's stop being herded by the elites. It's undignified and potentially deadly to behave this way. We can stop them if we stick together and all say no in unison, before protesting is forever banned.

We can and must say no, insisting on our God-given right to free expression. Our very survival depends not on the flight instinct but on the fight instinct. 1467204/Barclays-to-close-five-BNP-accounts.html

Contact Donald Hank at This article is archived at back-door-censorship/2820.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 29, 2011.

"The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace." Psalms 29:11


Israelis, is seems, need a lot of strength. Fatah and Hamas, two names for the same ill, have reconciled their "differences." I would be hard-pressed to find any such differences, as in essence they both strive to eliminate the Jews from the Jewish homeland and to erase any historical connection thereof.

Fatah, though, is the favorite child of the world, while the other is still referred to as a "terrorist organization." At the very least it could be acknowledged as a "regime." [Note to mention it to the UN; immediate corrective action needed.] However, the world is getting used to having Hamas as a discussion partner, now that Israel set the stage when it exchanged 1,027 prisoners for one IDF soldier.

Then there is Jordan, Israel's only remaining Arab ally now that Egypt is in a transition period from Mubarak via military to Muslim Brotherhood. The Jordanian monarchy is supposedly stable, but King Abdullah II knows better. So do the Israelis whose President visited the Royal Palace in Amman to "exchange views regarding recent developments in the region," under the heading "the importance of strengthening the good strategic ties between Israel and Jordan."

Last night some Katyusha rockets were fired from Lebanon into northern Israel, a gentle reminder that the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis is still very much alive. While Turkey is ready to invade Syria, Syria warns Israel of the consequences.

American naval ships gather on the horizon, as President Obama may need to face the real enemy of the USA (he tried repeatedly to avoid the difficult task, sacrificing instead a close friend and ally, President Mubarak of Egypt). Then Russia declared its refusal to sit idle in the face of American terrorism. Possibly Putin did not use this exact word, but he is an expert at utilizing brute force, whatever label one wishes to assign radioactive poisoning and murdering journalists.

It sounds very much like a ball, the Devil's Masquerade Ball. One by one the invitees arrive, dressed up and ready to party beyond the senses. Arab Spring, Tahrir Square, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Russia. And Israel, dressed in white, a tiny girl in awe, the innocence of youth and virginity.

There she stands, in her white dress, as the Devil's minions swirl around, spasm about to catch them, moving faster and faster, intoxicated by the thought of what is soon to happen.

Despite its look, and seemingly ignoring the atmosphere and heightened focus of attention on her, Israel is neither naïve nor stupid. Thus, when its former head of the Mossad (the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations) came out in public against the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Finance Minister (the three ranking members of the government), there were attempts to silence him as everyone listened attentively.

Attacking Iran, Dagan explains, "will bring Israel into a regional war. Such a war will claim a very hefty price, both in terms of infrastructure, the fabric of life and loss of life." He absolutely objects, he says, to an Israeli strike against Iran.

Recent events in Iran speak volumes. The local population has been anticipating an Israeli strike, much as I am ready for the next earthquake to hit Los Angeles and California. What actually took place is a sequence of events, explosions in the most secret and heavily guarded facilities. Iran tries to distance itself from winding up in an inferior position or admitting someone else (especially those damn Zionists) managed to hurt them inside, where it counts most. But the facts remain.

Maybe it is not the Mossad. Perhaps it is just a coincidence. Or maybe not. Maybe it is the very long arm of the Israeli determination to survive.

Would a former head of the Mossad come out publicly against his former boss? He, more than most Israelis, is bound by secrecy to his grave.

Instead, this inner bickering between those at the helm, past and present, sounds more like a distraction or even a massive deception to conceal the truth: Israelis are busy arguing, so clearly they are not focused enough on the task at hand.

Iranians are not stupid either, so it is unlikely they would fall into this trap. The attacks are already underway, and they are more spectacular than one's wildest imagination. We envisioned Israeli airplanes going via landing sites in Southern or Eastern Europe to most daring missions. Others conjured up long-range missiles launched from submarines hitting simultaneously numerous locations throughout Iran.

Thus, as the dance intensifies and those around no longer differentiate fiction from reality — all they see is a white, clean spot, an innocent girl standing in the middle — Israel uses smarts rather than brut force. Targeted killings of scientists associated with the development of Nuclear Iran. A Stuxnet computer worm that keeps spreading even after it was removed. Penetration to their deepest most guarded sites. Explosions. Israel at its finest.

Israelis need a lot of strength, and from the havoc of daily life in that tiny country, surrounded by enemies and full of internal foes, one wonders how she survives.

"For with wise advice thou shalt make thy war, and in the multitude of counselors there is safety," says Proverbs 24:6. Israel stands in the middle, the Devil's attention never wavering from her for an instant. Why does she seem unafraid? What protection does she have in this finest hour of the Devil's ultimate Masquerade Ball?

There is one source of strength and protection, an ancient blessing whose strength has not withered: It is God's promise and His energy that gives strength to His people and that will ultimately bring peace unto them. A Divine Blessing that serves as Israel's Iron Dome and will provide all the protection the Jewish Homeland ever needs.

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 and Israelis often ignore.

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 and Norma Zager at

To Go To Top

Posted by John Cohn, November 29, 2011.

David Newman wrongly equates the Berlin Wall and Israel's defensive barrier. Berlin's reunification 29 years after post-war division into Soviet and Western sectors was celebrated. For 19 years, following another war, Jerusalem was also divided, into Israeli and Jordanian sectors. Israel's 1967 capture of Jordanian occupied neighborhoods restored that city's 3000-year-old unified status. The Mandelbaum Gate, the most noteworthy former checkpoint, is but a street sign, and roads run along the now imperceptible former armistice line.

But unlike in Berlin, Israel has been criticized instead of praised, as foreign leaders call for restoration of artificial partition. The problem is not Israel's defensive wall on the city's periphery. That is far less obtrusive than the concrete and barbed wire barrier, dotted with military checkpoints, which ran through the heart of Jerusalem for 19 years — with little objection. It is where and why Israel's barrier was built — not to keep Jews out, as Jordanian fortifications did, but to stop mass murderers and provide safe access for all.

Contact John Cohn at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2011.

Is yours truly, banging her head against the wall.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has just announced that Israel may release to the PA tax funds that have been held since the PA applied for acceptance by UNICEF as a full member.

"Israel will examine this possibility, in light of the current calm situation," he said, indicating that the PA has slowed its unilateral steps at the UN.

It was at this point that head banging suddenly seemed appropriate to me. The reality is that the PA decided not to call for a Security Council vote on membership in the UN because it had become clear that the vote would not pass — not because of a Palestinian Arab change of heart.

But what does Netanyahu say? "We see things quieting down on the Palestinian side — they decided to stop these steps. We didn't need a veto in the Security Council. It's in the Palestinian interest to stop."

Wait. Wait. Israel and the US had both lobbied members of the Security Council with sufficient effectiveness so that there would not have been a quorum voting and the PA request would not have gone through, even without that veto. That's why a veto wasn't needed. It was in the Palestinian interest to refrain from calling a vote because it would have made them look like failed fools at the end of the day.

As to applying to other UN agencies for membership following its success with UNICEF — the PA leadership fully intended to do this, but was specifically asked by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon not to because the agencies would suffer financial repercussions.

Thus the "calm." It came about by virtue of diplomatic victories over the PA, not because its leaders had mellowed.

As to the declared PA intention to seek enhanced observer status at the General Assembly, Netanyahu says the PA has tabled this. This is the first I have heard this and I'm trying to learn more about what went on behind the scenes, if this is the case.

But for this we need to reward Abbas?


It was easy to see this sort of thing coming. And here's the clincher:

Netanyahu says that the PA's "union with Hamas is ceremonial, and does not have concrete results."

But it's in process. It may have concrete results and it may not. We should cut Abbas — who has declared intention to form a unity government, "a resistance government" with Hamas — slack because it hasn't happened yet? He just announced that joint elections will be held May 4.

This sort of "well, the PA interaction with Hamas doesn't really mean anything" approach was also thoroughly predictable. But I had expected this from the US and the EU, and down the road a bit, if there is a coalition rather than true unity.

To hear it already, from my prime minister...


The next question, then, is what the motivating factor was for Netanyahu to make these statements. We can guess at the US/EU pressure that was put upon him — predicated on some notion, still, that this would entice Abbas to the table. For he also said, "The real goal, as far as we're concerned, is negotiations without preconditions." Followed by an explanation of why Abbas tried to avoid them (so as to avoid paying a price), and how unreasonable PA demands have kept those negotiations from happening.

So, do we need to be grateful that there were not more significant Israeli concessions — such as freezing all construction beyond the Green Line — being proposed by the prime minister?


What I am glad about is that Netanyahu rejects out of hand suggestions from the Israeli left that, as a gesture, Marwan Barghouti be released from Israeli prison (where he deserves to remain for all of his days). The argument offered is that Barghouti would serve as a leader for the PA.

Netanyahu's very "right on!" comment: "Barghouti could take the PA to other directions, as part of his desire to compete with Hamas. Just because he has leadership abilities doesn't mean he should be let out."


One other factor that may be playing into the prime minister's announcement was hinted at in a statement by an unnamed source in the prime minister's office: "We're not interested in leading the PA to collapse."

Have statements been made to the prime minister regarding Israel's responsibilities were the PA to collapse (assuming the EU, the US, and the UN would let it collapse)?

At any rate, the unnamed source said there would be an assessment made monthly regarding release of funds.


Tough, straight-talking Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is exceedingly unhappy about the projected release of the funds to the PA. At a faction [Yisrael Beitenu] meeting, he said:

"I've heard the infantile claims about the money belonging to the Palestinians, as if they can use the money to murder or incite to murder. [Mahmoud Abbas] meets the 1,000 terrorists that have been released...and calls them 'freedom fighters.' He gives them $5,000 and more money for an apartment. He says the money is for their security force but it's not true."

Abbas, charges Lieberman, is "subsidizing terrorists," especially as there continues to be incitement in PA-produced text books.

Lieberman claims that reporters got it wrong last week when they wrote that he said he would leave the coalition if the money is released: "We [Yisrael Beitenu] will oppose giving the money to the PA. We won't leave, but we'll do everything possible to make sure the money isn't transferred to the PA."


Well, Egypt has had two days of elections — which have proceeded without violence but with indications of multiple irregularities. I have no intention of trying to explain its exceedingly complex electoral system. If you would like to understand it better, you might see Reuters, here: commoditiesNews/idAFL5E7MR0JZ20111129

And Arutz Sheva had this to say about the elections:

"The election in Egypt features a six-foot long ballot list of 3,009 candidates, and symbols for political parties. One-third of the Egyptian public is illiterate, so authorities use symbols instead of names of political parties.

"There are 2,357 independent candidates vying for 57 seats and 1,452 party candidates for 112 other seats. Voters pick one party and two independent candidates, but the complicated process has left many people confused."


Yesterday, Israeli President Shimon Peres — with the full knowledge and sanction of the prime minister — had a cordial face-to-face one-hour meeting in Amman with Jordan's King Abdullah II; it was kept secret until Peres had returned home by helicopter. More important than the content of the meeting, which covered such issues as settlements and negotiations, was the mere fact of the meeting at a time when the region is in chaos and headed towards anti-Israel Islamist leadership — note particularly Morocco and Tunisia, with Egypt on the edge.

This was a bold statement by Abdullah regarding his readiness to remain a moderate and to retain ties with Israel — and should not be taken lightly. Abdullah has made some remarks of late that have been both startling and unfortunate from the Israeli perspective — making it obvious that he was walking a tightrope and feared for the stability of his Hashemite kingdom. This meeting then is welcome.

Perhaps even more welcome is the report in the JPost that officials in the prime minister's office said there was good contact between that office and Abdullah's office.


We might mention here, as well, a veiled allusion Netanyahu made recently with regard to contacts with some Arab countries. What is being assumed is that there are enhanced, covert, contacts between Jerusalem and places such as Saudi Arabia because of shared concerns about Iran.

The difference, of course, is that while Jordan's king is ready to go public regarding a relationship with Israel, the others will not.


Isfahan, a major city in Iran where key nuclear facilities are housed, suffered a major explosion yesterday — or possibly two consecutive explosions. That's all I know about this particular occurrence, as solid information is scarce, the Iranians are heavily into denial and cover up, and speculations abound. Can't even say if the nuclear facility was directly hit — it may be the case that it was not. What makes it suspect is that an Iranian news agency reported an explosion and then withdrew the report.

But what I do know is that there was extensive damage to an Iranian army base after an explosion on November 12, which killed a chief architect of the Iranian missile program.

And I further know of at least one former head of the Mossad who is opposed to a military strike on Iran because he thinks other means of disabling Iran's efforts are possible.

Every "problem" — be it a supervirus or an explosion — that Iran encounters does slow down in its path towards nuclear capability even if it doesn't disable it.

Sabotage here? Cannot say. All we can do is sit tight.


Iranian students, furious about increased British sanctions against Iran, stormed Britain's embassy in Iran today. Before the police re-gained control, the British flag and documents in the building had been burned. Six hostages were taken, but then released.

Just two days earlier, Iran had officially downgraded its diplomatic relations with Britain because of those sanctions.

Dare we hope that this will be a bit of a wake-up call for Britain?


Some four or more (I'm picking up varying reports) Katyusha rockets were fired from Lebanon into northern Israel last night, near the communities of Ma'alot and Kfar V'radim. There were no injuries.

The IDF returned fire (I assume simply in the direction from which the rockets came)., An obscure Al Qaeda-linked group called the Brigades of Abdullah Azzam took credit for the attack — this is the same group that was associated with hitting Eilat from the Sinai at one point. One report indicates that at least some of the rockets were fired from the Rumaysh region, which is a Hezbollah stronghold; Hezbollah has had no comment. And there are charges that those launching the attack were proxies for Syria.

Israel is holding the Lebanese government responsible.


Today, November 29th, kaf tet b'november is a significant date in Jewish history although many are unaware of it.

From Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

"In February 1947, Great Britain, which had controlled the mandatory territory since 1917, decided to turn the issue of the Palestinian Mandate over to the United Nations. The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which recommended the establishment of two states — Arab and Jewish — in the area and Jerusalem as an international enclave.

"The Jewish population — while dissatisfied with the small size of the territory allotted to their state in contradiction to the promises made by the League of Nations in 1922, as well as the plan to sever Jerusalem from the state by internationalizing it — accepted the compromise. In sharp contrast, the Arab states and the Arab residents of the Mandatory territory

rejected UNSCOP's recommendations out of hand.

"The UN General Assembly held a vote on the partition plan and on 29 November 1947. UNGA Resolution 181 was adopted by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.

"The Arab rejection of the partition plan was not confined to a political act. The Arabs of the Mandate territory launched a large-scale terrorist campaign against their Jewish neighbors. This was followed by the invasion of Israel by five Arab armies who wanted to destroy Israel when it proclaimed its independence on 14 May 1948.

"The Jewish population defended itself against the Arabs' declared plans to 'throw the Jews into the sea' but at a heavy cost of 1% of their total population and great damage to the new state.

"The Arab population of the Mandate territory also suffered as a result of their refusal to accept the partition plan. Many heeded their leaders' calls to flee, others left after being caught up in the fighting. The large numbers who stayed in Israel became full citizens, with equal rights. Nevertheless, the Palestinian refugee problem had been created. It was to be kept alive artificially by the Arab and Palestinian leadership till the present day, while the comparable Jewish refugee problem was resolved by the nascent state of Israel.

"At war's end, Egypt had control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed the West Bank. Neither saw fit to establish a Palestinian state in the territory they were to control for 19 years.

"While UNGA Resolution 181 expressed the will of the international community for the establishment of a Jewish state, Israel still had to meet all the requirements of UN membership to be accepted into the organization. After Security Council approval, Israel took its seat as the 59th member of the United Nations on 11 May 1949."


A couple of additional facts:

Jerusalem was to be internationalized separately only for 10 years, after which a referendum of its residents was to be held regarding the state to which it would belong. Jews were a majority in Jerusalem at that time. Had this been carried out, there is reason to believe that Jerusalem might well have gone to Israel. In any event, even though two states were proposed, at no time was it suggested by the UN that Jerusalem should be divided between those two states — it was envisioned always as one municipal entity, a unity.

It was Britain that had held the Mandate for Palestine and Britain that had turned over to the General Assembly the matter of what to do with Palestine once the Mandate ended. And yet, when the partition plan was voted upon in the UN, Britain abstained.


You can hear an actual audio recording of the UN vote here: un_29_november.asx


For a Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs quiz on these events, see here:

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 29, 2011.

This was written by Joseph Farah and it appeared today in World Net Daily.

Now that the world is changing, one must think of how best to change with it. Joe sounds un American, but seeing a new world developing, one must think along, or ahead, of the times.


In the most recent GOP presidential debate, former Sen. Rick Santorum raised controversy by suggesting it is perfectly appropriate and sensible to consider what kind of people hijack airliners and commit acts of terrorism.

Not only do I — an Arab-American male — agree on the importance of considering the ideological and religious worldview of those being screened for sensitive security jobs and for passenger flights for the safety of all, but I would go much further.

I say it's time to strictly limit Muslim immigration into the United States to avoid the kinds of disasters we're seeing in Europe.

Having said this, I can anticipate the hysterical reactions from the phony civil libertarians who consistently act against America's best interests and vital national security concerns.

"Isn't that religious bigotry and intolerance?" they will say. "Isn't America supposed to be religiously blind and welcome one and all to our shores?"

No, plain and simple. That's their blueprint for America's destruction, not mine. America doesn't owe anyone — no foreigner anywhere — an engraved invitation to be part of our national covenant and community. We've been far too lax in allowing anyone and everyone who flouts the rules entry to this country. That has to stop immediately. The very next step we need to take is to determine what kind of people will help our nation stay true to its Constitution and other founding principles — and what kind of people will not.

It seems obvious to me that anyone who subscribes to Saudi-style Shariah law, as described in the Islamic Quran and Hadith, would not be inclined to swear allegiance to the Constitution — at least not without crossing his fingers taqiyya-style.

America's No. 1 national objective should be to ensure that we as a nation remain committed to the Constitution. I think most Americans would agree with me that only those would-be immigrants who are truly committed to preserving the rule of law should be welcomed here. We should not consider bringing in foreigners who seek to transform America into France or England or Iran. America remains a unique, though faltering, experiment in self-government because of its Judeo-Christian heritage. And, if we ever forget that and treat all other belief systems as equal to the worldview of Judaism and Christianity, the America we have known for 235 years will cease to exist.

But we need to do more than just require immigrants seeking entry to the U.S. as visitors or citizens to swear allegiance to our Constitution. We need to put the burden of proof on Muslims to demonstrate their desire to leave the world of Shariah behind them, to renounce its principles as well as to take a formal oath to uphold and affirm America's national covenant.

Furthermore, we need strict national quotas on immigration by Muslims — even those willing to renounce Shariah and swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution.


Because there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom simply do not share our Judeo-Christian worldview — the one that separated us from the rest of the nations and made America special and great.

Already, with only a few million Muslims living in America, they are having a disproportionate impact on our culture. Let me give you one example: There are still more Jews in America than Muslims, though the gap is narrowing quickly. Yet, Jews do not use their influence to ensure that Jews and non-Jews alike are forced to eat according to rabbinical kosher rules. However, it is increasingly difficult for non-Muslims in America today to buy a Thanksgiving turkey that has not been ritually sacrificed to Allah. Most of the meat sold in Costco is also halal.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat meat sacrificed to Allah. With Islam a tiny minority religion in the U.S., it seems perverse that people like me have to be careful not to eat food ritually sacrificed to this god of the few.

But this is the nature of Islam.

I say this as the grandson of refugees from the Muslim world.

It is a religion of coercion, a religion of force, a religion of might makes right.

Look around the world and find a Muslim country that is free. Take your time. You will need it. There simply is no such country — and for good reason. The Islamic faith does not countenance liberty for all. It's not an ideal of the religion — as it is in Judaism and Christianity.

There are no doubt conscientious Muslims who deplore the institution of Shariah and would prefer to live in a constitutional republic like America instead of Saudi Arabia. But, again, as Americans we have no obligation to welcome anyone to these shores unless they meet our needs and specifications.

So let's have the national debate about who is welcome and who is not. Everyone we allow into the U.S. should be expected to make this country better, not weaken it, not undermine it, not challenge its precepts. Let's be honest about that. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, as we can see from precedents in Europe, it is quite simply going to be a matter of national security and national survival to set the parameters for immigration into this country.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at
Go to to see some of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, November 29, 2011.

This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and is archived at News.aspx/150128#.TwFudT8wvWI

Christian tourists, threatened by arrest during a visit in Yesha, ask Netanyahu why leftists at the site were not arrested.

Very important articles where we see a pattern of selective enforcement of the Law in Israel in favor of the Arabs: Let us all scream together "We're Mad As H-ll and We are Not Going to Take This Anymore!"


Oz Zion Resident (

Christian tourists, threatened with arrest during a solidarity visit at an outpost in Judea and Samaria, ask Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu why leftists at the site were not arrested.

The 34 Canadians and eight Americans stopped for a visit at the Oz Tzion outpost during their recent two-week visit.

"Your troops showed up and threatened to arrest the men of our group if we did not leave within 10 minutes," Alberta, Canada resident Al Dublanko wrote the Prime Minister.

He revealed, "The colonel who came to arrest us confessed that he has seen many busloads of foreigners come to his region, all in support of the Arabs against the settlers."

Dublanko asked Prime Minister Netanyahu, "Why would you so easily let these confessed enemies of Israel wander around with immunity, and arrest us who support you? On a previous visit we went to Bat Ayin [in Gush Etzion], and the residents were visibly upset thinking us to be yet another busload of Peace Now activists coming to taunt them over the terrible slayings of their [the Bat Ayin] children." He was referring to the terrorist who infiltrated the town and murdered 13 year old Shlomo Nativ with an ax.

The Christian group had visited Oz Tzion shortly after Israeli police raided the community and destroyed most of it. Dublanko wrote, "The pathetic little outpost had already suffered the indignity of having 15 shacks torn down in a violent manner by your troops during the night, and they had succeeded in rebuilding only one....

"Mr. Netanyahu, you are confused. We are not your enemy. You do not seem to know who your heroes or your friends are. You move against your own people with the excuse of keeping rules and agreements, meanwhile ignoring the rules and even facilitating the rule breaking of your enemies.

"You protect the most anti-Semitic leftist groups as they move around your country trying to foment anti-Israeli sentiments, and expel our little group because we agree with the settlers in their belief that G-d gave the Jewish people the land.

"Mr. Prime Minister, your attempt at appeasement of world opinion is not working nor can it ever work. Jews are a chosen people and Israel is a special country, established not by a UN declaration, or Balfour Declaration, or any negotiations, not even by the might of the IDF, but by an ancient promise by G-d....

"We Christians know this, the Arabs know this, and you and every Jew in the world knows this. This is not to be debated....

"The European nations who support the Anti-Israel peace movements so generously, have the same hatred toward the Jewish people that they showed in WW2, and these groups are just their grandchildren trying to finish the task...

Dublanko said he is planning to send his teenage children to Israel in the spring because "we want them to see the courage and faith of the settlers and the total commitment of the youth like those of Oz Tzion and Bat Ayin. We ask that you not arrest them."

Editor's Note: This is what a reader, Margy Pezdirtz, wrote:

Christians Angry Over Discrimination at Outpost What an amazingly ridiculous stand the Israeli government is taking against it's own Jewish citizens and those Christians who would stand WITH Israel, and not against her. It seems Netanyahu is as confused as Obama — neither leader can decide who his friends are. We stand WITH Israel and not against her. We understand that Judea and Samaria are integral parts of Biblical Israel and cannot, should not, will not be sacrificed for an absurd peace ploy that is never going to happen.

...These Christians are willing to stand with the so-called settlers, even if they are punished for doing so. While I realize that might cause an embarrassment for Israel, the truth is, Israelis, as a whole, should be standing with the settlers and demanding the government allow them to build homes in the Jewish country — the only place in the world where a Jew should be completely safe! Think about it

Contact Robin Ticker by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 29, 2011.

Israeli Sovereignty in Judea, Samaria
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a symbol of the new anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism, according to Dr. Gerardo Stuczynski, the president of the Latin American Zionist Confederation... He asserted that the PA is popular because of the new anti-Semitism that "states that all the peoples of the world have the right to self-determination, except the Jewish people. That is why Zionism is illegitimate and Israel is the only country that has no right to exist."

He explained that since the Holocaust, it is no longer politically correct to identify oneself as a simple anti-Semitic. Thus anti-Semitism "modernises and becomes anti-Zionism." Dr. Stuczynski noted that the PA is the "most subsidised people in the world". There is an agency in the UN for Palestinian refugees and another one for the rest of the refugees in the world.

"The countries of the world hurry to recognise a Palestinian State that does not satisfy the necessary requirements to be a State and that is governed mainly by a terrorist organisation. And when UNESCO recognises Palestine as a member, it is implicitly accepting the anti-Jewish hatred transmitted in their schools and through the mass media."

This completely disproportionate solidarity is not due so much to the concern for the Palestinians but to the fact that it is fundamentally anti-Israeli. ...He charged that anti-Zionists have turned the United Nations "into an instrument to promote anti-Semitism and offers Palestinians a podium so that their words have more repercussion" while allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to state that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

One million Hindus were forcefully converted to Islam and over three million innocent Hindu refugees escaped, in fear for their lives, to India during the war, when Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan. None of the 'heart-bleeding' human right activists have been demanding their return, and return of their children and grandchildren, to Bangladesh ! So-called Palestinian refugees were not innocent bystanders. They left land allocated by the League of Nation for Eretz-Israel, following the orders of their leaders, to facilitate swift genocide of Jews, by advancing "victorious" Arab armies!

Arab Nations Pressing for Iran Strike

Intelligence reports indicate several Arab countries in the Middle East are lobbying the US to strike Iran this year. According to the report, Saudi Arabia wants the Obama administration to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the final withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies have been locked in a strategic battle with Iran for hegemony over the Persian Gulf — and have accused Tehran of seeking to destabilise the region through its 'Shiite Diaspora.'

'Extinct' Frog Back into Northern Israel

A frog species believed to be extinct has hopped back into sight in northern Israel . The Hula Painted Frog was seen for the first time in 50 years this week. The frog is native to the Hula Valley, a swamp drained in the 1950s to stop malaria. The frog was rare even before, and little is known about it.

Celebrating Multicultural Australia — Jews are not Welcome!

A Jewish dancing club was scheduled to appear at the Multicultural Folk Dance Festival in the Victorian country town of Mansfield earlier this month. When the participants' names were released the name of the Machol Israeli Dancing Club had been truncated to Machol Group and all references to Israel had been removed with the club being described as a Jewish dance group. No change had been made to other groups including Chinese, Hungarian, Armenaian and Ukrainian Traditional Folk Dances and the Irish Reel and Jigs.

Mosque under Construction on Mount of Olives

Arabs are building an illegal mosque on the Mount of Olives adjacent to the graves of late Prime Minister Menachem Begin and modern Hebrew rejuvenator Eliezer Ben Yehuda. The area the mosque is being built in is clearly designated as a part of the cemetery itself on land some 200 meters into undisputed Israeli territory. The area the mosque is being built in is clearly designated as a part of the cemetery itself on land some 200 meters into undisputed Israeli territory. our sovereignty" said chairman of Land of Israel Foundation, Aryeh King. (Government of Israel is actively fighting Jewish patriots — Zionists, destroying Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria, but does nothing to prevent desecration of Jewish holy sites by Arabs!)

Indonesians Study Israeli Catastrophe System

Five medical experts from Indonesia, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel, are graduated from a course at Haifa's Rambam Medical Center on coping with natural and man-made catastrophes. They are among a group of 27 physicians and nurses from 17 countries taking part in a simulated mass casualty event (MCE).

'Humanitarian' Aid Pays for Anti-Israel Propaganda

Swedish 'humanitarian' funding paid for the publication of an anti-Israel booklet produced in Sweden, for local consumption. Funded at a cost of NIS 390,000 (approximately $104,600) under the category of "humanitarian aid," the slick booklet was created by a Swedish pro-Palestinian Authority solidarity group. In its pages the brochure calls for the boycott of the State of Israel. "The fact that this kind of hate propaganda is being financed by Swedish government foreign aid funds is simply outrageous," said Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor.

There is No Freedom of Speech in Israel

"There is no freedom of speech, but a stifling of expression," Rabbi Lior said after hearing of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein's decision to launch the probe into statements made by Rabbi Eliyahu to Israel's press during the controversy over a rabbinic ruling, in which he took part, against renting apartments to Arabs."It is difficult for me to agree this is incitement," Rabbi Lior said, dismissing the assertion the ruling had nothing to do with Rabbi Eliyahu's Torah views. "Rabbis focus on cultivating a love of humanity, and Judaism appreciates all righteous people, Jewish or Gentile, but Jewish law prohibits one from renting in Israel to non-Jews." (PA does not have an opinion but forbids Arabs to sell, under a threat of death, to Jews. How many Jews live in Ramallah or Gaza City? It is time for Israel to regain her self-respect and shake off the stupidity of political correctness!)

Iran is "A Threat to the Entire Middle East"

Emir Sa'ud al-Feisal, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, was quoted as saying that "Iran's involvement in the internal affairs of the nations of the region, as well as its nuclear crisis and attempts to develop its nuclear program — that will allow it to have nuclear weapons — are a clear threat to the entire region." A series of violent incidents in eastern Saudi Arabia over the past week that have left at least four dead has raised concern in Riyadh that Iran is seeking to start an "Arab Spring" type revolution in the heavily populated Shi'ite areas. (If the US will attacks nuclear facilities in Iran, it would be not for Israel's sake, but in order to protect oil rich Arab 'friends'!)

Anti-Israel International Bigots Support Syria

The United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organisation (UNESCO) has unanimously approved Syria's membership on two UN human rights committees. UNESCO's 58-member executive board, which includes the United States, France, the UK and other Western democracies, approved Syria's memberships by consensus on November 11. This comes as the United Nations plenum estimates that nearly 4,000 people have been killed in government crackdowns against civilian protesters in the nine-month "Arab Spring" uprising in Syria. (From anti-Jewish idiots' point of view, any murderous and genocidal dictator is better than the democratic Jewish state, Israel!)

Hypocrisy of the Headlines:

" Canada's pro-Israel stance undermining clout in Middle East talks: Expert" — — Have unreasonable demands made by the PA and the overwhelming anti-Israel climate in the UN, created by Arab, Muslim countries and their oil dependent stooges, helped establish peace? Why are only anti-Jewish so-called experts and self-hating Jews given voice by the international media?

The End of the Peace Process
by Sultan Knish

The "peace process" which created two terrorist states inside Israel may have begun in Oslo, but it ended in Cairo...

The days when Thomas Friedman and his Saudi buddies could talk about normalisation have passed. The Arab Spring saw to that and with Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and an unknown number of others sliding into the Islamist camp, and out of reach of negotiations, there's a New Middle East that has even less in common with the old gentlemanly diplomacy model than the old one did. Some of the dimmer Israeli leaders may still believe that peace is possible with the Islamists of Turkey's AKP, but not even they think that peace is possible with the Brotherhood...

The Brotherhood's attitude toward Israel is indistinguishable from that of Iran, and with the Islamist way in ascendance, that attitude will be the dominant one throughout the region, turning back the clock on decades of diplomatic efforts. The Islamists will negotiate temporary truces and ceasefires, but not the peace and brotherhood accords so beloved by the US and the EU...

And the usual Arab League chorus that the region's problems would be solved if only there were a Palestinian state sounds silly even to veteran diplomats who usually funnel this sort of nonsense right back to the White House. Obama's hostility toward Israel has paradoxically lessened the pressure by removing the leverage. Condoleezza Rice could get on the phone and warn that another house in XYZ would wreck the positive relationship with the White House. But there is as much of a prospect of a positive relationship with the White House, as there is with Iran, Hamas and the Brotherhood. Israel still has a strategic relationship with the United States, but relations with the administration are cold, which also means there is less to be afraid of...

The situation is even uglier on the European side, which has not been friendly in a long time, but hasn't been this hateful either. But all that ugliness also translates into a loss of influence over Israel. You can only slap your allies so many times, denounce them and threaten them before they begin paying a lot less attention to you...

How can Israel make peace when the Palestinian Authority has been split into Hamas and Fatah run fiefdoms and neither side is even bothering to pretend to negotiate? ... But the more America and Europe have pandered to the Muslim world, the more obvious it has become to Israel that it has no role to play in this exchange, except its time honoured position as the scapegoat...

The isolation is a problem, but it's also liberating. The weight of expectations has nearly broken Israel and the Obama Administration may be one of the best things that happened to it by forcing it to recognise that it was alone. Israeli dependence on the United States is not financial as most people think, it is mainly psychological. Alone in a region full of Muslim tyrannies, the need to believe in a close relationship with an admirable global power was powerful. /font>

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Darlene Casella, November 28, 2011.

The Island Kingdom of Bahrain has been a port of call for millennium. In ancient times Sumerians believed that Bahrain was Paradise, where the wise and brave enjoyed eternal life. She sits in the heart of the Persian Gulf, along trade routes between Asia and the West. The 15 mile King Faud Causeway links her to Saudi Arabia. Why has this kingdom, smaller than New York City, come to be in grave peril?

Archeologists have found ancient Indian, Chinese, and Arabian coins. Islam arrived in the 7th Century, and was met by Bahraini Christians. After centuries of conflict, the Sunni Al-Khalifa family captured Bahrain from the Persians in 1783. Oil was discovered in 1932. Treaties made it a British protectorate. Independence came in 1971 under the rule of Sheikh Isa ibn Sulman Al Khalifh. His eldest son, Hamad, became King in 1999. A delicate balance of power existed until 2010 when the Wifaq, a Shia political society, won a large bloc of seats in Parliament. This year Arab protests brought hard-line activists and unrest. Shia protestors reject the Sunni King. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council members blame Iran for inciting upheaval.

Military police were accused of mistreating and torture of detainees. The King established The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) in June 2011 to assess complaints. November 23rd, BICI reported its findings. Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa told Gulf News said that abuses had been committed. He promised that the government will implement the BICI recommendations immediately. He stressed that Iran is trying to destabilize the whole Arab world.

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, addressed worshipers during prayers "We are very worried about the situation in Bahrain". Experts believe that Iran is working for destabilization in Bahrain, Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Iran works with Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran's efforts are to prepare for a confrontation with Israel and the United States. Weakened Gulf States will be in no position to stand against Iran.

According to Foreign Minister Ahmad Al Halifa, "Iran wants Bahrain to be Iran's "Jewel in the Crown" of Gulf States. The threat is grave, and Arab countries must not stand alone facing Iran; but pay attention to Iran's dangers, which come under a thousand guises."

Senator John McCain from Arizona affirmed in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Iran is trying to orchestrate events in Bahrain. He elaborated that Iran seeks to spread its influence into the Arabian Peninsula and he pointed to Bahrain as evidence. McCain further stated that it is important to combine activities against Iran before she succeeds in building nuclear weapons.

Bahrain has been a key player for offshore banking and financial services due to their legal system and strong business ethic. To overcome the impact of social unrest, closed banks and shops, and capital flight; Bahrain is reaffirming its commitment to economic growth. On November 26th, in Munich, Tamkeen signed an agreement with German Chemicals BASF. It will be the largest plant in the Middle East.

The United States Chamber of Commerce has a large presence. There is a U.S. Bahrain Business Council to help Bahrain take advantage of the Chambers network of business relationships.

More than 25,000 Sailors and Marines are assigned to the U.S. Naval Forces Commander, 5th Fleet; off the coast of Bahrain. Their mission is to ensure peace and stability, and protect America's interests in the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf, the Arabia Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. They conduct peacetime military exercises with allies in the region.

Fitch, and Standard and Poor's rating agencies have given Batelco (Bahrain Telecommunications) a credit rating of BBB-; and A-3 for short term foreign and local currency ratings. These ratings pave the way for the issuance of investment grade bonds.

President Barak Obama received a blunt message from Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Al Khalifa. "You've denounced Iran's plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. But what is the US actually doing to let Iran show that it is serious? We are asking the US to stand up and to draw lines in the sand. We haven't seen any proper response that is serious coming from your shores."

A Middle Eastern vacuum of US leadership make Turkey and Iran the current power players. China and Russia accept Iran's word that nuclear power plants are for energy generation and not weapons, in spite of the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report. Putin and Khamenei are both against NATO's Missile Defense System. After Putin is elected president, he might draw lines in the sand. On which side of the line would Putin stand? It is a complex riddle.

The Jewish State of Israel sits amid Arab Nations, Bahrain and other Persian Gulf Kingdoms. All have nervous anticipation with regard to Iran. Khamenei repeatedly promises death to Israel. The Ayatollah threatened Turkey with a bomb to take out the newly installed NATO Defense Shield; and forecast starting a war that could spread across the Middle East. If Khamenei does not intend to launch nuclear missiles, one might ponder why he is so enraged about the Defense Shield.

Darlene Casella was, before retirement, an English teacher, a stockbroker, and owner/president of a small corporation. She lives with her husband in La Quinta, California and can be reached at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 28, 2011.

Today this news, which was released on Friday, takes precedence. From the NY Times:

"The White House on Friday threw its weight behind Egypt's resurgent protest movement, urging for the first time the handover of power by the interim military rulers in the Obama administration's most public effort yet to steer the course of the Egyptian democracy.

"'The United States strongly believes that the new Egyptian government must be empowered with real authority immediately,' the White House said...

"The statement is a significant escalation of the international pressure on the generals because the United States is among the Egyptian military's closest allies.

"But speaking out against the military could be a risky bet for White House if the transition to democracy moves out of the hands of the military to less predictable civilian control.

"Since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak in February, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has held itself up as the sole guardian of Egypt's stability against chaos and radicalism."


Undoubtedly, encouraging the "transition to democracy" would be what the Obama administration would cite as its goal in pressuring the military this way. But for anyone with eyes in his head to see, it is clear that we are headed towards that radicalism. There is not going to be a Western style liberal democracy emerging from the chaos that is Egypt today. That much is a given, as clear anything might be. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings, ready to take control. (More on this below.)

Put simply and boldly: President Obama is giving the Muslim Brotherhood a boost. In doing so, he is enhancing dangers for Israel, and for the US.

Should I be surprised? Not really. After all, he invited members of the Brotherhood to his speech in Cairo over two years ago. But I'm more than a bit angry.


Obama pulled the rug out from under Mubarak last February, thereby helping to generate the current situation in Egypt. Now, the Times piece explained that, "the United States is among the Egyptian military's closest allies." But no, better to have said, had been among the military's closest allies. For he has attempted to pull the rug out from under them, as well. The world is watching and the lesson is that the US cannot be trusted as an ally. There will be a price to pay for the president's behavior.

What makes his policy here even more reprehensible is that he wouldn't back the Iranian street against the current Iranian regime. How selective is his support for "democracy," and how perverse.

And so...the president is a menace to the West. And I advise everyone who thinks that Obama is doing a good job in the White House to seriously consider his behavior in this regard.


Israel has been very critical of this move by Obama: "The U.S. is repeating the same mistake it made during the first revolution in Egypt, when it called on Mubarak to turn over the government," said one diplomat. The Israeli Foreign Ministry is now sending messages via its ambassadors in Britain, Germany and France to do nothing that would shake up the structure of the government in Egypt.


Middle East analyst Barry Rubin has been following events in Egypt closely and put out a new piece today.

"During the Mubarak era, Egyptian foreign policy was based on a pragmatic consideration of Egyptian national interests. That included supporting regional stability rather than wasting resources on losing battles to destroy Israel or seeking Egyptian leadership of the Arab world...

"Now those mistakes are likely to be repeated, although it is not clear to what extent. The new-old Egypt is likely to try to battle Israel in some way, to promote Islamist subversion elsewhere, and to seek Egyptian leadership in the Sunni Arab Muslim-world.

"For Egypt-Israel relations, the removal of the military from power (probably sometime around June 2012) will mean a turn toward total hostility. (Emphasis added, but note that this is what Obama would advance.) "For all practical purposes, this would mark the end of the peace treaty even if there is no actual war. Whether or not the treaty is formally reviewed or abrogated doesn't matter in terms of this practical impact. US policy, enamored of the Muslim Brotherhood and not warmly supportive of Israel, will be useless on these issues. (Emphasis added, but mark this well.)

"That doesn't mean, however, that Egypt would go to war against Israel. The main danger is that Hamas would try to lure Egypt into the conflict by attacking Israel. In such a case, however, Egyptian actions might be limited to letting Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist volunteers cross into the Gaza Strip to fight while permitting money, weapons and foreign terrorists to pour into Gaza to help Hamas...

"While the impact of Egyptian policies would be anti-American, Cairo would do the bare minimum necessary to keep the Obama administration deluded that this is not the case. Such a success might come with minimal effort." (Emphasis added. But note this well, too, please!) the-region-what-next-for-egypt/


At the Cabinet meeting yesterday, Netanyahu suggested that it may be time to recalibrate its security needs and increase defense spending. This is in light of what's happening across this entire region; as one person present at the meeting explained, "People here are very concerned about Egypt. It looks now as if the revolution is going in a certain direction. Wherever the Arabs vote, the Islamists are winning."

Netanyahu has been referring to the situation as "unprecedented regional instability" — the biggest shakeup since the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the allies carved new nations out of what had been that empire.

The prime minister obviously sees the need for a heavy investment in defense.


Let me turn now to some other events within Israel — involving the prime minister — that require a closer look.

We have seen in recent months a welcome move by activist MKs to promote legislation that would strengthen not only Israeli democracy, but the nationalist position within Israel. I am able to link the two because it is the left-wing anti-nationalist elements of the nation that have leveraged control for a long time.

One of those bills — proposed by Likud MKs Danny Danon and Yariv Levin — was designed to regulate which public petitioners — associations, most notably NGOs — would be permitted to file petitions with the High Court of Justice. Requirements for petitioning the court were that the case be significant to the country's general public, that its foreign funding sources be disclosed to the court, and that its petition be done jointly with someone directly affected by the case.

All of this is exceedingly pertinent, because there are very left-leaning NGOs that will petition the court solely in order to further their political agenda. What is more, frequently they are NGOs that are receiving funding from abroad, so that the political agenda they adopt may not even be that of the Israeli general public.

As MK Levin it, "The bill will put an end to the absurd situation in which foreign elements intervene in the affairs of the State of Israel and flood the legal system with petitions whose main goal is to weaken Israel from within."

And yet, a cry went up (from the left) that this was undemocratic, as everyone should be able to petition the court. But this is nonsense. In the US, the Supreme Court may be petitioned only by someone who has standing in the case — that is, who would be affected.

But here we have a situation in which Peace Now, supported by funds from European nations with a strong pro-PA agenda, is able to go to the High Court and say it objects to a particular outpost in Samaria, when no Arab is objecting to it and claiming he is affected.

Such a petition, it should be added, would has a reasonable chance of being entertained by the High Court because that court is inclined to the left itself. This is well understood here in Israel.


There was at least a chance that this legislation might have made it through the system. That is, until yesterday, when Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that he was opposed to any legislation that would limit the High Court.

That was the kiss of death and the Ministerial Committee on Legislation has now rejected it.


The question then, is why Netanyahu took the position he did. He understands full well what the situation is.

I am able to come to no conclusion other than that he dropped the ball on this one: He caved to left wing pressures.


Today I spoke with Moshe Eyal, Associate Director of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel. He was rather optimistic, in spite of the fact that this particular legislation was effectively blocked. For he says progress is being made in educating the public to what is going on and now there are Knesset members prepared to act:

"We are beginning to see a weakening in the post Zionist hegemony in the court system and a decline in the influence of other countries on the political views of the State of Israel...we rejoice in the essence of the process...since until now legal terms were used as a cover for post Zionist political opinions which we are now able to change...

"We plan on continuing our work to strengthen the State of Israel as a Jewish state, to bring about proper democratic rule and to protect the human rights of groups which have been abandoned by existing organizations."

Please note: Moshe Eyal, speaking for the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, will be in the US from December 5-14. He will be primarily in the NY area but is prepared to travel. His goal is to raise funds and awareness for the Forum.

If you have a serious interest in having him meet with your group, let me know.


Another decision was made by the prime minister on Friday that I want to mention here:

I have written extensively in the past weeks about the Mughrabi Bridge, which leads from the Western Wall Plaza to the Temple Mount, and is the only access to the Mount for non-Muslims. The current wooden bridge was considered temporary when it was put up after the existing bridge was destroyed by weather conditions. For some time now there have been plans extant for its replacement by a permanent bridge but the work has not taken place because of various objections from the Arab world, and most notably the Wakf — the Islamic Trust that administers matters on the Mount. Totally fallacious charges were made that Israel was digging under the Temple Mount in order to bring down Al Aksa Mosque on the Mount.

This was clearly a turf dispute, with the issue being one of who has the right to make decisions regarding the bridge. And it was quite obvious that it was time for Israel to move on this — in particular as the current bridge is deemed unsafe — and assert Israeli authority .


At long last, the work was due to start this past Sunday (or late Saturday night) — beginning with a 72 hour period in which destruction of the present bridge would be done followed by construction of the new bridge. But on Friday, Netanyahu called for yet another delay. This was because of warnings he had received from both Jordan and Egypt regarding the fact that this construction would cause unrest.

In the case of Jordan, it was said this work might spur riots that could spread to Judea and Samaria. This seems not an insurmountable crisis. Generally speaking, it is unwise idea to be intimidated by threats of violence — these threats are fairly ubiquitous and are used as a political tool by the Arabs. As it was, the IDF was supposed to deploy in anticipation of unrest in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria.


However, the matter of Egypt is something else. For working on the bridge now — when that work is being widely represented as a move by Israel to usurp what belongs to the Muslim world and to do damage to a site of Islamic sanctity — seems unwise in the face of the situation in Egypt. There is no question but that this would be parlayed by the Muslim Brotherhood into a reason for further unrest in Tahrir Square and nearby mosques.

In fact, there is a very good chance that the Brotherhood would utilize this as a campaign point — a reason why the people of Egypt need them at the helm of their government so that they might take strong action on behalf of the Islamic world. Anti-Israel sentiment broadly plays into the hands of the Brotherhood.

And so here I think Netanyahu's judgment was proper and he made the right decision. The election in Egypt is hardly a trivial matter. At the moment, he has delayed the work for a week, but he will be consulting with officials (unidentified) in order to resolve the matter.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 28, 2011.

The Muslim Brotherhood held a rally at Cairo's most important mosque, al-Azhar. This is sort of a central headquarters for official Islam in Egypt. Demonstrators chanted, "One day we shall kill all Jews."

Question 1: How can you tell they are "moderate Islamists?" Answer: They said "one day," in other words, they aren't going to do it this week.

Question 2: At the rally someone said: "In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything. The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews." Who was it?

Answer: Ahmed al-Tayeb, the "moderate" president of al-Azhar University and arguably the most important Muslim cleric in Egypt. Note: al-Aqsa Mosque is not under attack by Jews.

Question 3: Why did al-Tayeb talk this way in the context of calling for a Jihad against Israel?

Answer: Maybe he isn't so moderate. But more importantly it is part of the general radicalization of Islam that is going to happen in Egypt now that the Brotherhood will be running the place and thus also his desire to survive rather than be branded a lackey of the Zionist-imperialist crusade to destroy Islam and have his head cut off. (See Question 1.)

Question 4: Can someone be a "moderate Muslim" or "moderate Islamist" and call for a Jihad to wipe Israel off the map? Answer: Apparently yes. Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen made such calls at the rally yet the Obama Administration holds that the Brotherhood is moderate and the U.S. government supports its taking power in Egypt.

Question 5: How did the Muslim Brotherhood get the Jewish calendar wrong?

Answer: "Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, judgment day has come." In fact, Yom Kippur was last October 8

Question 6: An elementary school teacher Ala al-Din said, "All Egyptian Muslims are willing to embark on Jihad for the sake of Palestine." What does he teach little children in school?

Answer: that all Egyptian Muslims should embark on Jihad to destroy Israel.

Question 7: Why don't American officials, journalists, and "experts" understand Islamists?

Answer: Ala al-Din explained it: "Why is the US losing in Afghanistan? Because the other side is willing and wants to die. We have a different mentality than that of the Americans and Jews." In other words because they don't understand that people in the Arabic-speaking world have "a different mentality."

Question 8: Is this mentality somehow biological or innate in Islam?

Answer: No, it is the result of historical processes, political culture, indoctrination in school and mosque and media, dominant ideology, and from the demagoguery of leaders.

Question 9: Why don't Western reporters see what's going on and report it fully?

Answer: They weren't' wearing their glasses so they didn't see the signs; they weren't' wearing their hearing aids so they didn't hear the chants.

Question 10: But these journalists, along with the officials and "experts" are idols of the Western elite, so is there any precedent for this?

Answer: Yes indeed! See here on line 16.

Question 11: Who said that the Muslim Brotherhood is "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence" and what is he doing now?

Answer: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and he's still director of national intelligence.

Question 12: Who said "Parties committed to democracy must reject violence....And in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration" and does that person react to what the Muslim Brotherhood actually says?

Answer: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and no.

Question 13: What possible rationale could she have for not dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood's bloodthirsty totalitarian orientation and intolerance?

Answer: See Question 1.

Extra credit question: Why will many Americans — including Jews — vote to reelect President Barack Obama despite the fact that his administration is whitewashing, supporting, and may soon be funding the world's most powerful and genocidal-oriented antisemitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American group?

Answer: I don't know. I only write about the Middle East.

This was written by Barry Rubin, who 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 Contact him at

This article is archived at how-to-tell-who-is-a-%E2%80%9Cmoderate- islamist%E2%80%9D-an-exam/

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, November 28, 2011.

A "Green Light" for Jewish Statehood — A 'Dead' Blueprint for Peace, November 29, 1947


In 1947 the British put the future of western Palestine into the hands of the United Nations, the successor organization to the League of Nations which had established the Mandate for Palestine. A UN Commission recommended partitioning what was left of the original Mandate — western Palestine — into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab [Not a Palestinian state]. Jerusalem and its surrounding villages were to be temporarily classified as an international zone belonging to neither polity.

What resulted was Resolution 181 [known as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties — Arabs and Jews. The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10 abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its implementation by force.

The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a parallel Arab state), but the 'blueprint' for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel's survival) became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace. Resolution 181 then lost its validity and relevance.

Aware of Arabs' past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:

"Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution." [italics by author]

The ones who sought to alter by force the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution:

"The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say." [italics by author]

Arabs' intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:

"Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine."

The conclusion:

"Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364). ... Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below; ..." [italics by author].

In the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement. There is no foundation for such a notion.

Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandator and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine. The first was in 1922 when Great Britain unilaterally partitioned Palestine. This did not satisfy the Arabs who wanted the entire country to be Arab. Resolution 181 followed such proposals as the Peel Commission (1937); the Woodhead Commission (1938); two 1946 proposals that championed a bi-national state; one proposed by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in April 1946 based on a single state with equal powers for Jews and Arabs; the Morrison-Grady Plan raised in July 1946 which recommended a federal state with two provinces — one Jewish, one Arab. Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab ones because these plans recognized Jews as a nation and gave Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political representation.

Arabs Rejected the "Unbalanced" Partition Plan

The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses the term "unbalanced" in describing the reason for Arab rejectionism of Resolution 181. This description hardly fits reality. Seventy-seven percent of the landmass of the original Mandate for the Jews was excised in 1922 to create a fourth Arab state — Trans-Jordan (today Jordan).

In a statement by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), he had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice:

"According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom. Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish National Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should not be asked of the Jewish people."

Referring to the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War, he said:

"17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centres, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State." [italics by author].

Arab's Aggression Before and After the Adoption of Resolution 181

Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves:

"Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): ... We believe that the decision which we have now taken ... undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and contrary to the Charter ... Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the consequences."

"Amir. ARSLAN (Syria): ... Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty. My country will never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours."

"H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen): The Yemen delegation has stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider itself bound by such a decision ... and will reserve its freedom of action towards the implementation of this decision."

The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before Resolution 181 was brought to a vote.

Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the partition plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation 'a still birth.'

The UN itself recognized that Resolution 181 had not been accepted by the Arab side, rendering it a dead issue: On January 29, 1948, the First Monthly Progress Report of the UN-appointed Palestine Commission charged with helping put Resolution 181 into effect was submitted to the Security Council (A/AC.21/7). Implementation of Resolution 181 hinged not only on the five member states appointed to represent the UN (Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama, Philippines) and Great Britain, but first and foremost on the participation of the two sides who were invited to appoint representatives. The Commission then reported:

"The invitation extended by the [181] resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. ... As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:


The UN Palestine Commission's February 16, 1948 report (A/AC.21/9) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort

"To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly's plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory."

On May 17, 1948 — after the invasion began, the Palestine Commission designed to implement 181 adjourned sine die [Latin: without determining a date] after the General Assembly appointed a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities.

Some thought the Partition Plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, Resolution 181 had become a moot issue as realities on the ground made the establishment of an armistice-line (the "Green Line") — a temporary ceasefire line expected to be followed by peace treaties — the most constructive path to solving the conflict.

A July 30, 1949 working paper of the UN Secretariat entitled The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition noted further that:

"The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety."

By the time armistice agreements were reached in 1949 between Israel and its immediate Arab neighbors (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan) with the assistance of UN Mediator Dr. Ralph Bunche, Resolution 181 had become irrelevant, and the armistice agreements addressed new realities created by the war. Over subsequent years, the UN simply abandoned the recommendations of Resolution 181, as its ideas were drained of all relevance by events. Moreover, the Arabs continued to reject 181 after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967) which Jordan invaded in the course of the war and annexed illegally.

Attempts by Palestinians to 'roll back the clock' and resuscitate Resolution 181 more than six decades after they rejected it 'as if nothing had happened' are a baseless ploy designed to use Resolution 181 as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of western Palestine and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack an Israel with even less defendable borders. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions.

Professor Stone wrote about this 'novelty of resurrection' in 1981 when he analyzed a similar attempt by pro-Palestinian 'experts' at the UN to rewrite the history of the conflict (their writings were termed "Studies"). Stone called it "revival of the dead"

"To attempt to show ... that Resolution 181(II) 'remains' in force in 1981 is thus an undertaking even more miraculous than would be the revival of the dead. It is an attempt to give life to an entity that the Arab states had themselves aborted before it came to maturity and birth. To propose that Resolution 181(II) can be treated as if it has binding force in 1981, [E.H., the year the book was written] for the benefit of the same Arab states, who by their aggression destroyed it ab initio, [In Latin: From the beginning] also violates 'general principles of law,' such as those requiring claimants to equity to come 'with clean hands,' and forbidding a party who has unlawfully repudiated a transaction from holding the other party to terms that suit the later expediencies of the repudiating party. [italics by author].

Resolution 181 had been tossed into the waste bin of history, along with the Partition Plans that preceded it.

Israel's Independence is not a Result of a Partial Implementation of the Partition Plan

Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications — that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly's recommendation.

Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, [In Latin: treaties must be honored — the first principle of international law] that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht explains:

"The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence-especially when that existence is pro­longed shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations."

Reviewing Lauterpacht's arguments, Professor Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel's "legitimacy" or the "legal foundation" for its birth does not reside with the United Nations' Partition Plan, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

"The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control."

For the article including notes and map, please go to: /Resolution-181.pdf

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Never Again is Now, November 27, 2011.

This was written by Tabitha Korol and it appeared on Contact them at


The Cleveland Jewish Jews recently reported that Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder of J Street, was disappointed with the unenthusiastic welcome from the rabbis of the Cleveland Board of Rabbis, and that local congregations had not extended him invitations to speak at their congregations. Although he paints his J Street as being pro-Israel, it seems that more people are beginning to judge him by his deeds, not rhetoric. While his words insist that J Street is the home for American Jewry who want peace for Israel, his actions are disturbing.

Ben-Ami ignores 14 centuries of Islam's violent history of conquest over Jews, Christians, and other civilizations in the Middle East. Beginning with Muhammad's expectation that Jews and Christians would accept him as a prophet, and his rejection by both in Mecca and Medinah, Muhammad's position changed to uncompromising hostility and justification for brutality, and his adherents follow his examples to the letter.

There is nothing to suggest that there has been a revision of the Koran to dictate otherwise. If anything, a careful study of events worldwide substantiates that the Giant has awakened, and the goal is complete Islamization. So why would Ben-Ami assume that Israel could suddenly be looked upon with favor by the Muslims if Israel were to relinquish one more Israeli neighborhood to the Arabs? Why would Ben-Ami imagine that Mahmoud Abbas's declaration to never accept the sovereign Jewish Nation in the region was reversible? And why would Ben-Ami expect that Abbas's vow to use a new Palestinian state to wage war against the diminished Israeli state could be overturned if Israel would only give up more land?

The answer is simple. He doesn't assume; he doesn't imagine, and he doesn't expect. He knows his stance is antithetical to peace between the Arabs and the Jews, but he is a Jewish stealth jihadist. Whatever his motive, he knows his words and actions could cost the Jews their homeland.

It takes only one glance at the map to understand that a two-state solution isn't viable, with Israel having to cede more land from her one/one-thousandth fraction of the Middle East to the Muslims who occupy the remaining 999. With each passing day, more threats and plans for Israel's destruction emanate from the Palestinian-Arab territories. Now we hear that thousands of jihadists (perhaps a million) will march into Jerusalem and claim it for their own, and will Ben-Ami agree that Israel should give up her capital of 4,000 years "for peace" to a people who only invented themselves in 1967? Would he, in fact, delight in leading the peaceful onslaught?

History proves that Arabs have always wrought violence against the Jewish and Christian people, since their beginning. Jihad is a permanent state of war, always in existence among the Arabs, first as tribal wars — rivalry that created a permanent state of instability and unrest. Jihad shifted the focus of attention from the tribes to the outside world as religious zeal and so that they could sustain themselves economically from the booty. Elements from Judaism (although Judaism was not a missionary religion) and Christianity (that was not a redemptive or state religion at its outset) provided Islam with a dual nature, a defensive-offensive character that permanently declared war against the world. It became a politico-religious mission that conditioned the Islamic attitude as a conquering nation, with a demand for perseverance, endurance, and steadfastness, until "the vanquished become brethren of their conquerors."

The day after Israel became a Jewish State, seven Arab armies declared war and fought the fledgling state as their permanent obligation to impose its rule upon the non-believers. When there was no housing construction, there was Arab violence; when there was housing construction, there was a Arab violence. Surrounding circumstances do not affect Islamic violence. Ben-Ami and his likeminded followers do not appear to recognize that the same imposition is occurring in America and, indeed, throughout the world.

Ben-Ami appears to be either disingenuous or oblivious to the Koran's directives of having anything but an Islamic state. When I last challenged his statements, he was astounded that I called him a turncoat, but it happened to be the most appropriate term I could find.

Never critical of Palestinian actions, Ben-Ami, under the guise of being pro-Israel, believes it acceptable to be openly critical of Israel's policies, yet his criticism goes beyond the acceptable when Ben-Ami criticizes Israel at every turn for not acquiescing to every Palestinian demand, thereby putting Israel in the path of destruction. When dealing with an enemy that admits and even boasts that there will never be peace with Israel, Ben-Ami insists that ceding a good portion of the land to the enemy is going to bring peace. What now, that Mahmoud Abbas has taken to demanding all of Israel?

Ben-Ami blindly supports our President's actions toward Israel, although Obama has come to be known as America's most anti-Semitic President. Ben-Ami refers to diversity of opinion within Washington, and is proud that he has brought about more choices for dealing with Israel, but the diversity is driven by our administration's associates, an incredible array of anti-democratic radicals, from Ayers to Wright. In fact, J Street receives financial support from one of these radical friends, George Soros.

In the words of Joseph Conrad, "You shall judge a man by his friends." I salute Cleveland's Jewish organizations for eschewing the visitor from J Street.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuele Ottolenghi and Jonathan Schanzer, November 27, 2011.

Amidst Europe's worst economic crisis in recent memory, the European Parliament (EP) has just decided to raise Europe's aid to the Palestinians by €100 million — 30 percent more than previous years.

At the end of tough negotiations among the European Union's institutions over the 2012 budget, the EP somehow made room for an additional €18 billion over the €129 billion cap imposed by expenditures-wary EU member states. Among the additional line items is that extra €100 million for the Palestinians.

An extra €100 million may not seem like that much compared to an overall budget of €147 billion for 2012, but it cannot be ignored that this is money the EU does not have. Moreover, the EU is pledging taxpayer money at a time when the only guarantee it will be spent responsibly has just disappeared.

The EU budget decision was sealed just days before a highly anticipated summit between Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal of Hamas — a designated terrorist group in the EU. The two factions have been in a state of a low-level civil war since 2007, but agreed on Thursday to set a date for elections that would begin to end their feud.

According to reports in the Palestinian press, the two Palestinian rivals have not yet decided on their choice for the new premier. But their four likely choices look poor, ranging from Hamas loyalist Jamal al-Khodary to Mohammed Mustafa, the economic advisor to Mahmoud Abbas who has played a leading role in the creation of the ossified Palestinian political system.

No matter who is named, it will mean the end of Salam Fayyad — the moderate Palestinian Prime minister and former World Bank official who, thanks to his views, credentials and sound management, temporarily restored credibility, transparency and due diligence to Palestinian governance.

In other words, the EU investment is likely to backfire, and not for the first time.

The EU has been a financial backer of the Palestinian cause since 1971, when its institutional predecessor, the European Community, started funding The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency in charge of underwriting Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

UNRWA is a bottomless pit of international aid — designed to keep Palestinian refugees in limbo, rather than resettling them, as the UN has done for every other displaced population in history. UNRWA is a waste of money by definition, even under the most stringent accountancy standards, since its raison d'être is to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem instead of solving it.

EU support dramatically increased in 1994, when the signing of the Oslo Accords seemed to offer a promise of Palestinian-Israeli peace, with huge sums ploughed into Palestinian state-building. From its outset, the Palestinian Authority was rife with corruption and wastefulness, but the wastefulness never drove off donors.

From 1994 to 2009, the EU donated €4.26 billion to the Palestinian Authority through various channels — and this figure does not take into account individual EU member states' donations to the PA.

A 2005 investigation launched by OLAF, the EU anti-fraud office, into allegations of misuse of funding by the PA to support terrorist activities found "no conclusive evidence of support of armed attacks or unlawful activities financed by the European Commission's contributions to the budget. However, the possibility of misuse of the Palestinian Authority's budget and other resources cannot be excluded, due to the fact that the internal and external audit capacity in the Palestinian Authority is still underdeveloped."

Rather than suspending its financial support, the EU responded by continuing to contribute substantial sums to the PA budget, even after Hamas — the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood known best for its suicide attacks and other violent acts against civilians — won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections and briefly took over the PA government before the 2007 Palestinian civil war left Hamas in control of Gaza while PA President Mahmoud Abbas clung to power in the West Bank.

This time, at least, the EU made an effort to improve Palestinian governance, and began to exact more stringent conditions and guarantees for the use of EU funds. It also established an institution now based in Ramallah (EUPOLCOPPS) that, among other things, helps training law enforcement agencies' personnel in anti-corruption practices.

In recent years, despite the fractured Palestinian political landscape, the first and last line of defence for Palestinian financial transparency has been Prime Minister Fayyad.

If Fayyad stays on as finance minister, he will no doubt attempt to enforce the practices of good governance and transparency that has earned him accolades in the West. However, there is no avoiding the fact that a unity government will represent an unpalatable marriage between Hamas and its jihadi ideology, and Fatah, replete with corrupt autocrats who have squandered international donor funds for years.

In a year of austerity, when European citizens must make additional sacrifices to avoid bankruptcy caused by reckless spending, opaque accounting practices and corrupt wastefulness, it is not too much to ask that public monies be pledged only against guarantees of nonviolence and good governance.

The coming Palestinian unity government promises to fall short on both counts. Why should Europe's tax payers increase their pledge?

Emanuele Ottolenghi is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD); Jonathan Schanzer is the Vice President for Research at FDD This article appeared today in The Commentator and it is archived in austerity-for-europe-increased-eu-aid-for

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 27, 2011.

What's One More Dead Jew?


"Yet, nearly six decades after the Holocaust concluded, Anti-Semitism still exists as the scourge of the world." Eliot Engel

Jewish life comes cheap.

Killing Jews is a blood sport practiced throughout the world.

Sometimes it seems as though killers seek a prize for the most effective methods, the most kills. Giant trophies passed out among haters like chocolates at a PMS seminar.

There have been other genocides, other people singled out for death, but one difference remains in place. No other sport is attended with such gusto, such outright enthusiasm as the taking of Jewish life.

It is applauded, cheered and done with a strange and surgical precision that makes one ponder.

They do not die for money; nor for any cause. They die because they are. They have no right to exist; they are Jews.

Jewish families must live with the reality their hearts have been torn from their bodies and buried with their loved ones for no reason. For no more than the sickness that is pure unadulterated hatred.

Few take exception to these murderous results, even — strangely enough — other Jews.

Jewish people are so desperate to distance themselves from the killing fields they are actually aligned with the fans in the grandstand. They can be heard espousing the hateful rhetoric of the anti Semites who have so effectively perfected the "blame the victim" mentality. "They had it coming, they brought it on themselves, they are to blame for their own troubles."

And this from the mouths of other Jews as Jewish babies bleed to death, life oozing from their tiny bodies before even experiencing what it means to mature and be despised simply because you exist.

Even today as the haters continue to cheer on the murderers, small, calculated remarks place Jewish children's lives in jeopardy.

French President Sarkozy makes a hateful remark to his compadre President Obama calling Netanyahu a "liar." The world sees, but agrees then ignores. What's one more hateful anti-Semitic remark?

What's one more dead Jew?

The world would not even for a moment mourn the death of another. In fact they would welcome it as a family anticipates that moment when a hateful old relative dies, and they are bothered with him no longer.

Kill the Jews. The words are posted on the signposts of every nation, on the lips of the world. Spoken aloud or silent, they are always there.

Funny, the way Obama's comments were so offhandedly dismissed.

After all, what did he say that was so bad? He was merely agreeing with Sarkozy that dealing with Netanyahu — i.e. Israel — is unpleasant. Complaining about his existence in his life as an annoyance he must endure.

Damn those Americans and their pro-Israel crap.

And that's just the point.

The President's remarks were not benign at all. In fact they were as dangerous and deadly as a KKK mob with a rope chasing after a victim in the woods of Alabama.

The world heard.

The world agreed.

Damn those Jews, What a pain they are.

Why can't they all go away?

Yes, the remark was duly noted and embraced by the haters of the planet.

There is nothing innocent or offhanded about racism or hatred.

How much more egregious that the remark came from a Black man.

A man who was to be a symbol of the end of hatred and racism in America.

"I have to deal with him all the time."

No, nothing benign about that remark.

And so incredibly ironic were the words of Sarkozy.

It has long been very obvious the French hate Jews.

Anti Semitism is so pervasive in France today, Jewish people are in danger for their lives every minute. Violent incidents are occurring there each day. I have no doubt that if things continue, all Jews will be forced out of France. And that is the irony.

For as Sarkozy espouses his hatred for the Jews, he battles a Muslim presence, soon to overtake his country. His precious France.

Yet, hating Jews is politically correct. Murdering Jewish children acceptable in this world. Speaking against Muslims is a dangerous sport. Sarkozy is a coward. No one is afraid of a Jew, as they are easy to kill. Like a mosquito you can swat away at a summer picnic.

Please do not insult my intelligence by denying this claim. It makes one sound so damn foolish.

And I for one am sick to death of fools.

Jewish life comes cheap at wholesale prices. Oh it is not the only life nowadays that does, I will admit.

Somalian children are starved.

Who cares? Who acts on this offense?

Twenty one thousand children a day die on this planet. Who cares? Who speaks out?

We are a world of idiots watching some celebrity tramp's trumped-up wedding and paying attention to the minutia that our tiny minds can absorb.


There is a saying, fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong. Ah, but they are. And their leader is the most wrong of all.

Life is filled with irony.

I never believed I would live to see the day when Germany spoke up for Israel.

I doubt I'll see the day when France or England ever does.

Hatred is rampant but Jewish hatred is acceptable, understandable and righteous in the world's eyes.

The United Nations, the vortex of evil on Planet Earth, openly espouses anti Semitism every minute of every day. And the United States of America, land of the free, funds these hateful efforts to the tune of two billion dollars a year.

I am sick to death of the depths to which mankind has sunk.

We have reentered that slimy mud bath from whence we came.

Perhaps it is time for evolution to begin once more.

It certainly did not work the first time around.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 27, 2011.

There's a marvelous new documentary film about Israel that will be premiered this week on PBS: "Israel Inside — How a small nation makes a big difference." "An emotional, inspiring look at what makes Israel tick." Shows "how the Israeli people have transformed this country against all odds in a very short time." It was made by Rafi Shore of JerusalemOnlineU —

If you live in south Florida, you'll be able to see it on Tuesday November 29, 8 pm, on PBS in South Florida — WPBT Channel 2. It is hoped that it will be broadcast nationally on PBS in 2012.

See and share the trailer for the film:
(With thanks to the several people who called my attention to this.)


Tomorrow begins a US-wide "BUY ISRAEL WEEK," designed to counter Boycott Israel efforts. It runs from November 28 to December 4.

See for featured deals and coupons. Retailers will be offering specials on Israeli goods.

Please, support this effort and pass the word.


Hats off to Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA, who has put up a clip, with translation, from an interview with an Israeli Arab of Abu Goush — a village outside of Jerusalem. In it, the Arab says that while most Israeli Arabs came from a variety of places such as Yemen and Egypt, the people of Abu Goush came from one man who emigrated from the Caucasus:

Note this well, folks, and remember it when the Arabs talk about their millennia-long roots in this land.


The latest wrinkle with regard to the projected Fatah-Hamas unity government:

According to an AP story that I picked up on YNet, a "senior Hamas official" says the two sides have agreed to maintain their current governments until the elections in May. This would permit the parties to by-pass the current dispute regarding appointment of an interim government as a step towards reconciliation.

At the moment, Fatah is denying that this arrangement has been made. This is so even though it would work in favor of Fatah for the present — as it would allow Abbas to tell funding nations that the PA is working independently and has not merged with Hamas.

Of course, Abu Toameh reported yesterday that there are not likely to be elections in May if the issue of detainees on each side is not resolved.

If there is any agreement down the road, I suspect it may look something like this: not a genuine merger with both sides participating in a unity government — rather, more likely a coalition that offers some superficial semblance of unity but also continues to provide independence to both parties and a degree of deniability for Fatah. Deniability for those nations eager to continue to support Abbas, too.

There is precedent for this sort of very muddled situation. Just as there is a precedent for it to fall apart.


In Egypt the turmoil persists, threatening the stability of the first round of elections, scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. Transition to civilian rule is due to take place in July after all rounds of elections, for the lower and upper houses of parliament and the president, have ended. The ruling military council has selected 78-year-old Kamal Ganzouri — who was Mubarak's prime minister from 1996-99 — as prime minister; he will form the next government and has asked the protesters to give him two months.

The mobs in Tahrir Square, however, have been seeking to push out the ruling military council — the Supreme Council of the Military Forces — immediately, and replace it with an interim government. Mohammed el-Baradei, currently a presidential candidate, is frequently mentioned as the one to head an interim government now. El-Baradei, who was a snake in the grass when he headed the IAEA, is no friend to the West.

But that military council is not leaving, although the generals have agreed to form "a civilian consultative council" to assist in governing the nation at present. Former Israeli ambassador to Egypt, Zvi Mazel, writing in the JPost, is of the opinion that the military council cannot relinquish power because there is no one to take over. One gets the sense that the council leaders understand that they represent Egypt's best hope for stability.


Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the council, said the army would ensure security at the polling booths. The Interior Ministry is responsible for supervising the elections, but the armed forces "are participating fully in this process."

Speaking to the nation, Tantawi declared:

"We are at a crossroads. There are only two routes, the success of elections leading Egypt towards safety or facing dangerous hurdles that we in the armed forces, as part of the Egyptian people, will not allow.

"I would like to address the great Egyptian people those who can vote and beg them to go and vote tomorrow, because we want the parliament to be balanced and we want it to include all groups."

An immediate transition would work against that goal. Consider the words of Islamist presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Futuh, who said, "A government with revolutionary leadership must be formed to meet the demands of Tahrir Square."


According to Al-Ahram, Egypt's state-owned paper, Tantawi also said the military would not back down from the role it sees for itself in the country's proposed new constitution, which would exempt the military from parliamentary oversight.


While demonstrators were out in full force in Tahrir Square, the Islamists held their own anti-Israel demonstration at the al-Azhar Mosque.

I mention this not only because it is an indication of what we face should there be a Brotherhood-dominated government, but also because of my comments the other day regarding pressure on Netanyahu to quickly negotiate with Abbas to alleviate certain tensions in Egypt. My position hasn't changed: The Islamists are virulently anti-Israel, not to mention anti-Semitic. Negotiating a "two state solution" would in no way mollify them. It would simply weaken Israel.

And lest there be any doubt about it: The Islamists are just as anti-American.


All in all an exceedingly complex situation in Egypt and a very dangerous time with considerable repercussions not just for Israel but the entire West. At best, the elections and ensuing transition will allow the Brotherhood a role, but will prevent them from gaining control.

For further insight into the situation, see Mazel's piece, "Egypt: a house divided": Article.aspx?id=247083

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2011.

The New York Times must have an assembly line for hatchet jobs against Zionism. The hatchet job in the Sunday Review section (Gershom Gorenbert, 11/27/11) starts with a false premise of "occupation," ends with the false premise that the conflict only now is spreading from the disputed Territories into the State of Israel, and fills the middle with misleading statements and significant omissions.

The first false premise reflects the article's title, "Israel's Other Occupation." Implication: Israel is occupying the Territories. There can't be any occupation there, for reasons I've stated so often I'll spare you reiteration. The newspaper keeps calling it "occupation" until most people believe it. Challenge it to justify the usage!

"Occupation" sounds bad. No wonder the Arabs try to boost their claim by calling Israel occupiers! Why does Gershom Gorenberg follow suit? He calls the State of Israel an "Other Occupation," deliberately treating the State of Israel negatively. He again is acting in tandem with the Arabs, who call all of Israel "occupied." By calling all of Israel "occupied," the Arabs imply their jihadist goal of conquering all of Israel.

In explaining the situation in Judea-Samaria, Mr. Gorenberg writes, "For several years, extremist W. Bank settlers have conducted a campaign of low-level violence against their Palestinian neighbors — destroying property, vandalizing mosques and occasionally injuring people. Such 'price tag' attacks, intended to intimidate Palestinians and make Israel leaders pay a price for enforcing the law against settlers, have become part of the routine of conflict in occupied territory."

Again a gratuitous use of negative sounding "occupied." Note the use of "neighbors," a positive connotation, for Arabs who more or less have been murdering, vandalizing, slandering, and attempting for years to drive out all the Jews. Assisted by leftist Jews, Arabs destroyed thousands of grapevines and trees of Jews in Judea-Samaria, without denunciation by the New York Times. So indignant is Mr. Gorenberg against the alleged minor action by Jews that he has no indignation left for the actual major actions by Arabs.

It would be understandable if a few Jews reacted against the Arabs, upon finding that their government does not protect them from the Arabs and takes the usually fraudulent Arab side in most housing disputes. But there is no proof that Jews have done as alleged; there is proof that the Israeli government sometimes has attacked Arabs in the name of "settlers," in order to give those Jews a bad name. I do not recall any reports in the Times giving a factual basis for the accusation against Jewish residents of Judea-Samaria.

Then there is the misleading statement about enforcing the law. Israel hardly ever enforces the law against Israeli Arab parties practicing sedition, Arab parades calling for mass-murder of Jews. Arab theft of land in Israel and in the Territories, building without permits, attacks on Jews in the Territories, Arab vandalism, and Arab non-payment of taxes. Bedouin simply squat on thousands of acres and the government is acting make that seem legitimate. No rule of law toward the Arabs; there is coddling.

What about enforcement of the law against Jews. The government encouraged Jews to erect houses in the Territories. Israeli bureaucracy being inefficient, some of the houses fulfilled all their requirements but the Defense Minister failed to sign off, prompted by his anti-Zionist political party. Seizing upon that technicality of lack of final sign-off, the Jewish Establishment in Israel and anti-Zionists abroad denounce as "illegal" Jewish construction and demand that it be destroyed. They should demand that the Defense Minister regularize it. No rule of law toward the Jews; instead, anti-Zionism.

Now that incidents of vandalism affect Israeli Arabs, Mr. Gorenberg not only freely accuses Territorial Jews of these crimes, but claims they are bringing the war into Israel. Where was he when from the Territories, Arabs or their rockets attacked Jews in Israel for years? Where was he when Israeli Arabs paraded with slogans about "death to the Jews?"

For many years, the Arabs have resumed their struggle to drive the Jews out of Israel. Whenever some Israelis seem ready to defend themselves from the Arab attempt to drive them out, anti-Zionist apostles of "democracy" start to lament Jewish violence. Who can respect their inconsistency?

Now Mr. Gorenberg complains about "settlers" (a term unfairly misapplied to Jews and never applied to Arabs) establishing a presence in the State of Israel. He ignores the many thousands of illegal Arab aliens in Israel. He acts unaware of the years of blockbusting by Arabs in Israeli cities.

Yes, many Jews do leave mixed cities. Mr. Gorenberg insinuates their departure is due to prejudice. He fails to report the Arab harassment of Jewish women, the other crimes, the taunting, and the noise-making. This is a war for control of the country, but Mr. Gorenberg and like-minded people ignore Arab aggression and deem Jewish defense aggression. Thus Mr. Gorenberg castigates yeshivas that seek to stabilize those cities, not the Arabs who seek to destabilize them.

How misleading to suggest about such an effort in Acre, "Yet it broadcasts a message that Israel's Arab citizens are strangers and opponents rather than members of a shared polity." The Arab parties in Israel, all of whose elected representatives are radical, do not believe in sharing the country. Israel tried sharing and tolerance, but the Arabs rebuffed them. After all the Arab wars of aggression and the thousands of terrorist attack in between, one would think Mr. Gorenberg and the newspaper would catch on to the existence of jihad.

In vague language, Mr. Gorenberg refers to some communities from which Jews exclude Arabs as segregationist. He does not refer to Arabs as segregationist although the Palestinian Authority makes it a capital offense to sell land to Jews. The Arabs have set up funds for buying land only for Arabs.

Some Jews may ban Arab purchases out of sad experience with Arab block-busting. But many bans involve parcels of land bought by Jews all over the world collectively for the Jewish people. It was their only recourse. Now that the Arabs have renewed their struggle to take over the country and foreign states such as Iran threaten to exterminate the Jews, it would be foolish to make one-sided concessions.

Various laws are proposed in Israel to halt abuses by Israel's enemies. Some of the laws may not be practical or may not serve their intended purpose, but Mr. Gorenberg criticizes them as undemocratic. He does not seem to mind undemocratic practices by Arabs in ignoring the laws or by European governments in financing subversive organizations in Israel.

Those subversive organizations often call themselves human rights organizations, for cover. Mr. Gorenberg and the New York Times take those self-appointed radical groups at face value. But they seek to expand Arab privileges and deny Jews' rights. One example is their seeking to deny Jewish property owners the right to their property when Arabs file false claims for them or squat on them.

So the Europeans finance radical groups that have little following, in order to impose alien policies upon the country. How democratic is that?

The "settlers" need to be brought "home," states Mr. Gorenberg. They are home. Judea and Samaria are the cradle of Jewish civilization. But if hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced into the official State of Israel, the country would go bankrupt and collapse, based on the dire consequences for the 10,000 who were forced out of Gaza and northern Samaria, before. And for that evacuation, Jews suffered more terrorist attacks.

If the 300,000 Jews of eastern Jerusalem also were forced out, as President Obama suggests they be, the heart would be taken out of Zionism and the Jewish state would lose its purpose.

So, if Israel is to remain a Jewish state and a democratic one, as Mr. Gorenberg professes to want, then instead of destroying it by those means, which also would deprive it of much of its water and of its defensive borders, why not urge Israel to annex the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria and for the U.S. to recognize the legal annexation of eastern Jerusalem? Don't instead distort international law to call that annexation illegal!

Mr. Gorenberg's final false premise is that all he suggests is necessary for peace. Peace is not what jihadists want. Ababs has called for war, has built an army, honors terrorists, and his media and schools preach conquest of Israel. Attempting to appease fanatical imperialists like him always makes war more likely. Mr. Gorenberg's policy fosters war and could lead to genocide.

If the Devil presented himself in human guise, would he admit coming to corrupt us and induce us into self-destructive war? No, he would be too smart to do that. Instead, he would claim to defend our rights and to have developed a creed of peace.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, November 27, 2011.

This was written by Raymond Ibrahim and is entitled "Muslim Persecution of Christians — October, 2011." It appeared November 17, 2011 in Hudson NY
( muslim-persecution-of-christians-october-2011).


Egypt's Maspero massacre — where the military killed dozens of Christians protesting the destruction of their churches — dominates October's persecution headlines. Facts and details concerning the military's "crimes against humanity" are documented in this report, and include videos of armored-vehicles running over civilians, a catalog of lies and deceitful tactics employed by Egypt's rulers and state media, and other matters overlooked by the West.

More damning evidence continues to emerge: not only did Egypt's military plan to massacre Christians to teach them a "lesson" never to protest again, but "death squads" were deployed up buildings the night before to snipe at protesters. Instead of trying the soldiers who intentionally ran-over demonstrators, the military has been randomly arresting Copts simply "for being Christian." Finally, the fact-finding commission of Egypt's National Council for Human Rights just submitted its report which, as expected, "white washes" the military's role, "asserting that no live ammunition was fired on the protesters by the military, as the army only fired blanks in the air to disperse the protesters," a claim eyewitnesses reject out of hand.

Meanwhile, not only are Western governments apathetic, but it was revealed that "Obama's top Muslim advisor blocks Middle Eastern Christians' access to White House." Newt Gingrich asserted that Obama's "strategy in the Middle East is such a total grotesque failure" and likened the "Arab spring" to an "anti-Christian spring." Ann Widdecombe accused the British government of "double standards in its threats to cut aid to countries which persecute gay people while turning a blind eye to persecution against Christians." Even Christian pastors in the West, apparently more concerned about promoting interfaith dialogue with Muslims, are reluctant to mention persecution to their flock

Categorized by theme, the rest of October's batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is hardly limited to) the following accounts, listed according to theme and in alphabetical order by country, not necessarily severity.


Afghanistan: Ten years after the U.S. invaded and overthrew the Taliban — at a cost of more than 1,700 U.S. military lives and $440 billion in taxpayer dollars — the State Department just revealed that Afghanistan's last Christian church was destroyed. The report further makes clear that the Afghan government — installed by the U.S. — is partially responsible for such anti-Christian sentiments, for instance, by upholding apostasy laws, which make it a criminal offense, punishable by death, for Muslims to convert to other religions.

Indonesia: Muslims and authorities expelled Christians from their church and shut it down "for allegedly engaging in 'proselytizing' in a predominantly Muslim area." As in previous instances when churches were seized, "the fundamentalists were aided and abetted by the local administration." Also, the Muslim behind a September church attack that left three dead confessed that he was operating under his jihad leader's orders, "based on the Koran and Sunna." Kazakhstan: The Muslim majority nation enacted new laws further restricting freedom of religion: "All registered churches must now re-register with the government, and only churches meeting new criteria will be registered." Accordingly, "police and secret police agents reportedly raided a worship meeting of the officially registered Protestant church New Life, saying that under the new Religion Law the congregation 'cannot meet outside its legal address.' During the raid, a 17-year old woman was hit by a policeman, leaving her unconscious."

Sudan: Soon after President Bashir "confirmed plans to adopt an entirely Islamic constitution and strengthen sharia law," "emboldened" Muslims, "claiming that Christianity was no longer an accepted religion in the country," attacked Christians trying to construct a church. Likewise, authorities threatened to demolish three church buildings "as part of a long-standing bid to rid Sudan of Christianity."

Christian Symbols

Egypt: A Christian student was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to cover his cross. When the headmaster was informed of the attack in progress, he ignored it and "continued to sip his tea." In the words of one prominent Egyptian commentator: "a teacher forced a student to take off the crucifix he wore, and when the Christian student stood firm for his rights, the teacher quarreled with him, joined by some of the students; he was beastly assaulted until his last breath left him."

Saudi Arabia: A Colombian soccer-player "was arrested by the Saudi moral police after customers in a Riyadh shopping mall expressed outrage over the sports player's religious tattoos, which included the face of Jesus of Nazareth on his arm.... A similar event occurred in Saudi Arabia last year when a Romanian player kissed the tattoo of a cross he had on his arm after scoring a goal, which also caused public outrage."

Maldives: Police arrested a 30 year-old teacher from India for having a Bible and rosary, and finally deported him after a two-week interrogation. According to the principal, he "was a very good teacher, we've not had any complaints of him in the past." Such cases are not aberrant: "Last year, Maldivian authorities rescued another Christian teacher from India when Muslim parents of her students threatened to throw her into the sea for 'preaching Christianity' after she drew a compass in class, which they alleged was a cross."

Apostasy, Blasphemy, Proselytism

India: A mufti summoned a Christian priest to appear before his court: according to the mufti, the priest "is involved in converting young Muslim boys and girls to Christianity. This warrants action as per Islamic law.... I will take all necessary measures in exercise of the powers vested in me by Islamic Sharia."

Iran: Militants with suspected ties to Iranian security threatened to kill nearly a dozen evangelical Christians who fled Iran; unless they "repent and ask forgiveness" and return to Islam, they must die. Likewise, a "group of four officers engaged in a commando-style raid on the house" of a Muslim convert to Christianity, arresting him, confiscating his Bible, and "transferring him to an unknown location.... His family was also threatened to remain silent and not to talk about this incident to anyone." Also, a Christian named "Muhammad" was arrested, interrogated "for the charge of Christianity." And Iran's Supreme Court has ordered the retrial of the pastor sentenced to death for refusing to renounce his Christian beliefs, partially because "Iran is feeling the pressure" of the growing international community supporting the pastor. Pakistan: A female prison-officer assigned to provide security for Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five sentenced to death on "blasphemy" charges, beat her, "allegedly because of the Muslim officer's anti-Christian bias, while other staff members deployed for her security looked on in silence." A new report reveals how the nation's legalization of blasphemy laws has given great rise to Christian persecution.

"Dhimmitude" (General Abuse, Debasement, and Suppression of "Second Class" Citizens)

Egypt: The military threatened a Coptic monastery with a "new massacre" in an attempt to demolish the monastery's fence "which guards it from unauthorized visits and criminals." The military has "stormed several monasteries since the January 25 Revolution, demolished fences, and fired on monks and visitors." Also, a Christian man sentenced to three years' imprisonment for "insulting the military" has been ordered to a mental health hospital, from which, according to some analysts, patients often emerge as "devastated human beings."

Iraq: A new report entitled, "The double lives of Iraq's Christian children" tells of their suffering — "If the children say they believe in Jesus, they face beatings and scorn from their teachers" — as well as the struggle of their parents. "The first years of my faith," says a father, "I brought so many people to church, because I was motivated, so excited. Now I don't encourage anyone to be a Christian, because in my experience it is very hard."

France: Stone-throwing Muslims attacked Christians during a Catholic celebration, although the media largely ignored it: "it would seem that the media silence on these facts, which are occurring more and more frequently, serves to exonerate, even protect, the Muslims in their racist and anti-religious acts."

Pakistan: Along with one dead man, "two dozen Christians including children, men and women were seriously injured" when "Muslim gangs" hired by an influential Muslim attacked them "to grab a piece of land" which the church had purchased to build an orphanage. Also, Muslim landowners raided a Christian home, beat a sick father and abducted two brothers, whom they claim are in debt; the kidnapper added an extra 70,000 rupees in ransom. "The men's mother tried to file a report with police, who refused because one of the suspects is a fellow police officer," not to mention also a Muslim.

Turkey: The Education Ministry in Ankara published a 10th grade textbook which distorts the role of Christian Assyrians, "denouncing them as traitors who rebelled against Turkey." Still denying the historic slaughter of Christians, "today's Turkish Government is not hesitant to distort historical events by inverting victim and perpetrator... About half of the Assyrian population, were killed or died from starvation or disease in a series of killings orchestrated by the Ottoman Turkish government during World War I."

USA: A Muslim convert to Christianity was violently attacked by Muslims because of a poem "which expresses pain over the loss of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis." The attackers carved the Star of David on his back with a knife "while laughing as they recited his poem." In a separate incident, a Muslim physiotherapist "tore into" a Christian patient, saying her faith was "wrong" and had "killed more people than any other religion." She later wrote: "I found Mr. Ali to be extremely racist against my Christian faith. I have had doctors, nurses and staff of all different religions look after me but this is the first time I've been treated by such a bigoted man as Mr. Ali."

Pakistani Rape

As usual, Pakistan — which, along with Egypt, oddly missed being categorized as a "country of particular concern" in the State Department's recent religious freedom report — dominates the headlines regarding the sexual abuse of Christian women:

Kidnapped last Christmas Eve, "a 12 year-old Christian [was] gang raped for eight months, forcibly converted and then 'married' to her Muslim attacker." Now that she has escaped, instead of seeing justice done, "the Christian family is in hiding from the rapists and the police."

"A Christian mother of four was slaughtered by a Muslim colleague in Pakistan after she resisted his attempt to rape her at the factory where they worked."

A new report asserts: "The forced conversion to Islam of women from religious minority groups through rape and abduction has reached an alarming stage... It appears today that no one, from the judiciary to the police and even the government has the courage to stand up to the threats from Muslim fundamentalist groups. The situation is worse with the police who always side with the Islamic groups and treat minority groups as lowly life forms."


Iraq: "Two Christians were murdered in northern Iraq this week; their deaths come as three kidnapped Christians were released following the payment of a hefty ransom." A source in Iraq laments: "The attacks on Christians continue and the world remains totally silent. It's as if we've been swallowed up by the night."

Nigeria: Months after Muslims from Boko Haram murdered a pastor, another pastor was targeted and murdered. The jihadists have "claimed responsibility for several church bombings and other attacks;" many Christians have fled the region, and some churches have shut down as many of their flock have been killed. Likewise, three Muslim soldiers, in the context of subduing civil unrest, "shot and killed a Christian mother of five" and a Christian boy, without "any justifiable reason."

Somalia: Weeks after a convert to Christianity was beheaded, al-Shabaab, "who have vowed to rid Somalia of Christianity," decapitated another 17-year-old Christian in his home: "It is usual for the al-Shabaab to decapitate those they suspect to have embraced the Christian faith, or sympathizers of western ideals."

About this Series

Because the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions, "Muslim Persecution of Christians" was developed to collate some — by no means all — of the instances of Muslim persecution of Christians that surface each month. It serves two purposes:

To document that which the mainstream media does not: habitual, if not chronic, Muslim persecution of Christians.

To show that such persecution is not "random," but systematic and interrelated — that it is ultimately rooted in a worldview inspired by Sharia.

Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; apostasy and blasphemy laws that criminalize and punish with death those who "offend" Islam; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya, tribute expected from second-class citizens, or dhimmis; overall expectations for Christians to behave like cowed dhimmis (second-class citizens); and simple violence and murder. Sometimes it is a combination.

Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales — from Morocco in the west, to India in the east, and throughout the West wherever there are Muslims — it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam — whether the strict application of Sharia, or the supremacist culture born of it.

Where are the calls for arrest? Where are the charges of war crimes? Where are the requests for these criminals to be brought to trial before the International Criminal Court or International Court at the Hague?

Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Contact her at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 26, 2011.

On Thursday, I wrote: "After two hours of talks in Cairo today, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and head of the Hamas politburo Khaled Mashaal emerged with glowing statements regarding a new partnership... "...Abbas declared:

"'There are no more differences between us now. We have agreed to work as partners with joint responsibility.'

"No more differences indeed. That's pure PR hype. What matters now is not these glib words, but what follows in terms of true understandings. There is no announcement at this point regarding composition of the joint government, or — most critically — of the identity of the projected new prime minister."


Well, now, two days later, we have confirmation of the true state of affairs from Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost:

"Efforts to achieve reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas have stumbled over the formation of a Palestinian unity government and the reconstruction of the Palestinian Authority security forces, representatives of the two rival parties said over the weekend...

"Following last Thursday's summit in Cairo between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, the two sides expressed optimism regarding the prospects of implementing the Egyptian-engineered reconciliation deal that was announced last May...

"But over the weekend it transpired that differences between the two parties remained almost the same as they were before the summit.

"In addition to the ongoing dispute over the make-up of the proposed unity government, Fatah and Hamas have failed to solve their differences over the reconstruction of the security forces and the release of detainees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip being held by both sides."


One Fatah official in Ramallah cited by Abu Toameh said that, while not much was accomplished in the Abbas-Mashaal meeting, "The most important thing was that the two leaders met and agreed to continue talking about reconciliation and unity. It will take a long time before we ever see real changes on the ground." There will be another round of talks next month.

It sounds as if Abbas is getting cold feet about this "bold" move that would have alienated the West. Recent news reports had suggested that Abbas had finally agreed to relinquish the idea of retaining Fayyad as prime minister. But either those reports were wrong, or, as seems to be the case, pressure from the US and the EU has now made him reluctant to make that concession to Hamas.

According to the Fatah official cited by Abu Toameh, Abbas explained to Mashaal that the US and the EU would punish the Palestinians if Fayyad were dropped. (This is not news.) "But this did not change Mashaal's position. Hamas believes that in wake of the Arab Spring, Arab governments would compensate the Palestinians for any loss of Western financial aid."

So Hamas is also operating from nether-nether land, if its officials — such as Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, cited by the PLO news agency Maan — believe this. Several Arab countries have failed to honor their pledges to the PA.


As to any cooperation with regard to the security forces, the Fatah official quoted Abbas as having said that merging Hamas with the PA security forces would — are you ready? — "give Israel an excuse to launch attacks on these forces under the pretext of fighting terrorism."

Cute, no? The "pretext" of fighting terrorism. The fact that we would be dealing with an entity that is still committed to the "armed struggle" is beside the point, right?

The US probably read Abbas the riot act here, advising him that funds for his security forces would be cut entirely and without delay.


Abu Toameh tells us that the one matter that was agreed upon between Abbas and Fayyad was to hold presidential and parliamentary elections next May. But this is being jeopardized by the issue of detainees: each side, while having pledged to no longer do so, is continuing to arrest supporters from the other side. And there is no way Hamas will participate in elections if these conditions prevail.

What we have here is the quintessential "stay tuned" situation.

But, while, no, I am not surprised, neither am I pleased that this deal between Fatah and Hamas may fall apart. For I can see it now: instead of cessation of pressure on us coupled with a recognition here in Israel that Oslo is fully moribund, there would be renewed pressure by the US and the EU, who would rush to point out that Abbas could have joined forces with Hamas but didn't and thus is entitled to concessions from Israel to bring him to the table.

What the world would not grasp — would choose not to perceive — is that the mere fact of the willingness of Abbas to meet with the head of Hamas with regard to a potential merger tells us all we need to know about his attitude towards genuine peace with Israel.


From the PA news agency Maan today, there is this — play both ends against the middle — statement:

"PLO official Saeb Erekat said Saturday that there can not be a two state solution without Palestinian reconciliation.

"Erekat said he considered political reconciliation a 'supporting point' of the peace process."

Uh huh.


A great deal more to follow shortly. But here a story as we begin a new week:

In an archeological dig at Masada in the 1960s, date palm seeds that were 2,000 years old were discovered.

A few years ago, scientists from the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies attempted to germinate these seeds. Their efforts — undoubtedly extraordinary — were successful. Carbon-14 radioactive isotope testing of the first sapling to sprout, done when it was 15 months old, showed that indeed its seed was from the period of the Roman siege of Masada.

Now the young tree, which is about 2.5 meters high, has been planted at Kibbutz Ketura in the Arava. Until now it had been kept in a secret located at the kibbutz.

The tree is genetically different from modern date palms, and is identified with the Kingdom of Judea. It was said to have not only a delicious taste but therapeutic qualities. Hadassah Medical Center — which has a keen interest because it does medical technological research — is involved in this project.

An extraordinary story with exciting implications.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Alpern, November 26, 2011.

One cannot repeat an exceedingly basic principle too much: One is entitled to one's opinions, but one is NOT entitled to one's own FACTS.

People ignore the tragic facts of the Middle East at their own great peril. The "architects" of Oslo will never admit that they were dreadfully and horrendously mistaken. They continue to defend the "process" as a tremendous achievement.

However, not everything is totally bleak and hopeless. For example, military and strategic cooperation between America and Israel continues quite nicely. American military leaders know how valuable and beneficial this cooperation is for them, even if the bumbling and fumbling cretins also known as politicians believe and say otherwise. Dave

This below was written by Daniel Greenfield and it appeared November 21, 2011 on his Sultan Knish website ( end-of-peace-process.html)


The "peace process" which created two terrorist states inside Israel may have begun in Oslo, but it ended in Cairo. Normalizing relations with the rest of the Middle East was one of the carrots that got the Jewish state hopping down the appeasement trail — and that carrot is now officially off the table.

The Oslo Accords. Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton and Yassar Arafat

The days when Thomas Friedman and his Saudi buddies could talk about normalization have passed. The Arab Spring saw to that and with Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and an unknown number of others sliding into the Islamist camp, and out of reach of negotiations, there's a New Middle East that has even less in common with the old gentlemanly diplomacy model than the old one did. Some of the dimmer Israeli leaders may still believe that peace is possible with the Islamists of Turkey's AKP, but not even they think that peace is possible with the Brotherhood.

If Western diplomats could offer regional acceptance twenty years ago, today that has all the credibility of a Rolex sold out of a briefcase just off Central Park. The end of the Camp David Accords has killed the grandaddy of the appeasement through territorial surrender template and with Assad looking shaky, the refusal to give up the Golan Heights to Syria seems downright prescient even to peaceniks.

The Brotherhood's attitude toward Israel is indistinguishable from that of Iran, and with the Islamist way in ascendance, that attitude will be the dominant one throughout the region, turning back the clock on decades of diplomatic efforts. The Islamists will negotiate temporary truces and ceasefires, but not the peace and brotherhood accords so beloved by the US and the EU.

And even the remaining regimes that haven't fallen look like poor prospects for paying out peace dividends after even the most stable country in the region, Egypt, melted down into mob violence and religious fanaticism. If Egypt can turn into battling mobs who don't agree on anything except their hatred for religious and ethnic minorities, including a country full of them living next door, then no Muslim nation in the region is safe.

Without normalization on the table, all that's left is outside pressure. But for the first time in a long time the Arab Spring has given Western diplomats something to do in the region besides denounce Jews living in Jerusalem. And the usual Arab League chorus that the region's problems would be solved if only there were a Palestinian state sounds silly even to veteran diplomats who usually funnel this sort of nonsense right back to the White House.

Obama's hostility toward Israel has paradoxically lessened the pressure by removing the leverage. Condoleezza Rice could get on the phone and warn that another house in XYZ would wreck the positive relationship with the White House. But there is as much of a prospect of a positive relationship with the White House, as there is with Iran, Hamas and the Brotherhood.

Israel still has a strategic relationship with the United States, but relations with the administration are cold, which also means there is less to be afraid of. Netanyahu's exchange with Obama was startling for a careful diplomat from a country that usually avoids offending its big brother. The only way it could have happened is if Netanyahu had felt that there was nothing to lose. And he was right.

For the first time since Begin, an Israeli leader pushed back against White House pressure and it led to a slight improvement, not because Obama listened, but because the relationship was so toxic that using the confrontational tactics practiced by the Palestinian Authority actually worked. Only when the relationship hit rock bottom, was any attempt made by the White House to salvage it.

The situation is even uglier on the European side, which has not been friendly in a long time, but hasn't been this hateful either. But all that ugliness also translates into a loss of influence over Israel. You can only slap your allies so many times, denounce them and threaten them before they begin paying a lot less attention to you.

Irrational demands that can't be fulfilled have brought the situation to that point. It was one thing when the Clinton or Bush administrations were demanding that Israel go to the negotiating table and offer concessions. It was ugly and unfair, but at least it was specific. These days Abbas doesn't want to go to the negotiating table, and the same demands keep coming out of Washington D.C. and Brussels. Israel is being ordered to make peace when the other side won't even bother showing up to negotiate.

How can Israel make peace when the Palestinian Authority has been split into Hamas and Fatah run fiefdoms and neither side is even bothering to pretend to negotiate? It can't and even diplomats know that, which makes every volley of demands look like messages for the Muslim world.

When Helen Clark wanted to sell more New Zealand sheep to the Saudis, her marketing gimmick was a hate campaign against Israel. Clark has gone off to a sinecure at the UN, but most of the West is acting the same way now. Europe isn't trying to sell sheep, its leaders are acting like sheep in the face of the Islamic demographic destiny spilling across their lands. The Obama Administration lit the fuse of the Arab Spring and is getting nervous as the flames keep rising higher.

Western condemnations of Israel are increasingly no longer directed to Israel, but to the Muslim world, which makes it easier for Israel to ignore them. While the White House claimed that the Biden incident was about the timing of a construction approval announcement in Jerusalem, it was really about showing the Muslim world that this administration really had the knives out for Israel. If it hadn't been a house in Jerusalem, it would have been a border shooting, a strike in Gaza or a clash at a checkpoint. Something would have been found.

But the more America and Europe have pandered to the Muslim world, the more obvious it has become to Israel that it has no role to play in this exchange, except its time honored position as the scapegoat.

The new normalization is no longer the offer to normalize ties with the Muslim world, but warnings that Israel's ties to Europe will require the same kind of normalization if Israel's Prime Minister doesn't snap his fingers and make peace happen. It would be a more effective threat if the current crop of European leaders didn't' make de Gaulle seem pro-Israel.

Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama, three of the slimiest first world leaders, haven't made their dislike of Israel such a secret that it took a microphone error for it to be discovered. Merkel has dispensed with the usual show of Gemutlichkeit toward the Jewish state and the situation in Brussels is as ugly as it could be. It all blends into one long angry tantrum about peace dispensed by insecure politicians with a wholly different agenda.

All that leaves Israel with fewer reasons to participate. The strategic and economic ties still matter, but they're more mutual than anyone cares to admit. American and European leaders may kick Israel, but it's also the only reliable ally in the region. And the Arab Springer is a reminder that there is one country that won't implode and can be counted on as a point of stability.

Obama is capable of cutting off his nose to spite his face, but the Clinton era foreign policy hands still have enough control that it isn't likely to happen before the next election — though all bets are off if he gets a second term. European leaders dislike Israel, but they also know that there are times when they need it. It's a high tech incubator that's a lot closer than Asia, it's an arm of the West in the East and if the relationship is sliding under the table, that's the kind of relationship Israel has with much of the world, from China to Saudi Arabia.

The isolation is a problem, but it's also liberating. The weight of expectations has nearly broken Israel and the Obama Administration may be one of the best things that happened to it by forcing it to recognize that it was alone. Israeli dependence on the United States is not financial as most people think, it is mainly psychological. Alone in a region full of Muslim tyrannies, the need to believe in a close relationship with an admirable global power was powerful.

Friendship with America wasn't like friendship with Russia or China. The United States is admired by people around the world for its accomplishments and its standing. For all the anti-war rallies, it is a nation that aspires to a higher standard. A virtuous Rome, an Athens without slaves, a shining standard bearer for the new age of mankind.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Barak Obama, Mahmoud Abbas

Only the United States could make a call for concessions to terrorists sound noble, when it would have sounded hopelessly venal from any European power. But in the age of Obama the nobility has run out and so has the peace. The illusions are dead and Israel is in survival mode, struggling to avoid any attention from Washington D.C. while keeping the country on track.

The Peace Process, that horrible masochistic program of terrorist empowerment, is a fading mirage that no one believes in any more. The pretense that the handshake in the Rose Garden overseen by a beaming Clinton was something other than cynicism and bad policymaking mythologized into a transcendent expression of a new age of peace is over and done with. The cost has been horribly high, and all of it has been in vain.

As the West follows the Islam appeasement track domestically and internationally, its relationship with Israel will continue to degrade. The Peace Process was an expression of a dying belief in the orderly world of negotiated international peace envisioned by European policymakers for over a hundred years. Now that same world has brought Europe and Israel to the brink of ruin. It's no wonder that Israel has left the peace process by the side door.

Contact Dave Alpern at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 26, 2011.

The media is calling it an anti-socialist election, and rightly so. What they won't tell you is that it is also an anti-Islamization election.

EN NEWS Spain's right stormed to a landslide election victory Sunday, an exit poll said, sparking dancing in the street by voters desperate for a cure to soaring unemployment. Winning the biggest majority in its history according to partial results voters handed a crushing defeat to the ruling Socialists after seven years in power.

Spain's was the fifth eurozone government felled this year by the eurozone debt crisis. Voters gave Mariano Rajoy's right-wing Popular Party 43.5 percent of the vote and an absolute majority of 181-185 seats in the 350-member Congress of Deputies, according to the poll by public broadcaster RTVE.

Hundreds of cheering Popular Party supporters erupted in celebration outside the party's Madrid headquarters, waving blue party flags and grooving to dance music.Voters punished the government for a 21.5 percent jobless rate, a stalled economy and a mounting debt crisis.

The Socialists, saddled by a stagnant economy and a 21.5 per cent jobless rate, plummeted from 169 seats to between 115 and 119 seats, according to the poll, which gave no margin of error. The numbers suggest Spanish voters have shifted clearly to the right as they confront their worst economic crisis in decades and choose new leaders to pull them out of it.

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 This was published in BareNakedIslam
( 11/20/spain-right-wing-anti-muslim-immigration -party-wins-election-in-landslide/).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2011.


In its typical judgmental style, the New York Times declares, "Egyptians are rightly fed up, and they are back in Tahrir Square demanding real democracy." The military seeks to retain its grip on industries whose cash it taps. That is the explanation given for the military's proposals to go slowly toward elections and constitutional conventions and civilian control. The military offers stability, but its "clumsy" efforts produce instability. Its plans "would leave the army in overall control through the middle of next year. That is too long."

The U.S. needs a stable democratic Egypt, at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors."

"The Muslim Brotherhood is now Egypt's best organized political movement, and with the voting ground rules greatly tilted in its favor, an almost certain big winner in any first round of parliamentary elections."

The Brotherhood tried to guarantee its advantage by making a side-deal with the military, but that aroused popular anger by the populace, which wants real democracy, not insiders' deals (11/24/11, editorial).

The U.S. urged Egypt's rulers to hasten the transition to civilian rule and democracy (NY Times, 11/26, A1), by which it means elections.

Let the Islamists take advantage of their organizational and financial superiority in a country that lacks civil society, a bill of rights, tolerance, and experience with self-governing? That does not foster democracy. It fosters Islamic dictatorship. This dictatorship will be worse for its people than the military's, worse for keeping out of war, and worse for U.S. defense against international jihad. The huge military that the U.S. paid Egypt to develop would be turned against non-Islamist countries, including U.S. allies. The U.S. and the newspaper are pursuing a policy bad for our country.

How stable is our own democracy, when the federal government and a leading newspaper do not know what democracy is, as they confuse it with one, unrestricted election?

How superficial and simplistic is the federal and New York Times supposition that getting an election going is the solution! Egypt has serious problems. Unfortunately, the military and Mubarak failed to address those problems. Democratic civilian rule might, if given a chance to develop. Islamist civilian rule would create other and worse problems.

Most countries would be wise to ban totalitarian movements dedicated not to expressing a viewpoint but to repressing all other viewpoints.

Note the pattern of U.S. interference in the Arab world, with the result that Radical Muslim enemies of the U.S. tend to dominate. This started before the current Administration, by aiding the PLO.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, November 26, 2011.

World's medical NGOs anything but neutral when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict


Israel was excluded from the International Red Cross for half a century because of the Star of David. Questioned for having denied entry to the Jewish state, Cornelio Sommaruga, then-head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, declared: "If we're going to have the Star of David, why would we not have to accept the Swastika?"

The historical injustice has been rectified only in 2006. Since then, the world medical organizations have been anything but neutral when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Over the past several months, three top officials from the Hamas terror group have set up shop at the International Red Cross office in east Jerusalem, in violation of the organization's alleged mandate of "political neutrality." Secret documents leaked by WikiLeaks also said that Iran used Red Cross ambulances to smuggle weapons into Lebanon during Hezbollah's 2006 war with Israel.

Recently, a new report by the Physicians for Human Rights, a group largely funded by the European Union, accused Israeli medics of abusing prisoners, calling the Jewish doctors "torturers." Médecins Sans Frontières, which won a Nobel Prize in 1999, just released a report charging Israeli authorities are "depriving Gazans of critical medicare."

The UN's World Health Organization in its latest report accused Israel of "lack of respect and protection for Palestinian ambulances" and asked to "put an end to the closure of the occupied Palestinian territory" and to the Gaza blockade. The UN agency also urged Israel "to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" and called on "all international human rights organizations to intervene on an urgent and immediate basis vis-à-vis the occupying power: Israel."

A case in point is how the Red Cross allocates personnel and budgets worldwide. For North Africa, the Red Cross has one office in Tunis. For "Israel/Occupied Territories/Autonomous Territories," the Red Cross has offices in Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Kalkilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza, Khan Yunis, Majdel Shams, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv.

Western newspapers, imbued with the ideological reports of medical NGOs, establish a comparison between the Palestinians and South Africa's blacks, who were critically injured and left to bleed to death if there was no "black" ambulance to rush them to a "black" hospital. Jewish altruism never finds its legitimate space in the global media because it doesn't fit in with the stereotype propagated by the medical NGOs.

This month, no Western journal reported on the story of Adi Weissbuch, a senior physician in the high-risk pregnancy unit of Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, who assisted an Iranian doctor with a pregnant woman suffering a rare defect. Similarly, nobody knows that Israel saved the life of the three-year-old daughter of Hamas Interior Minister, Elham Fathi Hammad, after she was the victim of a unsuccessful heart operation in Amman.

Hospital firebombed

It would be enough to stroll through the corridors of Israeli hospitals to understand how false the "apartheid" charge by medical NGOs is. Large Arab families stand with Israelis in the corridors of the maternity wards where one is born and in the oncology clinics where one dies. Through the private program "Save the heart of a child," the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon cures congenital cardiologic defects in Arab children from all over the world. About half the children it treats are from the nearby Palestinian areas and there have also been some from Iraq and Iran, both technically at war with Israel.

The organization's lead surgeon, Lior Sasson, said Palestinian parents sometimes seem "terrified" when they first arrive at the hospital. "Sometimes they (the parents) were brought up (to think) that the Jews are monstrous and they want to kill kids", said Sasson. Israeli medical statistics are constantly neglected by medical organizations. Last June, Israel's Magen David Adom ambulance service reported that it delivered at least one Palestinian baby every single month. In February, brain surgeons saved the life of a Gaza toddler. Meanwhile, the IDF announced that 180,000 Arabs from Palestinian areas have been treated in one year.

Medical organizations never blamed the Palestinians for attacks on Israeli hospitals. Hadassah University Medical Center on Jerusalem's Mount Scopus recently released a report, noting that it suffered 43 attacks by east Jerusalem Arabs in 2011. During the last "Nakba Day" events alone, 11 firebombs were thrown into the Mount Scopus campus.

The medical groups also didn't report that 10 Gaza hospitals were used by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead to shelter weapons and terrorists.

Today Magen David Adom vehicles do not enter the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem without police authorization and military escort. It's not because of the "apartheid," but rather, because terrorists tried to hit the doctors. During the Intifada, MDA had to replace the windows of its ambulances in the Jerusalem region with glass that does not shatter if hit by rocks.

Global silence when Israel hit

The Red Cross, the World Health Organization and medical NGOs never raised their voice when Palestinian bombs hit Israeli hospitals where Jewish doctors were saving the lives of Palestinians, such as the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon, where the wounded were taken during the war in Gaza.

Israeli doctors didn't ask for identification cards; they operated on everyone. If a Qassam were to hit the hospital, the "triumph" would be celebrated in Gaza without consideration for the Arabs being treated there. Barzilai coordinated the transfer of patients with Gaza's health services; this dialogue has never been interrupted, even when 100 rockets a day were falling on Sderot and Ashkelon. One of the Palestinian terrorists just exchanged for Gilad Shalit, Wafa al-Biss, was arrested before she used a permit for medical treatment in Israel to gain entry and blow up the hospital.

The political activism of such medical organizations severely damaged Israel's reputation in the world. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Red Cross employees in Tyre and Qana had fabricated an attack on an ambulance. A simple analysis of the photographs proved that the images used were those of an old ambulance damaged by rust and not by Israeli missiles and that a hole in the roof, actually in the middle of the cross (delicious symbolism,) was made by an artisan and not by an Israeli F16. And yet the Associated Press, Time, BBC, New York Times, Guardian and others had used this, together with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to accuse the Israeli army.

Today medical organizations such as the International Red Cross (which was shamelessly "neutral" and silent when it came to Nazi extermination camps during World War II) are anything but neutral when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, it's much more fashionable to wear a white coat and accuse the Jewish state of "crimes against humanity."

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist and author. His columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary. He graduated with a degree in philosophy at the University of Florence. He lives in Italy with his family. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him at This article was published in YNET News
( 0,7340,L-4153223,00.html).

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 26, 2011.

TOP: Special Design
BOTTOM: Escape

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at
Go to to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 25, 2011.

In 2008, during a presentation at a panel discussion on the Middle East conflict at Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, CA), a young Arab-American lady claiming to be a "Palestinian refugee" posed to the present writer the following question:

"Why can any 'Moishe Pipik' from Brooklyn go to live in Israel, but I, a child of Palestinian parents living in the USA, cannot go back to my ancestral homeland, Palestine, where our families lived since time immemorial?"

The response to that question may be useful to readers who find themselves confronted with similar questions by friends, relatives, colleagues, or others.

The first thing to note is that "Palestinians" have not been living in Palestine (now Israel) from time immemorial. Turkish and British records are clear that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants from the late 1850's onward due to the salutary effects of British colonial and Zionist developments from the mid-19th century onward. Groundbreaking work on the Arab historical demography of Palestine during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries has been done by Professor Justin McCarthy in his book The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (Institute for Palestine Studies Series), summarized here. McCarthy, not a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Zionist, writing for a Palestinian institute, demonstrates that the Arab population of Palestine almost quadrupled from c. 1855 to 1947. Only a tiny minority of Arabs can claim ancestral attachment to this territory, and even those claims are based solely on anecdotal accounts for which there is no empirical evidence.

Then one must recall that the Arab side started the war, and lost the war. Israel accepted the UN partition plan in 1947. The Arab states launched a war. When an aggressor loses a war because the victim country successfully repulses the aggression, and in doing so captures some of the aggressor's land, the disposition of that captured territory, and its inhabitants, must await a peace treaty between the belligerents. Refugees from the aggressor country have recourse to repatriation only in the context of a peace treaty. Most Arab countries have refused to make peace. It was Arab aggression that started the war. Had there been no war there would have been no refugees, and there would have been a state for the Palestinians since 1947.

Moreover, a careful analysis of the evidence from Arab sources indicates that the Arab side encouraged, and in some cases even forced c. 90% of the refugees to flee. Therefore the Arab leadership bears the onus of culpability for creating the problem, and thus the Arab side, and not Israel, bears responsibility for solving the problem. Because Israel was not threatening that 90% who fled, there is no legal claim for refugee status. Refugee status accrues to those who flee due to persecution or danger. Just as that 170,000 stayed and encountered no danger, so too could many hundreds of thousands more have stayed.

It was not Israel, but Arab countries' refusal to respond to Israel's call for peaceful negotiations that made it impossible for refugees to be repatriated. At the Rhodes Armistice talks in 1949, Israel offered reparations, resettlement assistance, and repatriation, but only in the context of peace treaties. The Arab leaders refused all talk of peace. Had there been peace, there could have been repatriation, and perhaps even the creation of a Palestinian state after the war. It was the Arab side that slammed the door on that option.

To the onus of culpability for creating and maintaining the refugee problem at the onset one must add the calumny of Arab states' exacerbating it for decades thereafter. Except for Jordan, Arab host countries denied citizenship to the refugees, locked them in barbed-wire camps, kept armed guards to prevent their leaving, and legislated laws against integration of refugees in to their host country. Lebanese law, for example, lists more than 70 professions in which the Arab refugees were prohibited from engaging. It is illegal for a Palestinian refugee to buy land in Lebanon. There is ample evidence from Arab sources that the Syrian government transported fleeing refugees, at gunpoint, in cattle cars to far-flung borders in 1949, in order to keep them away from Palestine, to thus prevent their repatriation, and to eternalize the "refugee problem."

But Arab guilt in stymieing any solution does not stop there. At the Lausanne conference of 1949, Israel offered unconditionally and unilaterally to repatriate 100,000 Arab refugees even without any peace accords. The Arab leaders refused.

Israeli offers of repatriation and reparation continued until June, 1967. The Arab side refused all offers. Not Israel, but the Arab refusal to countenance any possibility of peace treaties offered by Israel condemned the refugees to penury and homelessness.

Despite this criminal treatment of their brethren by Arab states, Israel succeeded in repatriating many. Between 1949 and June, 2005, Israel repatriated more than 127,000 Arabs who claimed refugee status, in the context of programs for family re-unification and spousal accommodation, or in programs where refugees sought asylum in Israel due to persecution in their host countries (usually Christian Arabs or homosexuals). Israel ended this policy in 2005 when it was discovered that Palestinian terrorists were using this policy to enter the country and gain Israeli citizenship, and with that the ID cards and automobile license plates which allowed them to travel freely around the country and perpetrate acts of terror.

While Israel was seeking resolution to the problem, Arab host countries exploited their refugees, keeping them as prisoners in refugee camps. Yasir Arafat describes, in his authorized biography, the brutal treatment of refugees in the Gaza Strip by the Egyptians. The Arab host countries did this in order to perpetuate the problem and use it as a moral bludgeon against Israel and Europe and the USA. Were it not for this unconscionable Machiavellian use of their own people's suffering for political gain, there might have been resolution to the problem decades ago.

International law weighs in on Israel's behalf. There is no refugee status for the second and following generations. There is no international law which accommodates demands of second or third generation children born of refugees who have relocated and resettled. Per international law, the status of refugee does not extend to the children and later generations of refugees once they are resettled elsewhere. Children and grandchildren of refugees have no legal or moral claims to property which they may claim to be ancestral. A relocated and resettled family is no longer a refugee family, and that family's children are not refugees. See "Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees," for a detailed discussion of this issue, with citations to international conventions and legal sources relating to refugees.

A further complexity is that the war has not ended! There is no sovereign nation in the world, and across all of world history, which could ever be expected to accommodate the influx of civilians from the population of a belligerent and hostile enemy WHILE THAT ENEMY IS STILL, DE IURE AND DE FACTO, AT WAR with that nation.

So Israel, as all sovereign states, accrues to itself the right to make whatever immigration laws it feels will most benefit the state and its citizens. It decided to decree a "right of return" to all Jews world-wide. Those laws offer special privileges for Jews. That is bias, indeed. But it is the same kind of bias that American minorities have enjoyed thanks to an accommodating, forward-looking and sensitive American society and government which declared that Affirmative Action was a moral enterprise worth pursuing to assist in righting the wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow and anti-Asian sentiments and misogyny.

Israel offers the same immigration options to non-Jews that Denmark offers to non-Danes; and it offers more generous and accommodating immigration options to Jews who wish to live there in order to right the wrongs of European and Islamic societies' millennia of oppression and repression and mass murder and pogroms and exiles and genocide of Jews. These laws inconvenience native-born Israelis of all religions — and that is unfortunate; but it is the price that they have agreed to pay in order to help the oppressed and disadvantaged and threatened Jews world-wide.

The Israeli "right of return" does indeed allow any "Moishe Pipik" from Brooklyn to enjoy the benefits that these laws offer to Jews even though this Moishe Pipik and most of his friends and family are not oppressed. The reason for this is because Israel has decided, for good reason, that in order for Israel to continue to exist and to serve as the Affirmative Action state for all Jews everywhere and anywhere any time and forever, it needs all the help it can get from Jews everywhere. So not-oppressed Jews are encouraged to come and live in Israel so that they can strengthen the state and contribute to its society, so that that state and society are there to help other Jews....for as long as Jews are oppressed elsewhere.

And for those who chaff at the idea of a "Jewish" state, it seems appropriate to ask: do you have the same problem with a Christian state such as Ireland, or an Islamic state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim states of Pakistan and Afghanistan and Azerbaijan and Tajikistan, not to mention the most Muslim of all: Saudi Arabia.

Since there is no problem with states self-defining as Islamic, why is there a problem with a state which self-defines as Jewish?

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative ( Contact him at This article appeared yesterday in FrontPage Magazine

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 25, 2011.

The Mufti and his good friend, Adolf Hitler

The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land. This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there. So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land.

Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion. There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc. This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted. For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here).

However, there is one testimony from an unimpeachable source stating that the Jews stole no land, but rather bought land in vast quantities from willing sellers who were the legal owners of the land that was sold. This unimpeachable source is so unarguably innocent of any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist sentiment that there can be no rational question regarding the veracity of his testimony. That source is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974).

El-Husseini was a key figure in the creation of the concept of Palestinian nationalism and the most high-profile leader of violent and incendiary opposition to Zionism from the 1920's onward, until the creation of the State of Israel rendered his leadership irrelevant. He used his powerful political and religious position as the Grand Mufti (supreme religious leader) of Jerusalem to promote Arab nationalism, incite violence against the British, and preach Jew-hatred and the annihilation of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. He was an ally of Hitler before and during World War I​I, recruited Muslim legions in Bosnia to serve on the eastern front in Hitler's Weirmacht, and developed full-blown plans for concentration camps in Palestine in imitation of the German "final solution." During the 1948 Israel-Arab war, he represented the Arab Higher Committee and rejected the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947 (for a brief biography of el-Husseini and a list of book-length biographies see here).

As the highest official representative of the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, el-Husseini was interviewed by the Palestine Royal Commission led by Earl William Robert Wellesley Peel, hence known as the Peel Commission.

The Peel Commission was a Royal Commission of inquiry sent to British Mandatory Palestine in November of 1936 for the purpose of examining and reporting on the causes of the Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine and suggesting possible resolutions. After months of research and interviews of major Zionist and Arab leaders, the Commission published its report in July of 1937. The report recommended a partition plan for separate Arab and Jewish states; but this plan was never implemented, although the Zionists accepted it, due to vociferous Arab opposition.

The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

"The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home​. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews...Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased...There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." The land shortage decried by the Arabs "...was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." (Chapter V in the report).

El-Husseini's interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission's notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman's The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.).

The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn't.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.

SIR I HAMMOND: I don't quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?

MUFTI: Land owners.


MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine's Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative ( Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 25, 2011.

Fayyad forgets his entity declared war on Israel. Declared that Israel has no right to exist. Therefore, Israel has no right or power to transfer any money to its declared enemy. Doesn't make any difference what name these arab intransigents use to identify themselves, they are the same arab intransigents who declared themselves the murders of Jews and the destroyers of Israel. Israel has no duty nor any obligation to aid its enemy in its quest to steal Israel's lands, kill Israel's people and lie like sacks of sh*t to the fatuous elderly Jew who currently fills the office of president of Israel.

Viva to the withholders of monies arab intransigents demand.

Elad Benari in Arutz Sheva wrote the article below:


The Palestinian Authority may soon fail financially and cease to exist, its prime minister warned on Thursday.

Salam Fayyad warned that if Israel does not resume the transfer of tax revenues it collects for the PA, the entity will collapse economically and thus cease to exist. Already now, Fayyad claimed, the PA cannot pay salaries to its employees.

Channel 10 News reported that Fayyad made the comments following a meeting with Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. According to the report, Fayyad said that the collapse of PA institutions "is advancing rapidly toward the point at which they will stop operating."

"We have no money," Fayyad was quoted as having said. "It's not about donations or international assistance we receive," he added, blaming the Israeli decision to freeze the taxes it collects for the PA as being the reason for the impending collapse.

A recent World Bank report, while admitting that the PA is undergoing a financial crisis, said the crisis was primarily due to the lack of donor countries fulfilling their pledges to fork over billions of dollars to Ramallah.

Israeli officials decided to halt the transfer of taxes to the PA as part of a round of sanctions against the entity, following its ascension as a 'full-member state' to UNESCO. Last week, Israel's cabinet voted to maintain the freeze. Israel transfers some $100 million in tax payments to the PA every month.

Foreign Minister Støre reportedly said Fayyad is correct in saying that the PA will soon cease to exist, and compared the Israeli decision to waterboarding, the method of torture used by the United States on security prisoners, when interrogators simulate drowning by pouring water on the head of the prisoner.

"This is waterboarding-style torture, only that it has to do with the economy," Støre was quoted as having said.

On Tuesday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to resume the transfer of taxes to the PA, saying that transferring tax money to the PA would be in line with Israel's legal obligations.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 25, 2011.


Which is gaining, civilization or barbarism? New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof believes that mankind is growing kinder and tolerant. He cites fewer wars, a smaller proportion of civilians killed in them, and less intolerance by race and gender. Education, he believes, has made a great difference (11/24/11).

The evidence adduced is genuine. Its meaning and scope is debatable.

Education is a necessary component of modern warfare and terrorism. The leading Islamist theoreticians and terrorist technicians often are educated and even are professionals.

Yes, armies of the U.S. and Israel inflict fewer casualties upon enemy civilians. But Enemy forces seek to inflict more civilian casualties. They are not kinder.

Certain societies have improved their gentility, but others have not. Europe doesn't want war any more, although the negative side of that is an inability to defend itself from barbarians. Females have equality in the U.S. but get raped extensively. Anarchy has been rising in the West, but a counter-reaction probably will keep it in check.

In the wider world, the release of colonialist control, the counter-productive "war on drugs," and the rise of Islam and Radical Islam have boosted barbarism.

In Africa, militias recruit children and murder whomever they come across, like army ants.

Drug lords threaten to take over whole countries.

Genocide lessened? Islam, especially in some countries, has a culture of violence, including genocide and revenge. Islam is fighting among itself over which faction controls, but launches infiltration and war in one country after another. Muslims allied to leftists are restricting freedom of speech in the West, as does phony political correctness.

What is the trend in Islam? Political weather forecasters mistake an Arab winter for an Arab spring. In Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, Radical Muslims are rising to the top. Mr. Kristof's newspaper and the Wall St. Journal can't wait for the Egyptian military to give way to elections in which the Islamists elect delegates to impose Islamic law on the whole country. The media calls that free elections; I do not. How free is it when the moderates have little organization and financing needed for competing, and once in, the Islamists are not likely to let themselves be voted out?

As the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq, Radicals will retake those countries and tighten their grip on Pakistan. The rise of the Radicals will counteract Western pressure that was eroding conservative Islamic oppression of women. Expect a rise of honor killings. More minorities will be driven out if not raped, robbed and murdered. Europe, itself, will be more imperiled. Its self-defense is hobbled by the absurd multiculturalism and political correctness practiced in the U.S., too, including by Mr. Kristof's newspaper.

Brutal foreign governments develop weapons of mass-destruction, dimming our prospect for the future. Mr. Kristof did not take that into his account. We can be as optimistic as he, if we will work hard to resist apostles of aggression.


Ethan Bronner reports, "Israel Halts Payments to Palestinians, Adding to Fiscal Woes."

Facts in the News Report: The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is red-inking it, again. Local P.A. banks have extended themselves their utmost. Foreign donors renege on pledges, especially in these hard financial times. Israel again is withholding tax and customs payments that ordinarily comprise two-thirds of the P.A. budget. Israel's non-transfer retaliates against the P.A. for pursuing UN membership and sharing power with Hamas.

Israel has withheld three weeks of transfer payments amounting to about $100 million. Foreign and P.A. officials consider such withholding capable of devastating the P.A. government and economy. A million residents depend on the P.A. payroll.

Indeed, steady pay, an improved standard of living, and tighter security may be what have kept the P.A. from experiencing the regime-challenging riots that other Arab governments have. On the other hand, if P.A. workers go unpaid and they are not satisfied about gaining independence, they would consider the P.A. incompetent. Private entrepreneurs would be discouraged from investing there.

Accordingly, U.S. officials, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Quartet envoy Blair all have asked PM Netanyahu to release the funds. Blair put it, "Only those who oppose peace and Israel-Palestinian cooperation benefit from the withholding of P.A. funds."

An Israeli official said that if the P.A.-Hamas unification is perfunctory talk and the P.A. pulls back from its drive in the UN, the money would be released. Another Israeli official cited disturbing actions by P.A. head Abbas as indicating Israel should withhold the funds. Abbas praised the kidnappers of the recently released Israeli soldier and refuses to ever recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also said nothing about the murder of an Israeli by a rocket fired from Gaza. And the P.A. joined UNESCO, a step toward full UN recognition.

What is Israel's responsibility for the sequestered funds? The Oslo Accords of 1994 mandate the transfer. Israel collects for the P.A. customs duties for goods reaching Israeli ports for trans-shipment to the P.A., value-added taxes for Israeli goods sold to the P.A., and excise taxes on fuel that P.A. Arabs buy from Israel. Israeli officials point out that the P.A. actions that prompted the withholding all violate the Oslo Accords. Why should they be held to compliance with Oslo if the P.A. is not?

The U.S. has suspended tens of millions of dollars in foreign aid to the P.A. for similar reasons.

The IDF is said to believe that Israel needs the P.A. to function, or else Israel would have to provide services to its residents, including police protection. An aide to PM Netanyahu agreed (New York Times,11/24/11, A20.

What the Report Omitted:

The P.A. budget is accepted as legitimate. It is not. The P.A. has a higher proportion of "police" than any other government. In addition, the P.A. hires people for make-work jobs, for political reasons. Foreign donors and Israel should not be expected to support aggressor forces and excessive welfare benefits in the P.A.

Although the U.S. and Israel pretend that only Hamas is bad and that they will not subsidize it, both subsidize it indirectly but definitely. From its own subsidy, Abbas turns a large portion over to the Hamas regime in Gaza. Therefore, U.S. and Israeli subsidy of the P.A. help finance the bloated bureaucracy in Gaza and Hamas control over Gaza.

The P.A. has thoroughly violated the Oslo Accords and in worse ways than the Report stated. The P.A. has made war on Israel. It has failed to dissolve its terrorist organizations and its indoctrination in bigotry against Jews and jihad against Israel. Indeed, Abbas constantly honors terrorists and seeks to undermine Israel even while Israel strives to boost his economy.

Contrary to what Tony Blair claims, I oppose subsidy for the P.A. but do not oppose peace. Accusing opponents of the P.A. of being enemies of peace is the usual anti-Israel propaganda club. Since the P.A. wants to conquer Israel and Abbas urges Arabs to make war on Israel, it would be fairer to say that some of those who favor subsidizing the P.A. oppose peace and that most of them are anti-Zionist. Among the anti-Zionists are Israeli military and civilian officials, who oppose Jewish residency in the Territories. Whom do they represent?

To clarify, it is Congress that is withholding U.S. subsidy of the P.A.. The State Dept. does not agree with Congress. The State Dept., however, has a history of anti-Zionism.

Why should the U.S. and Israel continue boosting the economy of such an obvious, mortal enemy? Could Israel be more foolish than continuing that policy? Oslo is used only to harm Israel. Why doesn't Israel declare it void, and advance its own rights and interests? In a mistaken response we are told that Israel is responsible for taking care of the P.A. Arabs. Israel is not responsible for them. An occupier would be responsible; Israel is not an occupier, not in its own homeland and where the Arabs did not have a state to be occupied. The legal status there is unallocated territory of the Palestine Mandate.

Israel could dissolve the P.A., annex Jewish communities in the Territories, and declare Arab communities autonomous. Sure that would mean hardship for the P.A.. That should be Israel's goal — defeat of the jihadists. Hundreds of thousands would move out, reducing pressure on the land and water and strategic borders. It also would diminish P.A. forces that the U.S. builds up and that, like the powerful military of Egypt, Islamists will turn on Israel.

What is wrong with U.S. and Israeli officials that they fail to see they are preparing jihadists for the next war on Israel?

Isn't Israel really entitled to value-added taxes for Israeli goods sold to the P.A., and excise taxes on fuel that P.A. Arabs buy from Israel? As for the customs duties, they should be confiscated to reimburse Israelis and the government of Israel for losses and defense expenses due to P.A. terrorism?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Haivri, November 25, 2011.

Thanksgiving is a good time to realize what really ticks off the haters of the Jews. And what it signifies for them.

There's no arguing that the Jewish people represent a very small percentage of the total world population, and that the State of Israel is a tiny spot on the map. If you take a standard classroom globe and try to find Israel, it will be a real effort. The country is so small that it can hardly be seen.

With all the talk internationally about the conflict betweenIsrael and the Arab states, you might expect to see some room for comparison, but in fact, the size of the Jewish state is 1/800 the size of the land controlled by the Muslim and Arab states around it.

But turn to any media outlet around the world, and chances are that you will hear them talk about Israel. This has been the case for at least the past 70 years. Why is that? What is so special about the Jews and Israel? What happened about 70 years ago and that landed Israel on center stage for the world — a place it has occupied continually, all that time?

It might be wise for us to try to figure this out, because this could be very significant for people everywhere.

Why do the Arabs dislike the Jews and the State of Israel in particular? Is it really just because Israel is "occupying" Arab land? With the odds stated above, that would be a little hard to accept.

Not only is Israel (including Judea and Samaria — a.k.a. the "West Bank") a very tiny portion of the Middle East, but also, this tiny strip of land called Israel has found virtually no natural resources in its ground. Israel is struggling to provide water for its inhabitants. The land has no oil or precious stones. Only recently has gas been found far offshore in the Mediterranean Sea — a project that still calls for much development.

Could it be that that lack of natural resources just magnifies the astonishment of the world and the envy of our Arab neighbors? From even before its establishment, Arab states and terrorist groups have tried tirelessly to bring an end to Israel, physically. The regional rallying cry to "Throw the Jews in to the Sea!" has drifted into hopeless dreamland for the anti-Israel Arabs.

What really ticks off the haters of the Jews is that it seems clearer and clearer that something almost magical sustains the Jews in the most difficult of times and pushes them to success and innovation where others would have given up. They scratch their heads and ask themselves, "Maybe G-d does exist, and He does have a special covenant with the Jews . . ." How else can this thriving survival be explained? They settled a desert and made it blossom; they dried out the swamps and built cities; they turned a start-up country into an international leader in hi-tech and innovation — all of this with the threat of annihilation and need to develop a regional super power defense system".

It is just incredible. But it is also a simple fact that the world needs to deal with.

Rightfully, they watch with awe and ask, "How could this be?"

But we Jews must also look at this amazing reality and ask ourselves, "Why is this happening? And what does it demand of us as a nation and as individuals? Is there a reason that the G-d of history has put us on center stage? Is there something for which we are to use this platform? Perhaps a message to relay to the world whose eyes are on us from morning to night?"

The answer is "Yes." G-d did not place the Jewish people in this situation by chance. There is a higher plan. The Creator chose the Jewish people and elevated them from the depths of the exile to the amazing accomplishment of the establishment of the State of Israel against all odds in order to prove to the world that He exists. He glorifies His name though the deeds of His people.

The Jewish people have been placed on the center stage of history at this time in order to carry out the holy task of being a light unto the nations. We need to acknowledge that all of this greatness has come about by way of an agreement put in place many years ago between our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and G-d Himself. This land with all its hardships was given to our people in order to provide a platform for the Jews to declare, "G-d exists and the Torah is true!"

The nations naturally and subconsciously look to Israel and its people for that message and for direction. The mission of the Jewish people is to be leaders for the people of the world and a light unto the nations.

Jews, the time has come — turn the lights on, please.

David Ha'ivri heads The Shomron International Liaison Office. He deals with foreign press, tours, partnerships and philanthropy for the development of the Jewish communities in the Shomron. He is a strategic advisor to Mayor Gershon Mesika. He and his wife Mollie live in Kfar Tapuach with their eight children.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 24, 2011.

The AP article on November 14th spoke of Great Britain's Prince William, second in line to the throne, being deployed to Las Malvinas.

The latter largely became known as the Falkland Islands the same way that Judea and Samaria became renamed the "West Bank" a result of British imperial shenanigans.

To distinguish the western part of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine from the Emirate of Transjordan the Brits created in 1922 for their Arab allies on the east bank of the Jordan River (some 80% of the total area), the name "West Bank" came into use. This was further reinforced after Transjordan grabbed that non-apportioned area of the Mandate for itself after it invaded a re-born Israel in 1948. Holding both banks of the river, the Emirate renamed itself Jordan soon afterward.

If there is a difference, it's that long before there was either an Argentina or Great Britain, Jews were living, making history, and changing the world forever in the moral and spiritual legacy they left behind in Judea and Samaria.

David was born in Bethlehem and was crowned King of Israel in Hebron and had children there. He would later make Jerusalem his capital — over three millennium ago. Jerusalem is mentioned over six hundred times in the Hebrew Bible — not even once in Arab Islam's Qur'an.

Earlier, Abraham made Hebron known to the world in the first place by purchasing a burial plot there for many of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people. Hannah dedicated her son, Samuel, to the service of G_d in the care of the High Priest, Eli, in Shiloh, and G_d renewed the promise of the Promised Land to Abraham's grandson, Jacob, at Bethel. Jacob made peace with his brother, Esau, at Penuel and by doing so was thus transformed by G_d into his higher self — Israel — in the process.

The oldest known version of Biblical scripture ever found was located in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in the Judean Wilderness, and the Jews held off the mighty Roman Empire for years at the fortress of Masada. The list goes on...

All of those places above are in Judea.

While most of the world was still worshiping stone idols and practicing human sacrifice and fertility rights, the Jews — despite their own imperfections — were spreading the knowledge of an ethical G_d who demands justice, loves mercy, and commands that man should love his neighbor as himself to the rest of mankind.

Have you ever wondered why Jews are so disproportionately represented in movements for human rights and social betterment throughout history? Look no further than what you just read above. They have indeed been — as G_d instructed them to be millennium ago in Zion — "a light unto the nations."

So, Royal Air Force pilot, Prince William, has now set off to defend Her Majesty's claim to islands almost 8,000 miles away from home — land first acquired almost two centuries ago. At the same time, the Brits were expanding their empire far and wide elsewhere as well. Think about that a bit when you consider London's finger wagging at Jews simply wanting to live beyond the 9 to 15-mile wide ghetto of a state Israel was left as via the 1949 armistice lines which the Brits — and others — now expect Israel to return to.

When Jews dig in the soil of Judea, Samaria, and Israel — despite their forced exile, Diaspora, and forced Arabization of the land and its people after the Jihad invasions of Muhammad's successors in the 7th century C.E. — Jews continuously find their own roots and history. They are indeed home...

What do the Brits find when they dig on the Falklands? Or the Russians in Chechnya? Or the United States in Samoa?

Yet all of those (and many more) nations' leaders act as if Jews are being unreasonable when they claim that they should once again be allowed to live in East Jerusalem and elsewhere — where Jews indeed owned land and lived up until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s.

Regardless of the conflicting Argentinean and British claims to the territory Prince William is now assigned to, the plain fact is that the archipelago sits a few hundred miles off the coast of Argentina — and thousands of miles away from Great Britain. Yet the latter fought a war and acquired them in the first place in the name of its own sovereignty.

Judea and Samaria are in Israel's backyard.

Keep all of this in mind in light of the hypocrisy and double standards which Israel will undoubtedly continue to be subjected to in the days which lie ahead.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at or go to his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 24, 2011.

Mitt Romney appointed Walid Phares, "a Lebanese-American Christian, adjunct professor of jihadist global strategies at the National Defense University, and former Middle East studies professor at Florida Atlantic University" as his special adviser on the Middle East and North Africa.

Prof. Phares "advocates pluralism as the most effective means of triumphing over extremism, tribalism, and Islamic supremacism in the Middle East." He does not blame America, Israel, Christians, and Jews for these problems. He finds that despite jihadist wars, U.S. academia has been infiltrated by people who refuse to teach the real history and politics of the jihadists.

The appointment brought out howls of protest by Islamists. For example, "Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding case and the chief Islamist organ in the U.S." stated CAIR's objections, the usual calumny.

"California State University, Stanislaus political science professor and 'Angry Arab' blogger As'ad AbuKhalil, writing for," attributed the appointment to the Israel lobby. To get an idea of AbuKhalil's fanaticism, he even accused Pres. Obama [an Israel-basher, himself] "of giving 'free reign to the Zionist lobby.'" AbuKhalil told al Jazeera we never would recognize the "Zionist Sate of Israel. He would celebrate its demise.

Although AbuKhalil falsely describes Phares' time in Lebanon as a right-wing, Christian militant, AbuKhalil "is known in the Lebanese and Middle Eastern American communities as the mouthpiece of Hassan Nasralla in the world of petrodollar-funded Middle East Studies."

Then there is Ebrahiom Mossa, associate professor of Islamic studies at Duke University. He accused Phares of hostility to Muslims. [That is the standard Islamist counter-attack against criticism of Islamist imperialism and intolerance.] To gauge his lack of objectivity on hostility to Muslims, consider that Prof. Moosa had told the "Charlotte Observer in February 2010 that 'Wahhabism is like the Baptists; it's kind of a denomination of sorts that started out in Saudi Arabia." [Wahhabism is one of the three main fonts of terrorism, the others being the Moslem Brotherhood and Iran, perhaps also the Taliban.] Similarly, Moosa, speaking at a University of California, Berkeley workshop in May 2011, and as described by journalist Stephen Schwartz, "defended Deobandism, the madrassa-based radical ideology that inspires the Taliban.'"

Unlike those anti-Western professors, Prof. Phares is not biased. He neither hates Muslims nor fawns on Israel. He and the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), where he often lectures, are a necessary alternative to the Middle Eastern Studies Association, which is a vehicle for anti-Western professors and bias against Israel and does not welcome him (Cinnamon Stillwell, American Thinker, the_middle_east_studies_establishment_ vs_walid_phares.html,

Note: Congress subsidizes the Middle Eastern Studies centers of many universities. The subsidy started in the hope of gaining valuable advice for national policy. Instead, those centers for subversion give poor or hostile advice and have helped subvert U.S. higher education. But the subsidy rolls on.

In the meantime, Americans would be wise to dismiss the diatribes of U.S. Islamists and professors in Middle Eastern Studies centers and perhaps to dismiss its agents of anti-Western jihad. That would be a war measure for national defense.

We should welcome Gov. Romney's hiring of an informed and objective adviser. He contrasts strongly with President Obama, all of whose advisers on the Mideast are anti-Israel. Pres. Obama's policies, by design or by default, often are anti-American. He refuses to mount an ideological defense against Radical Islam or even to name it as the enemy. He shrinks U.S. military and economic power. He withdraws U.S. forces, leaving Iran more influential and enabling Radical Muslims to return. He helps topple despots who kept Islamists at bay. He consults with Radical Muslims and ignores Muslim reformists. In general, he insults and harms allies and praises or appeases America's enemies.

P.S.: In calling Prof. Phares a "scholar," I differentiate him from the radical professors mentioned, because they are not scholars but propagandists and enemy ones at that, posing as scholars. My praise of Romney is just on the issue discussed, but my criticism of Obama is comprehensive in scope.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 24, 2011.

Only days before parliamentary elections, Egypt is in a huge crisis whose outcome will determine the future of almost 80 million people and perhaps the Arabic-speaking world's fate for decades to come.

Will the army go ahead with elections that will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Salafist groups, thus producing an Islamist regime?

Or will it cancel elections, declare martial law in some form, and set off a passionate civil conflict?

Or will it find some compromise that quiets the disorder but doesn't solve the problems (see below for the proposed new deal)?

That's quite a difficult choice and not one the army prefers. Understandably, the military has a third alternative: set up some compromise rules for the new Egyptian state that leave it feeling secure even if this plan sacrifices a lot of other factors.

The nominal cause of this upheaval are the demonstrations in Tahrir square that have produced a bloodier tool than any single event in the entire Egyptian revolutionary process, with more than 30 people dead. But the real background is this:

Despite the persistent mocking of Western officials, media, and "experts" about the Muslim Brotherhood's weakness and moderation, it has become increasingly apparent that a very radical Muslim Brotherhood will take power and fundamentally transform Egypt into something far worse than that which existed during the six-decades-long Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak regime.

The army's compromise went along the following lines:

A parliament would be elected on November 28. In April 2012 it would choose a 100-member assembly to write a new constitution, a process that would take one year. After the constitution was written by April 2013 it would be ratified. Only then, in the second half of 2013, would a president be elected and the military junta stand aside and yield executive authority.

So much for the delaying aspects of the plan; there were also provisions for protecting the military's interests. It would retain control of its own budget, which would remain secret; moreover the junta could veto the constitution entirely or in part. And finally, though vaguely, it wanted some provisions to protect rights including those of the Christian minority. The last item presumably was out of concern with the country's international reputation.

The junta's position is a combination of greed and its self-image as guardian of Egypt's national interest. Officers enrich themselves by large-scale business enterprises.

At the same time, they are no doubt aware of the likelihood that an Islamist regime would eventually purge the army and arrest officers — as is happening in Turkey, the explicit model for the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy — and replace them with its ideological followers. They also might take into account that the Brotherhood is likely to get Egypt into a losing war with Israel and take steps that would cost the military hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid.

Now this clash in itself has added still another dimension. It is said that if you wound an elephant you have to kill it as otherwise the enraged leviathan will trample you. The Brotherhood now sees the military as an enemy and if it comes to power would have all the more incentive to crush that rival.

There are no good options. As the two sides maneuver here are the precedents that must affect their thinking:

Algeria: In 1991, the Islamists won the first round of elections and were headed for a landslide victory. The army declared a state of emergency and canceled the elections. A long and bloody civil war ensued in which to say that only 30,000 people were killed is an understatement. In the end, the military won.

Turkey: For almost a decade the army stood aside and let the Islamists win repeated elections and govern as they wished. The generals considered a coup attempt but never tried one as they knew there would be no external support and it might set off a civil war. In the end, the Islamists accused them of planning a coup anyway, broke the power of the military, and arrested dozens of current and former high-ranking officers.

Tunisia: The army stood aside and let the Islamists win an election. They will now govern in a coalition with the left. It is unclear what will happen and what the military thinks about the situation.

As you can see, the alternatives are unattractive and we don't know what will happen. The West is siding with the civilians: democratic rule, elections, a military regime is bad. See for example the somewhat bizarre Washington Post editorial that attacks the Obama Administration for being too soft on the generals! It demands that Obama threaten to cut off military aid unless the junta gives in. This is a misreading of the White House stance that is critical of the junta but doesn't want to get directly involved.

That makes sense in normal conditions but might be disastrous on a strategic level. We've been through this kind of thing before in which the supposed good becomes the worse of two evils.

The Bush Administration supported Hamas participating in the Palestinian election out of some sense of misguided fairness plus depending on fantasy-laden Fatah polls predicting that Hamas would lose. The Bush and Obama administrations stood by and cheered the "moderate Islamists" in Turkey as they moved step by step to install and strengthen an anti-American regime there.

In contrast, regarding Algeria the presidents at the time took a realpolitik view, arguably maintaining their distance and neutrality while in practice supporting the military's victory. France did the dirty work, something that doesn't apply to these contemporary situations.

The attitude of the moderate Egyptian parties is interesting. On one hand, they are totally against the military retaining power or even a lot of power; on the other hand, they are starting to get real scared about what it would be like to live in an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood and even more violent Islamists. They are pulling back a bit from taking sides in this struggle.

After meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups (but not the liberals who were left out, an indication of how insignificant they are becoming politically!), the junta has a new proposal: The new constitution is set to be finished by June 2012 (not April 2013) and the presidential election will be held no later than June 2012 (instead of June 2013). The parliamentary elections will happen as scheduled.

If this is so and it is implemented, it means that the Islamists have forced the military to back down completely, a victory that will add to their confidence that they will get everything they want. Arguably, Egypt is even worse off now than it was a week ago. Perhaps, though, there are other aspects to the deal we haven't heard about yet.

Having cut its own deal, the Brotherhood stopped participating in anti-government demonstrations. "The Brotherhood refused to join the protests, saying that the parliamentary election due to start Nov. 28 is the way to transfer power." Right, transfer it to them.

This was written by Barry Rubin, who 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 Contact him at This appeared in PJMedia egypt-muslim-brotherhood-versus-army- disastrous-elections-or-bloody-civil-war/

To Go To Top

Posted by Isi Leibler, November 24, 2011.

It is inconceivable that neighborhoods like Ramot, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Givat Ze'ev will ever be seceded from Israel.

The ongoing pressures exerted against construction in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem like Gilo reflect intensified global efforts to redivide the city.

Like many aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the issue of Jerusalem is being reviewed in a vacuum without relationship to the reality on the ground. It also overlooks the abominable restrictions on freedom of worship in the eastern part of the city between 1948 and 1967 when the city was occupied by Jordan. Jewish holy sites, including the 2000 year-old Jewish cemetery t the Mount of Olives were desecrated, with tombstones used to build latrines.

In the Old City, all 58 synagogues were razed to the ground, including the ancient Hurva synagogue.

Abdulla el-Tal, Jordan's military governor of the Old City and an uninhibited anti-Semite, proudly proclaimed that "for the first time in 1,000 years, not a single Jew remains in the Jewish quarter... and as not a single building remains intact, this makes the return of the Jews here impossible."

Christians were also maltreated, with over 60 percent of them emigrating from Jerusalem during that period.

Yet, since the reunification of the city in 1967 following Israel's victory over the combined Arab assault, complete freedom of religion was immediately extended to all citizens of Jerusalem.

In addition, universities, hospitals and social service facilities provided absolutely equal services to Jew and Arab alike. One need only visit any of the major hospitals in Jerusalem to verify the extraordinary high standard of health benefits that unification provided for Arab residents.

IRONICALLY, JEWS today are the ones being discriminated against by their own government in their own capital. In 1967, immediately after the liberation of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan effectively handed over the keys of the Temple Mount to the Muslim Waqf (religious authority), who retained total control and jurisdiction over this extensive area which includes the holiest Jewish site in the world. It proved to be a disastrous blunder.

That situation was further aggravated by the rabbinate, which on halachic grounds prohibited Jews from visiting the holy site. However, today many national religious rabbis maintain that Jews are entitled to visit most of the area and even consider it a mitzva to pray there.

But on a recent visit to the Temple Mount, I was astonished to observe the bizarre spectacle of Jews being bundled off by Israeli police in co-operation with the Wakf for quietly engaging in private prayer. I was informed that some Jews who were seen praying are permanently prohibited from visiting the area. This is scandalous.

For Israeli police to deny Jews the right to pray at their holiest site in their own capital because it offends Muslim sensitivities is surely outrageous. It amounts to practicing inverse discrimination, denying the same freedom of worship to our own people which we take pride in guaranteeing to others.

This chaotic arrangement also provided fuel to Palestinians to initiate a massive exercise in historical revisionism in order to bolster their false narrative. They are now frenziedly attempting to deny the Jewish links to Jerusalem and make the preposterous allegation that the Jewish relationship to Jerusalem was effectively a Zionist fabrication designed to justify the "invasion" of Palestine. It is a form of revisionism no less obscene than Holocaust denial and has emerged as a central tenet of hostile Palestinian nationalism.

As late as the 1930s, Muslim Council guidebooks identified Solomon's Temple on the site. But those references were expunged in 1954 in favor of a new historical "narrative."

In 2000, Arafat stunned then-US president Bill Clinton at Camp David by declaring that "Solomon's Temple was not in Jerusalem. It was in Nablus." On another occasion he said it was in Yemen.

Others, like Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erekat, alleged that "the issue of the Temple... is a Jewish invention lacking any basis."

PA President Mahmoud Abbas now repeatedly dismisses any Jewish link to the Holy Land and the PA Ministry of Information website describes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem as a "biblical myth." Even the "moderate" Sari Nusseibeh claimed that "the historical ties and attachments of the Palestinians precede any Israeli claim to Jerusalem."

These expressions were recently extended to even include denial of a Jewish link to the Western Wall.

Only last week, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayib, head of Cairo's al-Azhar University and the principal global religious authority for Sunni Muslims, warned that the continued "Judaization" of Jerusalem, which he claimed had originally been constructed by Arabs, would result in the annihilation of "the Zionist entity in Palestine."

In addition, we are witnessing a systematic, ongoing course of wanton destruction in which bulldozers have been employed on the Temple Mount by the Palestinian Wakf in order to eliminate ancient Jewish archaeological evidence. But despite protests and expressions of outrage from most Israeli archeologists, the government has refused to intervene.

The links of the Jewish people to Jerusalem are at the very core of our national and spiritual history and identity.

For over 2,000 years of exile we yearned and prayed for a return to Jerusalem, and since 1800 Jews have constituted the majority of the population of Jerusalem.

IT IS noteworthy that Yitzhak Rabin, in what proved to be his last Knesset speech before being assassinated, pledged that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

Yet the sad truth is that in addition to condemning any construction in Jewish Jerusalem as "undermining the peace process," neither the United States nor the Europeans have even recognized Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem.

There is no doubt that were any areas of Jerusalem ever to fall under Palestinian jurisdiction, the despicable discriminatory practices applied by the Jordanians until 1967 would be reintroduced. Abu Mazen [Abbas] has already publicly proclaimed that not a single Jew would be permitted to live in any future Palestinian state.

It is also inconceivable that neighborhoods like Ramot, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Givat Ze'ev will ever be seceded from Israel. No power could evacuate over 100,000 Jews from these areas.

Interestingly, a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion demonstrated that 59 percent of Arab residents in Jerusalem were satisfied with their standard of living and that the majority strongly objected to dividing the city and living under PA jurisdiction. In fact, as many as 40% stated that if the city was divided, they would prefer to move to an Israeli neighborhood rather than fall under the authority of the corrupt Palestinian Authority and possibly eventually find themselves under Hamas control.

Our take: It's not that the Arabs wish to be part of Israel. The main reason for wishing to remain under Israeli-Jewish sovereignty is the benefits they receive; Blue ID cards that allow these people to travel anywhere in Israel,medical & health benefits, welfare payments ...and no one stops them from declaring they are loyal to the " Palestine cause" or participate in the Naqba very Israeli Independence day. Isi Leibler was involved in the struggle for Soviet Jewry. From Australia, he made aliya in 1999. He has held senior roles in the World Jewish Congress, including chairman of the governing board and senior vice president. He is a regular columnist for The Jerusalem Post and Yisrael Hayom. Contact him by email at and visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Nidra Poller, November 24, 2011.

State-owned France 3 TV channel's evening newscast had a longish item about revolt in Egypt (beginning at the 7:09 mark), focused this time on juvenile demonstrators. With the typical gushing enthusiasm displayed by the media since they started marketing the Arab Springtime, the blond female journalist sang the praises of these minors who were palming rocks and shooting somber shabab glances at the camera. A man identified as a 33 year-old tour guide who had quit his job [sic] and was now living and protesting full time in Tahrir Square was their spokesman... perhaps their handler. "They are so courageous," he boasted, "if they get cut on the forehead they'll go and get it bandaged and come right back and fight." The report went on aimlessly. There isn't really much to be said about all this hair trigger rage multiplied by the hundreds of thousands. And reporters just keep saying whatever comes to mind, or whatever everyone is saying. An aerial camera pans over the multitude from a safe distance. And you wonder how anyone can claim to know who these people are and what they want.

Isn't that the difference between democracy and a mob?

Occasionally a journalist, most often female, delves into the mob, finds her angle, and works it to the bone. Her cameraman swiftly averts his lens when it comes upon a gaggle of veiled women or bearded men. The journalist scoops up three or four or a dozen of some kind of people and lets them speak for the multitude.

This evening it was the kids. As the French reporter, Caroline Sinz, was winding down, I noticed a contingent of boys and men closing in on her from behind. It seemed that one young man in a black tee shirt was holding them back. Was he a body guard? A good Samaritan? Or a sleazy dude ready to close in?

Back in the studio the newscaster mentioned almost casually that Caroline Sinz and her cameraman were attacked by the kids they had just filmed. A bit later the newscaster on the sister channel France 2 laconically mentioned that two France 3 journalists were attacked in Cairo.

Here's what actually happened, as reported in le Figaro newspaper:

Caroline Sinz declares that she and her cameraman Salah Agrabi were filming on Mohamed Mahmoud Street — that goes from Tahrir Square to the Interior Ministry — when they were assaulted by teenage boys. They molested her, and dragged both of them to Tahrir Square where they were separated. "We were attacked by a crowd of men. I was beaten by a mob of boys and men who tore off my clothes and molested me... it can be defined as rape."

A few people tried in vain to help her. "I was lynched. It lasted about forty-five minutes. I thought I was going to die." The cameraman was also beaten. Finally some Egyptians in the Square were able to rescue them. Sinz returned to her hotel where she was given assistance by the French embassy before seeing a doctor.

[an update will follow as more information emerges]

Nidra Poller is a journalist based in Paris. Contact her at This article appeared in New English Review blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/39174

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2011.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not remotely convinced, nor should he be:

In certain quarters of the international community the idea is being promoted that a peace treaty hastily negotiated between Israel and the PA would have a mollifying effect on the unrest in the Arab world. EU Ambassador to Israel Andrew Standley, for example, said at a Jerusalem press conference yesterday that Israel should move quickly to settle with the Palestinians to remove this conflict as an issue on the Egyptian street.

Failure to move ahead on negotiations, he declared, should not be allowed to become an additional "disturbing factor" in the Arab world.


Now, really. This is a spin off of the arguments the Obama administration was making some while ago. The notion that a peace treaty between Israel and the PA, or lack thereof, is an issue of major importance within the Arab world is a myth that has no legs to stand on.

While I would never go as far as to state unequivocally that this issue is never mentioned on the Egyptian street — although when it is, it is more as a function of anti-Israel sentiment than because of genuine concern for the Palestinian Arabs — it clearly is not center stage. The Egyptians are engaged in conflict about the future of their own nation.

As Boaz Bismuth, reporting for Israel Hayom writes, while there had been a sense of enthusiasm and unity expressed by the mobs in Tahrir Square when Mubarak was overthrown, "This time around, Egypt is divided, disappointed, not expecting anything, scared, violent, opportunistic and in terrible pain." It's the military regime against the street, which has not been satisfied with promises of elections and reforms. The Muslim Brotherhood is joining forces with Salafists, says Bismuth, to gain control.

In the course of this struggle, Israel is occasionally being vilified on the street because we are perceived as being allied with the military regime: "Israel is no friend of the Egyptian people. They support the army that is shooting at us."

Well, it's true. The military regime has maintained the peace treaty — something the Muslim Brotherhood might well not do — and has sustained a relationship with Israel in spite of rocky moments. That radical jihadists should replace the regime that is currently welcoming back our ambassador is our worst nightmare with regard to Egypt.

Were Netanyahu to sit down at a table across from Abbas, it would change none of this. It's the old story of the onus being placed unreasonably on Israel.


Not only does Netanyahu understand this, he grasps the fact that our rushing to negotiations with the PA at this juncture (which at a minimum would mean stopping all construction outside the Green Line and agreeing to that line as the basis for negotiations) would play against Israel's best interests.

In two statements within the last couple of days, he made it clear that making concessions at a time of uncertainty would not be a wise move.

"Last February I stood on this stage," he told the Knesset, "as millions of Egyptians took to the streets of Cairo, and my friends in the opposition explained that this is a new time of liberalism and modernity. When I said that, despite our hopes, it's more likely that an Islamist, anti-America, anti-Israel wave will come, I was told that I'm trying to scare people and that I don't understand where things are going.

"Well, things are going somewhere. They're going backwards, not forwards. I'm looking at reality, not hopes and wishes."

Netanyahu warned that, "We can't know who will end up with any piece of territory we give up. Reality is changing all the time, and if you don't see it, your head is buried in the sand." It was clear, he said, that his "careful attitude was correct, smart and responsible." Israel is facing regional instability.


Before turning to other, albeit related, issues, I want to make one other point with regard to Egypt. This is from Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.

Egypt's economy, he warns, is in dire shape:

"Since this spring, in a development largely unnoticed by the outside world, the Egyptian economy has virtually imploded...

"Just how bad is the situation? A telling assessment was recently provided by Ahmed al-Borai, Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the country's transitional government. 'Egypt is currently passing through a critical period and on the brink of bankruptcy,' the Egyptian daily Al-Masry al-Youm reports al-Borai telling an investment conference in Alexandria in early October. '[Egypt's] losses are growing day by day.' The forecast, according to al-Borai, is dire. 'Either we band together and change the current situation, or let Egypt be destroyed.'

" least in the case of Egypt, the 'Arab Spring' hasn't netted prosperity at all. Rather, it has produced the kind of economic malaise that predisposes societies to seek relief by embracing authoritarian central control. That, in turn, could be a boon to illiberal elements — including the country's main Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now organizing to dominate upcoming parliamentary polls to the detriment of its secular rivals." egypt-dire-economy


One is hard put to understand why this has been largely ignored by a host of media analysts, especially as this unquestionably has to be a source of the unrest on the street.

Berman does not see the situation as hopeless: "New infusions of foreign capital from Western stakeholders, if judiciously disbursed and pegged to real economic and political reforms, could begin to reverse the country's current, ruinous course — or, at least, provide Egypt's government with much-needed breathing room to begin putting its economic house in order."


And yet one other thought occurs to me. A nation that close to bankruptcy literally cannot afford to wage war.


After two hours of talks in Cairo today, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and head of the Hamas politburo Khaled Mashaal emerged with glowing statements regarding a new partnership.

Enthused Mashaal:

"We want to assure our people and the Arab and Islamic world that we have turned a major new and real page in partnership on everything do to with the Palestinian nation."

While Abbas declared:

"There are no more differences between us now. We have agreed to work as partners with joint responsibility."

No more differences indeed. That's pure PR hype. What matters now is not these glib words, but what follows in terms of true understandings. There is no announcement at this point regarding composition of the joint government, or — most critically — of the identity of the projected new prime minister.

Seems that individual has not yet been selected — his identity will be determined in meetings in December. Also still to be discussed are the restructuring of the security forces of each group, and changes to the PLO — to which Hamas does not now belong but which it seeks in time to control.

What this means, then, is that the "new partnership" could yet founder as the hard issues are confronted. But if this cooperation does proceed, there will a considerable shift in what has been the situation to date.


A key issue will be that of funding for this new Palestinian Arab entity-in-the-making.

Abbas, with his UN/UNESCO gambits of the last few months, had already generated a reluctance to provide the PA with funds. Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) — enormously irked by his counterproductive actions — had put a hold on US funds to the PA. Under truly incredible pressure, she removed the hold. However, it is impossible for me to conceive of a situation in which the PA-Hamas jointly would receive US funding; what is more, EU funding would likely be cut as well.


With regard to US funding of the PA, I draw particular attention to the on-going funding and training of the so-called PA security forces. When moves have been made to stop funding to the PA, the protest was often heard that the one program that should not be cut was the training of the forces.

But this has been an error of colossal proportions. Two years ago I wrote a major report analyzing the dangers of this program. The forces were being trained to take on terrorists — notably Hamas. But, I asked in 2009, how could this training be done when its US sponsors could not be sure at the end of the day who would control these forces. And now we have a situation in which there may be a "restructuring" of PA-Hamas forces, such that Hamas may end up commanding the very forces that were supposed to act against it.

Abbas has said he would join Hamas in a "resistance" government; Hamas has said there would be no recognition of Israel or agreements with Israel. If a joint PA-Hamas security force should be formed and decide to take on Israel, it will be better trained and better equipped than it otherwise would have been thanks to the stupidity of the Americans promoting this program.

If I could see this possibility coming, why could they not? Because they were invested in the program, and were wearing blinders — the blinders many don when dealing with the Palestinian Arabs.


Israel, for her part, decided to withhold tax revenues collected for the PA, in response to the recent UNESCO acceptance of "Palestine," which had been requested by Abbas. Pressure within the international community was then promoted by Abbas to get Israel to release the funds — most notably a demand in this regard from UN Secretary-General Ban. This past Sunday, the Cabinet voted not to release the funds pending the outcome of today's meeting between Abbas and Mashaal. I do not believe that money will be seen by the PA any time soon.


Another change we would witness would be — I must assume — a cessation of demands that Israel rush to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Arabs. Israel, for her part, has made it very clear that this possibility should not even be entertained if there is a unity government.

The recent demands by persons such as the EU's Standley that we rush to the negotiating table were made before today's meeting in Cairo. But it was known that the meeting was pending. Makes the demands on Israel rather incredible. Unless there was some unspoken hope that by making requisite concessions with all possible speed we might lure Abbas from meeting with Mashaal. Sorry guys.


The last change I would fervently hope to see would be definitive action on the part of Israel with regard to finally recognizing that Oslo is truly, truly dead. Maybe application of civil law to all communities in Judea and Samaria, for starters.


With regard to the application of Israeli civil law in Judea and Samaria:

The Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights has just announced that "The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel" by Salomon Benzimra has been published in Kindle format via Amazon. Please see their website for full information on how to access this material, which "is the result of extensive research on the historical events and legal documents that enshrined Israel's Legal Rights in international law."


Former head of the Mossad, Danny Yatom, speaking yesterday at a security conference at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies came out firmly in favor of Israel hitting Iran:

"As difficult a price it may be [if Iran is hit], and even if those predicting apocalyptic results are correct — and I don't think they are — this is still not as bad as the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb."

Israel can't allow herself to be put in the position of having "to wake up every morning and ask, 'Will they go crazy and throw a bomb on us or not?'...the damage that an Iranian nuclear bomb can cause is so great."

As to the rocket response from Hamas and Hezbollah, he predicted that Israel's response would be 'so painful and crushing that rockets will come to an end.

"Civilian facilities and infrastructures in Lebanon and Gaza will be hit...But the barrage of rockets will no longer be falling over our heads." Article.aspx?id=246745


See this article about attempts by the PA — acting as a full member of UNESCO — to get this UN agency to declare the Cave of the Patriarchs (the Machpelah), Judaism's most ancient site, to be a World Heritage site belonging only to the Palestinians. unesco-fueling-cultural-c_b_1104733.html


While it's business as usual for me here today, I do recognize that in the US it is Thanksgiving. And so I wish a happy holiday to all. Enjoy your turkey, and your sweet potatoes, and your pumpkin pie. Enjoy each other, as you gather around the table.

This American holiday, in particular, has always seemed to me quintessentially Jewish in its practice and sensibility: Both because of the need to express gratitude for blessings, and because of the model of the harvest festival of Sukkot. Actually, I believe that the Pilgrims, who were immersed in their Old Testament, were mindful of Sukkot.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Roger Bodle, November 23, 2011.

This was written by Abigail Klein Leichman and appeared in Israel21c November 20, 2011.

Yehuda Pilosof and his son Yisrael have a global reputation for outfitting amputees (and even an occasional donkey) with quality artificial limbs.


Yehuda Pilosof preparing a Haitian amputee for an artificial leg

As a professional Israeli soccer player, Yisrael Pilosof used his powerful legs to build a name for himself. His father, Yehuda, built a name for himself with powerful legs made from titanium and carbon fiber.

Four years ago, Yisrael left the playing field and joined his father's Rishon LeZion prosthetics workshop, Y.D. Gapim. Together they manufacture precision artificial limbs for Israeli amputees and for clients from Peru, Haiti, Albania, Germany, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Egypt, Jordan — and even the United States.

"I know it's strange," Yehuda tells ISRAEL21c. "The US and Germany have the best technology in this field. But the talent of the hands is more important."

Yehuda also started out as a star soccer player, advancing to the national team as a teen. But in 1967, his high school principal persuaded him to find a solid career path, and he became an orthopedic technician. "To me, it's an art," he says.

He began by fashioning hands, although of the thousands of artificial limbs he's been commissioned to make over the years, the majority are legs.

People hear about Yehuda Pilosof from friends and family in Israel, and also from media publicity. In 1999, he was in the headlines for fitting a Jerusalem Arab's donkey with a new leg. The crippled animal would otherwise have been euthanized.

'You have to be strong from the inside'

When Yisrael and his two sisters were children, they were a little wary of the limbless clients they encountered in their dad's shop.

Yehuda Pilosof outside the prosthetics clinic Israel set up in Haiti.

"It was scary to see all these amputees," says Yisrael, now a 30-year-old newlywed. "I am very sensitive, and you have to be strong from the inside to deal with all the things you see, but I knew one day I would do this, like my father does. I got to a phase in my life where suddenly I was ready."

Israel doesn't offer formal courses for prosthetics technicians, so the former soccer player took physiology courses in Tel Aviv University and traveled to Germany for training. Back home, he continued learning at his father's side. "I have great teacher; one of the best," he tells ISRAEL21c with a smile.

Yisrael learned how to put his feelings aside and focus on the positive outcome of his work. Still, the youngest patients tug at his heartstrings. He shows a video clip of a little Arab girl from Hebron trying out her new prosthetic feet in the Pilosofs' workshop. She's grinning, but it wasn't like that beforehand.

"When she first came to us, she was so sad. Then after she started walking with the prostheses, she started to dance. It made us so happy."

Their youngest patient was a boy referred from Jerusalem's ALYN Pediatric and Adolescent Rehabilitation Center, born with no hands. "We started working with him when he was 2 and a half, and now we are 'growing up' with him. Every few months we make him new hands because he grows very fast," Yisrael says.

Helping amputees in Haiti and Peru

Right after Haiti's catastrophic earthquake in January 2010, the phone rang in the workshop and a man told Yisrael he was calling from the office of President Shimon Peres for Yehuda Pilosof. Yisrael thought it was a practical joke and hung up. But the man called back and persuaded him to get his father on the phone.

"They told us they wanted to get an Israeli group together to build a rehab center in Haiti, and the president had heard about my father's work," recalls Yisrael.

Yehuda traveled to Haiti twice. He made limbs for 15 people, including a professional dancer from Port-au-Prince who was flown to Israel after losing his right leg during the earthquake.

Yisrael Pilosof demonstrating advanced casting techniques in Peru

He still gets emotional when he describes the scenes Israeli relief workers encountered in Haiti. He recalls a man lying on the ground just outside the hospital clutching a baby. The man was dead and the living child had to be pried out of his arms.

Yehuda prayed every morning alongside Muslim Turkish relief workers. He brought along his own kosher food, but ended up handing it out, along with his clothing, underwear and socks, to earthquake victims. "All the conditions were very difficult. It's impossible to understand if you didn't see it."

When Yisrael received a call a few months later from MASHAV, Israel's Center for International Cooperation, asking the Pilosofs to lead a seminar on prosthetics in Peru, he realized right away it wasn't a joke.

The seminar was the result of a conversation between the Israeli ambassador to Peru and the wheelchair-bound Peruvian minister of health. The Pilosofs spent 10 days at a rehab center, training technicians and physicians.

"We were in shock because the machines and materials there were like what we used 35 years ago," says Yehuda, who also traveled to Sri Lanka in 1992 to make artificial limbs for soldiers as part of a hush-hush Israeli humanitarian mission. "They were still using wood and stainless steel, which are very heavy and difficult to work with."

The Peruvians were extremely grateful, Yisrael says. Just before they left, one of the trainees approached Yisrael. Wearing a crucifix, he asked the Israeli through the translator if he had a star of David (Magen David) to give him. The Israeli realized he had such a necklace tucked away in his wallet. "I gave it to him and he put it right around his neck."

Dreaming of opening an Israeli center for prosthetics

Yehuda has made thousands of limbs for victims of accidents, illness, terrorism and war. "The process takes about three days depending on how big the prosthesis is and how long we have to spend with the patient to perfect the alignment," he says.

The oldest patient was a 95-year-old man who had lost a leg many years before.

The Pilosofs don't make myoelectric prosthetic limbs, which can be moved with the help of electric signals from the patient's arm muscles, because few patients qualify for such a specialized prosthesis.

To increase the number of young people going into the field in Israel, Yehuda wants to open a training center that would also offer seminars for orthopedic technicians and doctors from all over the world.

The dream may become reality with the help of a former patient, a wealthy European woman who came to the Pilosofs last year out of desperation.

"She was a double amputee and a difficult case ... nobody wanted to touch it," recalls Yisrael. "We were the first people in the world to believe she could walk again after 12 or 13 years in a wheelchair. She wanted to show all those who said 'no' that it could be done. We made the two legs for her and she walked. Now she's promised to build us a [training] center here. We're hopeful."

Contact Roger Bodle at

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, November 23, 2011.

Female political candidate says females are unintelligent: Not the best way to win the confidence of voters.

According to the Arabic newsite Donia Alwatan, a female, Salafi candidate running for Egypt's parliament, Mona Salah (pictured), asserts that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion," and that, in agreement with Sharia, it is impermissible for them to take over the presidency.

Female political candidate says females are unintelligent: Not the best way to win the confidence of voters.

She is, of course, only quoting the words of her prophet Muhammad, as recorded in a canonical hadith. After being asked why he said most of the inhabitants of hell are women, he replied:

You [women] curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.

Despite this unflattering depiction of her gender, Mona Salah defended her candidacy by pointing out that a position in the people's council invests her only with "partial" authority, not "absolute" authority, as in the case of the presidency, which requires a male.

Yet, even a position with "partial" authority would not seem to get around Muhammad's point that even "a cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you [women]." Perhaps that is why Salah was quick to assure potential voters that "she would strive to apply the Islamic Sharia, cutting the hands of thieves, preventing the intermingling of sexes, and having women dress in black garments, men in white."

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at This appeared in Jihad Watch, 11/egypt-female-political-candidate-says-women

To Go To Top

Posted by Maxi Justice, November 22, 2011.

From Hillel Neuer, UN Watch November 21, 2011:

... Incomprehensibly, the International Committee for the Red Cross as well as a leading human rights authority, the London-based William Schabas, have given their credibility to the initiative by the Tehran-based Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, despite its intimate ties with the fundamentalist regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ...

Human rights, proclaims the manifesto, should defer to "the significance of national and regional particularities" and "various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds." ...

Western democracies are accused of seeking "to impose their values, opinions and lifestyles on developing countries, to the detriment, and even the loss, of cultural identities." In particular, Israel is vilified throughout the text, including for the alleged "cultural uprooting" of Arabs based on doctrines of "cultural superiority" and "apartheid." ...

This below was written by Sheila Mediena.


The way I read this is that the International Committee for the Red Cross is following its historical method of ignoring the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed by sanctioning the anti-democratic, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel dogma of the Iranians. The latter are on a trek to destroy Israel, to build nuclear weapons and terrorize its neighbors and democratic countries everywhere.

Simply put, there is a move afoot to define democratic countries as the evil doers and the Muslim aggressors as the victims, not unlike the Israel/Palestine paradigm. This movement wants the world to accept tyranny, polygamy, oppression of females and the negation of truth, freedom and creativity. Their deceit is achieved by adopting innocent language such as "cultural diversity" in place of "ancient customs" or "male domination", thus accusing democratic, socially advanced countries of being opposed to "global human rights" if they contest or repudiate "archaic practices".

In their terms, "cultural diversity" accepts a choice of leadership by coups or terror instead of free and verifiable elections. Anathema to their value structure are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, gender equality and secular education for all children. In their terms, such values are to be eschewed and deemed to be contrary to "global human rights". And the International Committee for the Red Cross is playing along with this movement, hand in hand toward world domination.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerardo Joffe, November 22, 2011.

This is from FLAME

"The Solution to Palestinian Terrorism: Israel Should Take off the Gloves and Defeat It Once and For All"

Dear Friend of FLAME:

It was Gen. Douglas MacArthur who famously said that there is no substitute for victory. For the longest time that was indeed the military policy of the United States. Both WWI and WWII ended with what the Americans and the Allies asked for: total unconditional surrender. That was accepted by the enemy and fulfilled.

In the most successful war that its enemies have imposed on Israel — the Six Day War of 1967 — Israel attained complete victory and was able to fulfill its purposes. Regrettably, with soft-minded Israeli governments and also under the pressure of the US and "world opinion," Israel squandered many of the fruits of its complete victory. After the Yom Kippur War of 1972, the United States — mostly at the urging of the Machiavellian Henry Kissinger — pressured Israel to let total victory elude it after it was within its grasp. Israel still bears the consequences of this grave error.

Ever since the ill-advised and self-imposed evacuation of Gaza, Israel has been rewarded with almost daily bombardments by ever-increasingly sophisticated missiles and rockets. Miraculously, until today no major damage or casualties have been caused. But it is only a matter of time until a school or a hospital will be hit, and enormous, unacceptable damage will indeed ensue.

A few years ago, Israel engaged in a half-hearted military action against Gaza, operation Cast Lead, which caused some damage (and much condemnation by "world opinion" claiming that Israel had used "disproportionate force"). That action was quite ineffective because there was no effort made to attain complete victory. The terror and the bombardment from Gaza continue undiminished, with more sophisticated rockets and missiles and perhaps even greater force and essentially with impunity.

Steven Plaut, professor of the Graduate Business School at the University of Haifa, is a keen analyst of the Middle East and of Israel. His incisive essays on these subjects have appeared for years in the Israeli press and in American publications, including FLAME's.

In this week's Hotline, Professor Steven Plaut argues persuasively that the terror would cease if Israel would launch an action to destroy the murderous Hamas once and for all and with total victory as its goal. And that the concept of 'total victory" should be the unbreakable goal of Israeli arms in whatever conflict they may be involved.

I trust that Dr. Plaut's powerful article will persuade you of the argument that the only solution to evil is to destroy it.

Best Regards,

Gerardo Joffe, President


By now, Israel, at the urging and bullying of the world, has tried pretty much every conceivable idea and option for achieving tranquility and reconciliation with the Hamas, except for one. Israel removed its army and civilian population from the Gaza Strip. In what amounted to the first ethnic self-cleansing in history, Israel evicted the entire Jewish presence in Gaza. The entire area was turned over to the Palestinians, lock, stock, barrel, and Jew-free.

The result is of course known. The Hamas immediately converted all of Gaza into a large rocket launch pad and a base for initiating terrorist attacks against Israel. It kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and held him incommunicado, refusing medical treatment to him, even though his arm was filled with shrapnel. Israel in response provided free electricity and water to the Gazans and sent civilian supplies into Gaza. Israel never made any serious efforts to stop the massive tunnel smuggling into Gaza from Egypt, even when it was clear that the main item being smuggled was weapons. These smuggled weapons include bomb materials and sophisticated rockets that can now reach Tel Aviv. Israel responded to the endless rocket attacks against its own civilians by turning the other cheek. Only after 8000 rocket strikes did it launch the half-hearted symbolic retaliation in the "Cast Lead" campaign, withdrawing quickly after it was launched.

There is only one strategy for dealing with the Hamas that Israel has never attempted. That untried strategy is victory. Israel has never seriously attempted to achieve peace and tranquility with the Gaza Palestinians by means of victory. This is somewhat strange, since it is hard to think of any other war that did not end in peace only after victory. Instead, the world keeps demanding that Israel respond to Hamas provocation with an endless series of one-sided "goodwill measures." Never mind that the only invariable effect of such Israeli "goodwill measures" has been to trigger more Hamas terrorism. The only "peace settlement" the Hamas is interested in is one in which Israelis volunteer to allow themselves to be placed in Hamas-run extermination camps for Jews.

Victory in the case of the war with the Gaza terrorists would mean annihilating the Hamas. Interestingly, here is an increasing chorus of voices inside Israel now calling for peace through victory. One of these is General Dan Halutz, the controversial erstwhile chief of staff of the Israeli army. A few days ago a Hamas rocket was fired into Israel and struck a school building. In response, Halutz called for a "mortal blow" to be dealt to the Hamas' civilian and "military" leadership. Then, in a radio interview, Halutz said, "We must bring back our deterrence vis-à-vis Gaza. It has not existed for even one moment since Operation Cast Lead and to this day." He has been joined by other Israeli leaders. The finance minister, Yuval Steinitz (who is a philosophy professor at my own university when he is not busy in public life), recently called on Israel to topple the Hamas "regime" in Gaza if the terror continues.

The terrorist aggression by the Hamas has been carried on nonstop ever since it seized power in Gaza. Most acts of Hamas barbarism do not even get reported in the world media, for which dogs biting and shooting rockets at postmen are passé. Hamas rockets land in Israeli civilian areas almost every day. Hamas leaders continue to call openly for Israel's obliteration and for the annihilation of Jews. All this is surprising only for those who have no understanding of what the Hamas really is. Anyone who has read the brochure on the Hamas being distributed by the David Horowitz Freedom Center will know otherwise. It has become vogue in many circles to represent Middle East savagery as part of some sort of "War of Civilizations." It is not. In fact, the Middle East is simply a war by barbarism against all civilization. It is also considered chic to represent the Middle East conflict as a "cycle of violence," and as something fundamentally symmetrical between Arab terrorists and Israeli soldiers. It is not.

The entire world has convinced itself that violence and terrorism in the Middle East are the results of Israeli "occupation" over Arabs. They are wrong. If there is one thing that has become glaringly obvious in the past two decades it is that the main cause of terrorist violence in the Middle East is the removal of Israeli occupation over Arabs. The Gaza violence was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its removal. The Hezbollah violence and threats from Lebanon were not caused by Israeli "occupation" of Southern Lebanon but rather by its removal.

Part of the world's problem in understanding such things about the Middle East is that most people have no idea how small Israel really is. Without the West Bank, Israel is at its waist about as wide as the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. All of the West Bank is smaller than the Everglades. The Arab world insists territory controlled from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf is insufficient for its appetites, but promises that if only Israel agrees to place its neck in a strategic hangman's noose by turning over the West Bank to the PLO/Hamas, then peace will prevail. And if Israel refuses to place its neck in such an Arab noose voluntarily, then this shows that Israeli aggression is what is behind the violence.

The caterwauling against Israel's decision to shoot back occasionally at the terrorists is coming from those claiming that Israel was erected on "Palestinian lands." This is like claiming that Alaska sits on Russian lands. The Arabs briefly controlled Palestine militarily, as the Russians briefly owned Alaska. The Jews and not the Arabs are analogous to the native Eskimos. Israeli settlements are about as "illegal" as are Eskimo villages in Alaska. There has never ever in history been a Palestinian state, and there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, any more than there is a separate Rhode Islander people. The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands."

Even if anyone thinks the Palestinians might have had some legitimate claim to statehood or sovereignty, the Palestinians forfeited any such right they might have had due to the past century of Palestinian atrocities and terror. Just like the Sudeten Germans lost their claim to any sort of self-determination. True, Israeli governments have nevertheless naively and foolishly offered to allow the Palestinians to exercise control over these territories in exchange for peace. But Israel got war and mass murder of its civilians in exchange, not peace, so the foolhardy Oslo "peace process" deals are now off and should never have been implemented. Proposals to "liberate" the West Bank and end Israeli "occupation" there are nothing more than demands that Israel allow Gazan barbarism and terrorism to be replicated and cloned in the West Bank, with Israeli citizens subsequently bathed in countless thousands of rockets.

The only real way to suppress the carnage is for Israel to re-occupy Gaza and the West Bank in full, implement open-ended military control there and a long-term program of Denazification (based in part on the Allied programs at the end of World War II). Israel needs to expel the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. It needs to get serious about shooting terrorists. Everything else is wishful thinking and delusion.

Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli anti-terror policies, retaliations, checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis, or let them move to any of the 22 Arab states. As long as they persist in the violence, any "suffering" by Palestinians is, much like the suffering of Germans and Japanese during World War II, their own fault. The solution is certainly not for Israel to stop resisting the terror, to stop fighting back, nor for Israel to desist from trying to protect its citizens.

The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, afraid to resist, and ready to capitulate. It will end only when Israel returns to its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The same United States that has understood that there is only a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity.

There are no non-military solutions to the problems of terrorism. Gerardo Joffee writes:

For years now, FLAME ( has had the courage to call evil by its name and to call for an appropriate response. One of our most recent hasbarah (clarifying) messages exposes the persistent, centuries-old, and frankly, murderous anti-Semitism of Islam. FLAME's analysis is hard-hitting and fact-based. Some publications have said they believe it hits too hard and have refused to publish it. I challenge you to take a look at this recent position paper now, and let me know what you think: "Muslim Arab Anti-Semitism: Why it makes peace very difficult — almost impossible." Despite its rejection by a few publications, support from pro-Israel activists like you have enabled this ad to appear in national media reaching more than 10 million readers, including college newspapers. In addition, it was sent to every member of the U.S. Congress. If you agree that this kind of bold public relations effort on Israel's behalf is valuable, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's powerful ability to influence public opinion comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able — with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs — from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.
To Go To Top

Posted by John Trudel, November 22, 2011.

Friends and Colleagues:

Global Warming Alarmism is about politics, money, and power — not climate. Another boatload of proof, just revealed and still unfolding, again thanks to secret emails made public.

Let's hope there are some prosecutions this time, and not another whitewash. This is a trillion-dollar scam, one that has been going on for years, and is now being exacerbated with Obama "stimulus" dollars — e.g., Solyndra and the Chew "green jobs" multi-billion dollar rip-off of US taxpayers.

Action: Get this to your local press and elected officials, especially those in Congress pursuing the Solyndra debacle and related issues. The more who independently shine light on this, the better the hope of ending what is probably the greatest science fraud in history. The Solyndra investigations should be expanded and turned over to an independent investigator.

John D. Trudel


This is by Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot (

It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement

The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence. The release of thousands of more emails is quite simply another victory for science.

For continuous updates on Climategate 2.0 see here.


This is from Myron Ebell, President of Freedom Action and Director, Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute

New E-mails Reveal Scientific Conspiracy and Cover-up

Washington, DC, November 22, 2011 — The 2009 Climategate scandal was re-ignited today with the release on the Internet of thousands of more e-mails from scientists working on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports. Numerous e-mails confirm that some of the top IPCC scientists were consciously misrepresenting the scientific literature in order to support their global warming alarmist agenda and were engaged in trying to cover up their misdeeds.

The disclosed e-mails and documents are closely linked with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Among the senders and recipients are familiar players in international global warming politics who have often been described as the world's leading climate scientists, including Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth and Tom Wigley of the U. S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response," said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI's Center on Energy and Environment (

"Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars," said Ebell.

Here are four excerpts from the e-mails released today from Professor Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and lead author of one of the key chapters in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007):

Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.

...what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

I've been told that IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

And here are two e-mails candidly commenting on the work of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, the chief inventor of the infamous hockey stick:

Professor John Mitchell, U. K. Met Office: Is the PCA [principal components analysis] approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [one of the key hockey stick scientific articles by Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes] the answer in each is no.

Professor Raymond S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Mann's co-author on the MBH hockey stick paper: I'm sure you agree — the Mann/Jones GRL [scientific article by Michael Mann and Phil Jones published in Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction."

John D. Trudel is consultant emeritus, inventor, engineer, author, retired adjunct professor (U. of Oregon), and novelist. Contact John Trudel by email at and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by John Lillpop, November 22, 2011.


"Obama gaffe: President says billionaires should pay 'Jew' tax rate"
By Jamie Weinstein
September 25, 2011
( obama-gaffe-president-says-billionaires- should-pay-the-jew-tax-rate/#ixzz1Z5I61s8x)

Speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus annual awards dinner in Washington Saturday night, President Obama made a verbal boo-boo.

While defending his call for the rich to pay more in taxes, the president said he didn't mind people calling him a class warrior for merely asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew. Whoops!

The president meant to say "janitor" instead of "Jew," and he immediately corrected himself. After all, he doesn't need any more problems keeping Jewish voters enthusiastic about his re-election bid.

In fairness, though, you could interpret the president's gaffe as a positive: Wasn't he just suggesting that for some reason Jews were being unfairly targeted with higher taxes, and he wanted to make billionaires pay the same rate? Maybe, maybe not.

Video Transcript: JsNTF1MjrmzA5eRORrzYPBVawOARY4FF:

When you start saying, at a time when the top one-tenth of one percent have seen their incomes go up four or five times over the last twenty years, and folks at the bottom have seen their incomes decline, and your response is that you want poor folks to pay more? Give me a break!

"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew — as a janitor — makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that as a badge of honor."


John Lillpop: This is my take on the above news item:

On the heels of a historic gaffe in which he stuck his right hand over the face of Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj at a photo-op last September, President Obama plunged head first into new and untested avenue of controversial campaign speech.

As reported at the reference, in part: "While defending his call for the rich to pay more in taxes, the president said he didn't mind people calling him a class warrior for merely asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew. Whoops!

The president meant to say "janitor" instead of "Jew," and he immediately corrected himself."

Although Obama claims to have been victimized by a slip of his own silver-coated tongue, the truth is that when it comes to compiling 'enemies lists,' wise politicians try to identify as many "two-fers" as possible to keep campaign costs in check.

Which helps explain why Barack Obama is on the attack against Jewish janitors who are also billionaires. With just one ugly message from his Bully Pulpit, the president can sock two of his least favorite demographics: Jews and billionaires.

It is also rumored that Obama is generally none too fond of janitors, but that rumor cannot be confirmed.

In light of recent scandals involving the White House, we know that Obama's enemies list now includes Caucasian executives who make solar panels, particularly CEOs who demand government loans as payback for campaign contributions and who then have the audacity to go bankrupt within 14 months of a presidential election.

The One's ire is also reportedly agitated by Mexican drug cartel executives, who kill a U.S. border patrol agent with a gun provided by, and traceable back, to Eric Holder and the White House, again within 14 months of a presidential election.

Is there any occupation-racial mix that Obama is generally at peace with?

According to sources deep within the White House, Obama finds nothing at all objectionable about black basketball players with incomes in the 1% category!

Contact John Lillpop by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 22, 2011.

This is from the NYTimes, yet. 10iht-currents10.html?_r=1&emc=eta1#h[] It was written by Anand Giridharadas. and is called "Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide." It appeared September 9, 2011. Anand Giridharadas is an author and columnist, writing about a world in transition.


CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it. That is not how we're primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the "far left," she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

The next day, the "lamestream" media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won't-she question of her presidential ambitions.

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin's ideas.

There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: "The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box."

But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a "permanent political class," drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called "corporate crony capitalism." Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties' tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation's capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

"Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?" she said, referring to politicians. "It's because there's nothing in it for them. They've got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along."

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin's third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin's having said them.

"This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk," she said of the crony variety. She added: "It's the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It's a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America."

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn't choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.

Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.

No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at
Go to to see some of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, November 22, 2011.

Figures like Kissinger set themselves apart from Israel, posture as superior Jews


Since the founding of Israel there has been a consensus between the Diaspora and the Jewish state. The role of the Diaspora has been to support Israel through Aliyah, donations and political backing against Israel's detractors. Yet Henry Kissinger's recently published chilling remarks proved that "self-hating Jews" was a wrong expression. The right term is Jewish anti-Semitism.

According to new documents released by the State Department, back in 1972 Henry Kissinger, who served as Secretary of State under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, called American Jewish groups lobbying the White House self-serving "bastards."One of Nixon's advisors, Leonard Garment, received lots of requests from Jews about the "Prisoners of Zion," Jewish refuseniks and dissidents, men and women who spent years languishing in Soviet prisons and labor camps. Garment asked for Kissinger's advice on the matter and according to the transcripts, Kissinger replied: "Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?".In response, Garment, who is also Jewish, said: "None in the world." Kissinger responded: "What the hell do they think they are accomplishing? You can't even tell bastards anything in confidence because they'll leak it."

"If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern," Kissinger declared in another tape released last year by the Nixon Library.

Kissinger's tirades against Israel and the Jews are particularly shocking, as his family lost 13 members in Nazi concentration camps and as a youth, Heinz Kissinger, as Henry was then called, faced anti-Semitism himself.

The former secretary of state pronounced his tirade on the gas chambers six months before the apocalyptic dread of 1973, when the Jewish State risked another Holocaust, the Arab oil boycott turned Israel into a pariah, fewer countries had relations with Israel than with the PLO and the UN General Assembly gave a standing ovation to Yasser Arafat.

Diaspora mentality

According to historian Robert Dallek, reports that Israel had been attacked during Yom Kippur reached Washington at 6 am that same day, but Kissinger waited three-and-a-half hours before informing Nixon in order to keep the president from "interfering." Kissinger once remarked that even those who are paranoid sometimes have real enemies. His paranoia resembles that of the "Court Jews" who strove to ingratiate themselves with authorities.

In recent years, some of the most unremitting criticism of Israel in the Anglosphere has come from Jewish intellectuals such as George Steiner, Eric Hobsbawm, Harold Pinter, Stephane Hessel and Noam Chomsky. According to H.R. Haldeman' diaries, which were published posthumously, when a Nixon furious over NY demonstrations against France selling more than 100 Mirage jets to Libya informed his aides "not to let any Jews see him about the Middle East," and even decided to postpone what Nixon referred to as the "Jewish arms supply," Kissinger remained silent.In 1969, the Nixon Administration was concerned about Israel's alleged possession of nuclear weapons. "This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us," Kissinger said, "and may even have stolen from us. Israel will not take us seriously on the nuclear issue unless they believe we are prepared to withhold something they very much need."

The former secretary of state worked hard to compensate his Jewish complex by prostrating himself before various Arab dictators. The old ghetto walls have fallen and emancipation and equality have arrived. But even if you can take the Jew out of the Diaspora, you apparently cannot take the Diaspora out of some Jews.

They are the self-professed "better Jews" who like to depict Israel as "the new ghetto," setting themselves apart from the Israeli masses and posturing as the possessors of greater cosmopolitan wisdom. The more they attack other Jews, the more they prove that they are not defined by being Jewish.

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist and author. His columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary. He graduated with a degree in philosophy at the University of Florence. He lives in Italy with his family. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him at This article appeared in YNET News 0,7340,L-4151351,00.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Neuer, November 21, 2011.

A ploy by Tehran that has nothing to do with freedom


Global conferences inaugurating a "human rights" center in Iran this week will boost a growing campaign by anti-Western states at the UN to erode universal human rights in favor of a doctrine of "cultural diversity." If left unchallenged, this could well justify repression of basic freedoms around the world.

Incomprehensibly, the International Committee for the Red Cross as well as a leading human rights authority, the London-based William Schabas, have given their credibility to the initiative by the Tehran-based Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, despite its intimate ties with the fundamentalist regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Schabas — author of numerous textbooks on international humanitarian law, chairman of a UN human rights fund and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars — is billed as keynote speaker at the first of the conferences on Nov. 22. The center says the ICRC is working "in cooperation" with it to stage the conferences, as is an institution Schabas directed for the past decade and still chairs, the Irish Center for Human Rights at Ireland's National University in Galway.

Yet everything about the Tehran center, spearheaded by Iran and Cuba, shows it is the opposite of what it claims to be.

First, its ideological mission is to undermine the obligation of all governments to respect basic liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. The institute was created in 2007 by a ministerial meeting in Tehran of the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement, whose membership of mainly nondemocratic countries dominates the UN General Assembly. The meeting produced the "Tehran Declaration and Programme of Action," a thinly veiled attack on the idea that human rights are universal.

Human rights, proclaims the manifesto, should defer to "the significance of national and regional particularities" and "various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds." Implicit in the text is the concept that the world should give a free pass to the oppressive rulers of Iran, Syria, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe and others, due to their alleged "cultural" differences.

Western democracies are accused of seeking "to impose their values, opinions and lifestyles on developing countries, to the detriment, and even the loss, of cultural identities." In particular, Israel is vilified throughout the text, including for the alleged "cultural uprooting" of Arabs based on doctrines of "cultural superiority" and "apartheid."

The declaration expresses no concern for victims in a slew of NAM member states where human rights abuses are systematic — including Iran itself and also Cuba, one of the center's key backers.

Second, the Tehran effort is part of a broader NAM campaign, now escalating throughout the UN, to enshrine cultural diversity as a global human rights principle.

In 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on cultural diversity that incorporated a special reference to the NAM's Tehran meeting and called on high UN officials to promote the concept. Shortly thereafter, the office of UN rights chief Navi Pillay convened a global seminar to explore the subject, and the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council established an "independent expert in the field of cultural rights."

This past June, the council adopted a resolution giving added weight to the notion that national and religious "specificities" constitute "cultural rights" equal to other human rights. Cuba led the initiative, together with Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Pakistan and Egypt.

Third, the center is a tool of Iranian propaganda. Speaking at its May opening, Iran's deputy foreign minister articulated one of the center's core messages: the Iranian government is a "victim of the politicization of human rights" despite having, he claimed, "always played a leading role in promoting human values."

The center's current director is Kamran Hashemi, a former political officer with Iran's foreign ministry. He argues on the center's website that Sharia law offers ideal protections for Jews and other minorities. His predecessor and many of the center's lecturers also emanate from the Iranian foreign ministry.

Given all this, how can the ICRC and Schabas endorse the center?

While the ICRC's mission to help war victims may require dealing with unsavory regimes, nothing justifies lending its name to an Iranian-NAM subversion of the organization's own universal ideals. As for Schabas, he has a personal connection. Hashemi wrote his Ph.D under the academic at the Irish Center for Human Rights, and later taught there.

At a time when the Iranian regime continues to arrest, beat and rape its own citizens, and when the universality of human rights remains tenuous in too many countries, the ICRC and Schabas should pull out of this insidious project.

Hillel Neuer is executive director of UN Watch, a nongovernmental organization in Geneva.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 21, 2011.


Hizbullah head Hasan Nasrallah discussed personally with his military commanders and field commanders his directive for the next war with Israel.

Nasrallah's operational directive, as guided by Iranian experts, was that in the next military conflict with Israel, "Hizbullah will hit Tel Aviv with missiles at the outset of the war, while also dispatching forces to conquer the Galilee. Hizbullah forces are being trained to fire at least ten thousand missiles, right at the war's outset, at military and strategic targets such as airfields, military camps, and vital facilities including maritime ones, followed by the firing of rockets from launch sites whose location will come as a surprise to Israel."

Iran has trained 5,000 troops in Iran, to seize towns in northern Israel. Iranian engineers have minded possible IDF landing sites in the eastern Bekaa Valley. Hizbullah has Iranian anti-tank missiles thought capable of overcoming the defenses of Israel's tanks.

Iran anticipates an Israeli attack on its patron, Iran, and with less restraint than before. Therefore, Hizbullah will join the fray in that way. Brigade 1 aims to conquer Nahariya, finding little to protect the city, small distances to cross on even ground. Speedboats will ferry Hizbullah men to take hostages, to prevent the IDF from bombing Hizbullah forces nearby.

Brigade 2 aims to seize Shlomi, population 6,500, near the border. This would block IDF supply lines.

Brigade 3 would conquer areas south of Carmiel and block military traffic approaching from Acre.

Brigade 4 aims to seize Malkiya, Ramot Naftali, and Yiftach, so the IDF can't fire from there into southern Lebanon.

Brigade 5 is in reserve.

What Syria will do remains unclear (Dr. Shimon Shapira, Jerusalem Issue Briefs, Vol. 11, No. 18, 2 November 2011
( DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0& IID=9565&TTL=Hizbullah_Discusses_Its_Operational_Plan_ for_War_with_Israel:_Missile_Fire_on_Tel_Aviv_and_Con) from, 11/2/11).

Taking civilian hostages is a war crime.

Former Foreign Minister Livni has been boasting of success in ending the prior Hizbullah war as gaining security for Israel. She brought insecurity.


General Peter Fuller, deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan was fired by President Obama. Gen. Fuller had heard Afghan president Karzai vow that in a war between the U.S. and Pakistan, Afghanistan would join Pakistan. Gen. Fuller replied, "Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You've got to be kidding me ... I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me, 'I don't really care'? When they have a presidential election, you hope they get a guy that's more articulate in public."

The London Telegraph commented that Gen. Fuller had pointed out the truth: we keep Karzai in office, but he is unbalanced.

Karzai is known for anti-American statements. He has made false accusations against the U.S. for bombing Afghan civilians. Last year he threatened to "join the Taliban." He falsely accused the U.S. of hampering the Afghan elections.

How did the Obama administration react to Karzai's threat to make war on the U.S.?" It asserted that it "respects" Karzai but that this statement was "troubling" and "frustrating." By contrast, when Israel authorized construction in eastern Jerusalem, the Administration called that "destructive," and "affront," and an "insult" to the U.S..

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) points out, "The Israeli construction decision in Jerusalem violated no U.S.-Israel agreement, endangered no U.S. forces and was in accord with Israel's unilateral concession in 2009, to initiate a 10-month freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, which explicitly did not include construction in Jerusalem. "

ZOA worries when the President fires a senior military commander for condemning a vicious anti-American statement by a foreign leader kept in power by American sacrifice. Why didn't Pres. Obama condemn Karzai? Obama's double standard is troubling (Zionist Organization of American, 11/8/11,


When Judge Goldstone had accused Israel of deliberately attacking civilians in Gaza, he erred in counting as civilians ordinary police and internal security forces (but not national security forces). Thus he counted the 248 police cadets killed by Israeli forces as civilians, though they all or mostly also were members of a terrorist militia. Subsequently, Mr. Goldstone retracted the accusation [after having tarnished Israel's reputation with it).

Members of police and internal security forces have another role. They also facilitate terrorist attacks.

For example, the police coastguard has been "fighting the IDF during operations carried out in the Gaza Strip, placing IEDs, anti-aircraft fire at Israeli Air Force planes, collecting intelligence, providing logistic support for the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, ambushing IDF forces, etc. In addition, it formerly also had a suicide bomber unit and was equipped with advanced IEDs, RPGs and mortars."

In response to rocket fire from Gaza, the IDF attacked a Gaza coast guard installation on November 14, killing and wounding some personnel. Perhaps now those deaths will not be counted as civilians deliberately targeted.

Before, during, and after the war in Gaza, Hamas released names and pictures of people killed by IDF retaliation, identifying them as both members of internal security forces and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades terrorist organization.
(The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 11/20/11, English/eng_n/html/ipc_e244.htm
from For further information: multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf)

Since the information about members of internal security forces also being members of terrorist militias was known before the UN report, what excuse has Mr. Goldstone for accusing Israel of war crimes in killing some of them?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Roger Bodle, November 21, 2011.

This was written by Greg Mills and it appeared November 13, 2011 in Times Live columnists/2011/11/13/israelis-turn-holy- land-into-economic-miracle


JUST 20% of Israel is arable. Yet, since its independence in May 1948, the country's agricultural output has increased 16-fold, many times the rate of population growth. This is down to a lot of perspiration and, more importantly, a large dollop of innovation and cooperation.

This is nothing new. Close to the Desert Plant Research Station in Be'er Sheva is a farm cultivated by the Nabateans, the earliest desert farmers. Using sophisticated terracing, every drop of runoff water was collected and diverted to the fields and orchards.

Fast-forward 2000 years, and today Israel produces over two-thirds of its food requirements. Agriculture exports are worth more than $2-billion, more than half of which is fresh produce.

No one needs reminding that Israel's external image is dominated by pictures of conflict and perceptions of injustice. Lost in this portrayal is how smart Israel has been in developing its economy.

In agriculture, for example, it has used technology to reduce water usage and increase output, and higher-yield crops to increase both volumes and financial sales values. Drip and direct-feed computerised irrigation systems are the norm.

It's a far cry from 1948, when no one gave the newly independent Jewish state much of a chance.

Despite rapid population growth (now over 7.5 million), Israelis enjoy a per-capita income today of $29600, putting them in the top 30 world-wide, between Spain and Italy.

Although it depends on imports for nearly all of its raw materials, from oil to diamonds, Israel has become a global industrial hub. It is a world leader in diamond polishing and cutting, processed foods, electronic and medical equipment, and, more recently, software, semi-conductors and telecommunications. After the US, it has more companies listed on the Nasdaq than any other country.

There is no single explanation for Israel's success, although high on the list is surely its commitment to research and development. Its detractors, however, routinely cite US assistance as the main reason for its success. Much of the $3-billion it receives annually from Washington is spent on military kit, rather than development.

That said, there can be no doubt that the military dimension has proved vital in Israel's overall development picture, especially in so far as the mindset it engendered of robust accountability across society, long-term thinking and a problem-solving ethos.

To translate ideas into business ventures, Israel has fostered a system that encourages and caters for entrepreneurship. It has established a "cluster" of universities in close proximity to large and small companies, creating a virtuous space for suppliers, talent and capital. The government provides $450-million in annual grants to 1200 worthy projects from 2000 applications.

Like everything else in the Holy Land, assessing why Israel has done

Contact Roger Bodle at

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, November 20, 2011.

Soon after reporting that Egypt's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, had pronounced all Christians "infidels," I received several emails forwarding what looked like a response from Gomaa. Some websites — such as the ever-hysterical "American Muslim" — published it, providing the following additional information:

Egypt's Grand Mufti whitewashes.
Prof. Faroque Ahmad Khan took it on himself to investigate [the claims of my article]. Dr. Khan requested Dr Ibrahim Negm — a senior advisor to the Grand Mufti [and an Al Azhar professor] to provide a clarification of the remarks attributed to Sheikh Ali Gomaa. Here is the response that was received [followed by the same text others had emailed me].

Though he makes several points, including the need for "dialogue" and "mutual respect," Gomaa's grand point, the crux of the issue — what kafir which I routinely translate as "infidel" means — unfortunately exposes dishonesty on his part (the other option, ignorance, being inapplicable). He writes:

Mr. Ibrahim's choice of wording is regrettable. The English word "infidel" carries with it strong connotations of exclusion and violence, inherited from the European experience of Christianity during the wars of religion which devastated that continent for decades.

In fact, from its inception, Islam has been the quintessential religion — historically and doctrinally — to enforce and institutionalize "exclusion and violence" for the "other," to the point of influencing medieval Christianity. Gomaa therefore takes the standard way out — blame Christianity and its "wars of religion" (code for "Crusades") — without alluding to what prompted these wars in the first place: five centuries of unprovoked Islamic aggression, land-grabbing, subjugation and persecution of Christians, which continues to this very day.

Gomaa's sophistry continues:

The Arabic "kafir" is a legal term which denotes very precisely and simply those outside the Muslim community, those who do not believe in the particular message and worldview of Islam. The much less charged translation "non-believer" is appropriate here.

Yes, the word kafir is a "legal term" denoting non-Muslims; and yes, most modern English Qurans translate it as "non-believer." However, and as Gomaa knows full well, the word kafir (plural, kafirin) is heavy laden with negative associations, or, as I originally wrote, it "connotes 'enemies,' 'evil-doers,' and every bad thing to Muslim ears."

Accordingly, Sharia mandates hostility for kafirin — war and subjugation when they are weak, deception and smooth-talk when they are strong. Quran 2: 98 simply declares that "Allah is the enemy of kafirin" — regardless of whether we translate that word as "infidels" or "non-believers."

In fact, doctrine aside, consider how the Quran alone portrays "non-believers": they are "guilty" and "unjust" (10:17, 45:31, 68:35); terror is to be cast in their hearts for their injustice (3:151); they are "disliked" and "accursed" by Allah (2:89, 3:32, 33:64); they are the "vilest of beasts" (8:55, 98:6), like "cattle" and "devoid of understanding" (47:12, 8:65); and "enemies" to Muslims (4:101).

And why are "non-believers" described thus? Simply because they are non-believers — because they are infidels.

So much for the Grand Mufti's assertion that the "much less charged translation 'non-believer' is appropriate" for the word kafir. Perhaps he is operating under Quran 3:28: "Let believers not take kafirin [infidels, non-believers, whatever] for friends and allies ... unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." Not only is this yet another verse depicting non-Muslims as enemies, but, according to Muslim jurisprudence, it justifies deceiving them.

There is also much peripheral evidence that "non-believers" are seen negatively: when Gomaa's colleagues, the Muslim Brotherhood, recently declared that only "drunks, druggies, and adulterers" reject Sharia — and considering that non-Muslims by nature reject Sharia — were they not in essence asserting that all non-believers are junkies and faithless perverts?

Aside from distorting the word kafir, Gomaa made the following points which require remark:

Raymond Ibrahim absurdly tries to link my commentary on Muslim theological doctrine, delivered within the context of a mosque study circle, to the regrettable Maspero events in Cairo last month. My comments at the mosque that day were intended exclusively as a pedagogical explanation of the Qur'anic view on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity...

As for his words being "delivered within the context of a mosque study circle," that is no excuse: as Grand Mufti of a nation of some 70 million Muslims, Gomaa is responsible for every doctrine-related utterance he makes — whether he knows he is being videotaped or not. Likewise, even if his comments "were intended exclusively as a pedagogical explanation of the Qur'anic view on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity," they still culminated in categorizing all Christians as infidels, which is the point here.

Accordingly, his comments are, in fact, related to the Maspero massacre. Consider: when the Grand Mufti of Egypt himself categorizes Christians as "infidels" — a word that, as we have seen, conveys to the Muslim mind images of guilty, oppressive, accursed, bestial-like enemies — is it surprising when Muslims, including the Egyptian military, attack and kill Christians — all while calling them "infidels"?

A personal note to Sheikh Gomaa: the time for sophistry, apologetics, euphemisms, and projections is past. We live in an age where the historic, doctrinal, and contemporary facts of Islam are increasingly exposed for the world to see, in part thanks to the Internet and satellite, which defy censorship. Operating according to this fact — that is, respecting people's intelligence — is the first step to meaningful dialogue.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at This appeared November 17, 2011 in PJMedia grand-mufti-distorts-word-infidel-to-dupe-infidels

To Go To Top

Posted by Albert Wendroff, November 20, 2011.

Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation. These were compiled by a Christian university professor.

BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY... (It takes just 1.5 minutes to read!) It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew — it doesn't matter.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran..

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. 19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically

desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be. What will we tell our grandchildren about what we did when there was a turning point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?

START NOW — Send this to 18 other people you know and ask them to send it to eighteen others, Jew and non-Jew — it doesn't really matter.

Contact Albert Wendroff by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Stanley Zir, November 20, 2011.

Only one option for Iran: Military


Dear Readers:

I have re-edited America and Israel Enter the Death Zone, written in 2010, to bring it up-to-date, because I can now clarify what we should have done then — but didn't — and why. Now we must confront Iran head-on.

Our nation and the future of all humanity are under the greatest threat we have had to face in the history of civilization. We are confronting a watershed event — a madman who is armed with a nuclear bomb and intends to use it.

Incredulously, while Iran could be moments away from securing a nuclear-armed state, calls for the destruction of its nuclear infrastructure, at this point, should be a no-brainer. Yet our leaders are still discussing other options. It is obvious that our politicians are still not aware that the time for action is now.

Believing that sanctions will work against Iran is delusional. Thinking that we can get consenses from China (which still calls out for dialogue with the Iranian meglomaniac) and Russia (which is building its nuclear facilities) is equally preposterous. It is obvious that we are long past the point when we can wait for regime change in Iran. That is why we call out for an immediate strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Tomorrow might be a day too late.

If we are to stop Iran, we must now be in control of our enemy's fate. The quote below is from American and Israel Enter the Death Zone, which explains what will happen if we do not act now. It will be reissued and re-edited in a few days:

"While we may live another day to fight against the establishment of a mosque of conquest and State-satellite shrine at Ground Zero and Islam's Muzzlification of America, the world would become Ground Zero if Iran were to gain nuclear capabilities — because the greatest enemy of freedom will have tested and broken America's spirit. Who will then be left to prevent the globalization of a tyrannical One World Order if America's identity as the advocate for freedom were to be vanquished? When there is an aggressive plan to destroy our freedoms, our plan must be that much more aggressive."

Stanley Zir is founder of Never Again is NOW ( Contact them by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 20, 2011.


It was as feared by Huron University College faculty. Radical Muslims financed a new Chair in Islamic Studies at its Faculty of Theology. The College then appointed Ingrid Mattson, an Islamist, to that Chair. Prof. Mattson is a former president of the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA). She helped make ISNA "a key component of the Wahhabi lobby," wrote Daniel Pipes. She still tries to make Radical Islam appear harmless, by claiming that Wahhabi Islam "really was analogous to the European Protestant reformation."

The ISNA has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism case involving the Holy Land Foundation that helped finance Hamas.

Which organizations financed her new Chair? One is the Muslim Association of Canada, also having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another was the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). In 2008, IIIT tried to endow a chair in Islamic studies at Temple University. The University declined the $1.5 million gift because of federal investigation of IIIT for involvement in financing Palestinian Muslim terrorists.

A third funder was the Islamic Centre for Southwestern Ontario, linked to a Libyan charity of Qaddafi. The head of the Centre is Assem Fadel. Mr. Fadel headed another Libyan organization, World Islamic Call Society. This year, Canada revoked the charitable status of that Society, upon finding that a Libyan charity send Fadel funds that he transferred to the Society, which sent it to foreign terrorist organizations. As we can see, Qaddafi did sponsor terrorism.

Alumni, friends, and faculty of the University alerted the president of the university to the radicalism of the Chair's supporters. One supporter already identified, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), has a website that identifies it with Imam Hassan Al-Banna, founder and inspirer of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood motto is, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qu'ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

The interim president of the University, told the alumni that she considers the beliefs of MAC and IIIT compatible with the Universities, but "We don't probe deeply into values held by donors on cultural issues," so long as they don't act on those beliefs. Going further, the current president of the University declared, "Mattson brings an incredible wealth of knowledge and expertise to this area of study and Huron is privileged to have a scholar of her caliber (Winfield Myers, American Thinker, 10/16/11 academic_pay_to_play_radical_islamists_fund_one_ of_their_own_in_ontario.html;

The source should say what resulted from the investigation of IIIT. Did it finance Palestinian Muslim terrorists? How reliable are government statements declaring an organization unindicted co-conspirator? That is like a finding of guilt without a trial. On the other hand, there may be much evidence supporting the finding, but reasons not to bring them to court.

Are university heads being reasonable in accepting funds from organizations that promote terrorism, and in appointing officials from such organizations to the faculty, because those people did not themselves commit terrorism? Accepting funds from Islamists is like accepting funds from the Nazi and Communist movements. Movements exist to build momentum and gain a critical mass for taking over countries or using those countries to commit violence or espionage there or elsewhere.

Unfortunately, Radical Muslims have been corrupting some North American institutions, whose heads apparently lack intellectual rigor and moral fiber. Imagine, being "honored" to attract a scholar of Mattson's "cailbre!" Does the Huron University College president think that Mattson's scholarship will be objective or not only biased but subversive? Perhaps the president deems himself tolerant and respectful of privacy for not inquiring into faculty's private beliefs. Up to a point it would be. But the president helps undermine free societies when the private beliefs (actually public beliefs) would impose a barbaric and totalitarian code of intolerance upon the country and the world.

Mattson compared the unreformed and virulent Islamists to the Protestant Reformation, which certainly has mellowed by now. Her analogy is false and misleading. I have noticed a pattern of such misleading analogies. Obviously the attempt is to mislead.

Radical Muslims engage in the Islamic principle of deception of non-Muslims in order to advance the religion's grip on others. Stalin held phony elections to pretend to be democratic. Radical Muslims pretend to be moderate. What is westerners' excuse for believing them?


How has the secession of South Sudan affected Sudan? A few years ago, Sudan's economy boomed, as oil prices soared. The secession of South Sudan removed three-fourths of Sudan's oil. Now Sudan has much less revenue and suffers inflation of 21%. Will the people protest?

Along with the oil went most of the Christians and animists. Dictator al-Bashir says this clears the way to make Islamic law supreme, and "...there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity."

Clouding the picture, however, is that about a million non-Muslims still reside in the north and in Darfur. Christians live in Sudan's border states of Blue Nile and S. Kordofan, made autonomous because of the cultural diversity and unrest there. . South Kordofan has much of Sudan's remaining oil reserves. In those regions, however, the Sudanese government continues ethnic cleansing, and rebels keep fighting. Some Muslims join the rebels, By August, the government had displaced 400,000 civilians.

Reliable reports are scarce, because Sudan bars aid agencies. Will South Sudan will be dragged into war with Sudan to protect Christians and animists in Sudan?

Darfur residents defending against jihad there may acquire arms from Libyan sources. "Sudanese officials and Janjaweed militias have consistently defined their actions of ethnic cleansing against the native population of the region as 'jihad' against peoples perceived as insufficiently Islamic and Arabized."

Apparently the "international community" does not "acknowledge the role of jihad theology and Arab supremacist attitudes behind Khartoum's behavior." Why isn't there a no-fly zone over the embattled regions, not to mention a NATO bombing of Sudan's air force? Perhaps this is because the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council favor al-Bashir. In another example of hypocrisy, Arab governments denounced Gaddafi, but not brutal mistreatment by anti-Gadaffi militias of black migrant workers in Libya (Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi. The American Spectator, 11/1/11,

Darfur militias have alliances with South Sudan. In response Sudan, bombed Darfur militias' havens in South Sudan and offered economic development to Darfur. Darfur politicians and militias are uniting to demand a modern, secular, democratic state. Some Arab factions have joined them.

Claiming a goal of more local representation for Darfur, the central government of Darfur proposes dividing the three states in Darfur into five. The Darfur opposition wants a unified state and claims the government is trying to divide them tribally.

Civilians get caught in the attempted government bombing of opposition militias. Civilians who flee to refugee camps find basic commodities blockaded by the government.

The rich Abyei aera of south Kordofan is supposed to have a referendum which Sudan to belong to. The native people are the Christian Dinka Ngok, who prefer South Sudan and who are supported by South Sudan. To stack the referendum, Sudan settled thousands of nomadic Arab Muslims, the Misseriya, who graze in the region in the dry season. Sudan has been fanning a civil war in South Sudan. Attempts to demarcate borders prompt further disputes.

Sudan's stability is not secure (Damla Aras, Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011, pp. 79-84 (view PDF) sudan-ticking-time-bombs).

Still another example of hypocrisy is Arab and UN condemnation of Israel for having an arms blockade of Gaza, ruled by terrorists, but no condemnation of Sudan for having an aid blockade of genuine refugees from Islamist persecution.

The question why a no-fly zone has not been imposed on Sudan may be answered not only by citing hypocrisy but by lack of publicity over the ethnic cleansing there, reluctance to take the side of Christians against Muslims (and risk being called Islamophobic), and that there is no systematic analysis of foreign crises to determine whether and when to intervene. The Security Council should make such analyses, but it is too busy protecting Iran from effective sanctions and too busy condemning Israel for defending itself from aggressive Islamists.

The Crucifix and Muslim Majorities & Minorities

How can one discern the true sentiments of Muslims? By observing their practices where they are rule, free to do as they wish.

Egypt is one such country. A Muslim teacher recently ordered a Christian student to cover his crucifix. The student refused. In reaction, the teacher and some Muslim students strangled and beat the Christian to death. During the attack, the headmaster was informed about it. He continued sipping his tea. The Egyptian media called this persecution of a Christian a "non-sectarian" "conflict."

Muslims also insisted that Copts remove the cross and dome from a church. A Muslim complained that "the cross provokes us and our children. The Christians refused. Muslims destroyed the church. [As I have reported, that is a pattern in Egypt.]

Christians protested publicly. The military slew dozens of the protestors and ran many over with armored vehicles, shouting, "Allahu Akbar," the jihadist war cry. [But the military denied the assaults and claimed they were protecting law and order. With the Islamic war cry?]

In the U.S., Muslims are a small minority. Some of them attend Catholic University of America (CUIA). A George Washington University professor, John F. Banzhaf III, claims that Muslims students are offended at having to pray in CUA's chapel, where they see a crucifix. The Muslim students demand prayer rooms without Christian symbols.

Prof. Banzhaf admits that the Catholic University of America is not obliged to compromise its Catholic practices with Muslim students who chose of their own free will to attend there instead of elsewhere. Nevertheless, he claims that CUA is "acting improperly and probably with malice."

Prof. Banzhaf contrasts CUA with his Georgetown University, nominally Christian, and which provides Muslims students with a separate prayer room and a Muslim chaplain. As he did not mention but many people know, Georgetown's Arab and Islam departments get donations from Saudi Wahhabis, who refuse to permit churches in their country. [Large donations can make academics compliant.]

Which side is acting with malice, the private institution operating frankly under Christian principles, or Muslim students who could attend non-Christian institutions but attend this Christian one and purport to be offended by its Christian practices? Newt Gingrich commented, "Are you [Muslims] prepared to sponsor a Christian missionary in Mecca? Because if you're not prepared to sponsor religious liberty in Saudi Arabia, don't come and nag us with some hypocritical baloney."

Why are Muslim students seeking to create Muslim enclaves in universities? One reason is Islam's own doctrine of wala' wa bara', which commands Muslims to be loyal to one another, while completely disassociating themselves from non-Muslims." The Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights is investigating accusations that CUA violated Muslim students' human rights by not providing rooms without Christian symbols for daily prayers.

Islam keeps complaining that it is "misunderstood." But Islamic practice is clear: (1) Where Islam is weak, Islamist organizations such as CAIR complain that Muslims' human rights are violated for not getting special privileges; and (2) Where Islam is strong, Islamists violate the human rights of others. In both cases, Islam is practicing jihad (Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, 11/2/11, from Middle East Forum, crucifix-provokes-muslims).

A debatable question over symbol-free prayer rooms is far less serious than the constant murders and other crimes against many Christians and general religious, ethnic, and gender oppression in Arab states. I have not noticed big Muslim organizations protesting against such oppression. Their notion of rights is one-way.

Without citing evidence of malice by the Christian university, Mr. Banzhaf should not have accused the university of malice. To do seems malicious. There is too much denunciation of other people's motives, these days, without knowing the motives. That is irresponsible.

Citing Islamic teachings, Radical Muslims keep demanding separation from non-Muslims, while denouncing Israel as apartheid. Adolph Hitler may have gotten the idea of Jews wearing a Star of David, so as to be identified as Jews, from a similar dress code among the Muslim Arabs centuries earlier.

The notion of not marking churches and synagogues was the Islamic rule for centuries. In Egypt, Muslims take the law into their own hands about this, even if the rule no longer is on the books.

Sometimes churches invite Jews whose synagogue burned down to separate sessions of prayer. There is considerable tolerance and accommodation made in such cases. If you extend the Muslim student's reasoning further, imagine them entering a church and demanding a separate prayer room for Muslims not having crucifixes. But they don't have to attend a church.

The article was headed, "Why does the crucifix 'provoke' Muslims?" I think that the author did not answer that question. My answer is that Muslims consider it an affront, an abuse of their claimed divine right to rule, when people of other religions are not subservient to Islam. That is how Muslims perceive violations of their "rights." Also, they make favorable propaganda claiming to be victims.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 20, 2011.

A letter from a reserve Israeli soldier


My name is Aron Adler.

am 25 years old, was born in Brooklyn NY, and raised in Efrat Israel. Though very busy, I don't view my life as unusual. Most of the time, I am just another Israeli citizen. During the day I work as a paramedic in Magen David Adom, Israel's national EMS service. At night, I'm in my first year of law school. I got married this October and am starting a new chapter of life together with my wonderful wife Shulamit.

15-20 days out of every year, I'm called up to the Israeli army to do my reserve duty. I serve as a paramedic in an IDF paratrooper unit. My squad is made up of others like me; people living normal lives who step up to serve whenever responsibility calls. The oldest in my squad is 58, a father of four girls and grandfather of two; there are two bankers, one engineer, a holistic healer, and my 24 year old commander who is still trying to figure out what to do with his life. Most of the year we are just normal people living our lives, but for 15-20 days each year we are soldiers on the front lines preparing for a war that we hope we never have to fight.

This year, our reserve unit was stationed on the border between Israel, Egypt and the Gaza Strip in an area called "Kerem Shalom." Above and beyond the "typical" things for which we train — war, terrorism, border infiltration, etc., — this year we were confronted by a new challenge. Several years ago, a trend started of African refugees crossing the Egyptian border from Sinai into Israel to seek asylum from the atrocities in Darfur.

What started out as a small number of men, women and children fleeing from the machetes of the Janjaweed and violent fundamentalists to seek a better life elsewhere, turned into an organized industry of human trafficking. In return for huge sums of money, sometimes entire life savings paid to Bedouin "guides," these refugees are promised to be transported from Sudan, Eritrea, and other African countries through Egypt and the Sinai desert, into the safe haven of Israel.

We increasingly hear horror stories of the atrocities these refugees suffer on their way to freedom. They are subject to, and victims of extortion, rape, murder, and even organ theft, their bodies left to rot in the desert. Then, if lucky, after surviving this gruesome experience whose prize is freedom, when only a barbed wire fence separates them from Israel and their goal, they must go through the final death run and try to evade the bullets of the Egyptian soldiers stationed along the border. Egypt's soldiers are ordered to shoot to kill anyone trying to cross the border OUT of Egypt and into Israel. It's an almost nightly event.

For those who finally get across the border, the first people they encounter are Israeli soldiers, people like me and those in my unit, who are tasked with a primary mission of defending the lives of the Israeli people. On one side of the border soldiers shoot to kill. On the other side, they know they will be treated with more respect than in any of the countries they crossed to get to this point.

The region where it all happens is highly sensitive and risky from a security point of view, an area stricken with terror at every turn. It's just a few miles south of the place where Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. And yet the Israeli soldiers who are confronted with these refugees do it not with rifles aimed at them, but with a helping hand and an open heart. The refugees are taken to a nearby IDF base, given clean clothes, a hot drink, food and medical attention. They are finally safe.

Even though I live Israel and am aware through media reports of the events that take place on the Egyptian border, I never understood the intensity and complexity of the scenario until I experienced it myself.

In the course of the past few nights, I have witnessed much. At 9:00 PM last night, the first reports came in of gunfire heard from the Egyptian border. Minutes later, IDF scouts spotted small groups of people trying to get across the fence. In the period of about one hour, we picked up 13 men — cold, barefoot, dehydrated — some wearing nothing except underpants. Their bodies were covered with lacerations and other wounds. We gathered them in a room, gave them blankets, tea and treated their wounds. I don't speak a word of their language, but the look on their faces said it all and reminded me once again why I am so proud to be a Jew and an Israeli. Sadly, it was later determined that the gunshots we heard were deadly, killing three others fleeing for their lives.

During the 350 days a year when I am not on active duty, when I am just another man trying to get by, the people tasked with doing this amazing job, this amazing deed, the people witnessing these events, are mostly young Israeli soldiers just out of high school, serving their compulsory time in the IDF, some only 18 years old.

The refugees flooding into Israel are a heavy burden on our small country. More than 100,000 refugees have fled this way, and hundreds more cross the border every month. The social, economic, and humanitarian issues created by this influx of refugees are immense. There are serious security consequences for Israel as well. This influx of African refugees poses a crisis for Israel. Israel has yet to come up with the solutions required to deal with this crisis effectively, balancing its' sensitive social, economic, and security issues, at the same time striving to care for the refugees.

I don't have the answers to these complex problems which desperately need to be resolved. I'm not writing these words with the intention of taking a political position or a tactical stand on the issue.

I am writing to tell you and the entire world what's really happening down here on the Egyptian/Israeli border. And to tell you that despite all the serious problems created by this national crisis, these refugees have no reason to fear us. Because they know, as the entire world needs to know, that Israel has not shut its eyes to their suffering and pain. Israel has not looked the other way. The State of Israel has put politics aside to take the ethical and humane path as it has so often done before, in every instance of human suffering and natural disasters around the globe. We Jews know only too well about suffering and pain. The Jewish people have been there. We have been the refugees and the persecuted so many times, over thousands of years, all over the world.

Today, when African refugees flood our borders in search of freedom and better lives, and some for fear of their lives, it is particularly noteworthy how Israel deals with them, despite the enormous strain it puts on our country on so many levels. Our young and thriving Jewish people and country, built from the ashes of the Holocaust, do not turn their backs on humanity. Though I already knew that, this week I once again experienced it firsthand. I am overwhelmed with emotion and immensely proud to be a member of this nation.

With love of Israel,

Aron Adler writing from the Israel/Gaza/Egyptian border.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 20, 2011.

Various sources — which differ in some particulars — seem to concur that there has been a breakthrough with regard to a Fatah-Hamas unity government. After leaders of the two parties meet on Thursday, it is said the agreement will be announced. Reportedly the new government and prime minister will be located in Gaza — with the prime minister likely coming from Gaza, while the president and parliament will operate out of Ramallah. Elections are slated for May, and Islamic Jihad may participate. Both PA prime minister Salam Fayyad and Ismail Haniyeh, who is prime minister for Hamas, may bow out.

According to Arutz Sheva, which puts it that, Abbas is "going for broke" (gambling all on this move), the unity government will be based on "resistance," a Palestinian Authority state based on the temporary 1949 Armistice Lines and non-recognition of Israel.

Let's see how the world handles this.


Yet another issue of major importance to Israel is that of Egypt, which is now again undergoing major street clashes as crowds demonstrate against the ruling military regime. The protests began in Cairo's Tahrir Square but have spread to other places, such as Alexandria.

Essentially, what we are looking at is a battle between the military and Islamic forces for control of the country — starting with the drafting of a new constitution. Needless to say, which element controls the country will affect Israel's relationship with Egypt at the most basic levels.

Hillel Frisch of the BESA Center says that with regard to this constitution, "In essence, Egypt's soul and identity is at stake." See his cogent explanation of the situation here:


When push comes to shove, the military does not treat demonstrators with kid gloves: In the latest clashes two demonstrators were killed and 766 reported injured. Nor will the military voluntarily relinquish control: At present emergency laws are still in place.

Staggered elections are due to begin on November 28, but may be delayed because of the violence. I've read some reports suggesting the possibility of civil war, or "major civil strife," as Frisch puts it.

Another related issue is the question of what is going on in the Sinai. See a JINSA analysis on this: will-sinai-test-israeli-egyptian-peace


Interestingly, in spite of the unrest, the Israel ambassador to Egypt has returned to Cairo, following the September attack on the Israeli Embassy when all staff left the country. But this is Yitzhak Levanon, who, according to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, is on the cusp of retirement and has gone to Egypt (reportedly via a Turkish airlines flight) to conduct some farewell meetings before he departs.

The new ambassador, Yaakov Amitai, is scheduled to present his credentials in Cairo in December. The Embassy will not be fully staffed until all security arrangements are in place, and this may take somewhat longer.


You may encounter reports that Israel is about to enact laws that are "anti-democratic." Do not believe it, even for a second. The laws in question, which have passed a Ministerial Committee on Legislation, concern limiting foreign donations to Israeli NGOs (non-governmental organizations). The legislation, which is supported by the prime minister, still must jump through a number of hoops, such as Knesset readings, before becoming law.

I believe Israel is the only democracy to permit the sort of intervention by foreign governments that currently goes on — infusions of cash by those governments to support the agendas they wish to advance (but which do not represent the will of the Israeli electorate). The more significant of the two bills has been proposed by two Likud MKs, Ophir Akunis and Tzipi Hotovely and Yisrael Beitenu faction Chair Robert Ilatov. It would ban foreign governments from contributing over 20,000 NIS (shekels) — at current rates, about $5,400 — to political NGOs, defined as "organizations seeking to influence the diplomatic or defense agenda of the State of Israel."


NGO-Monitor has prepared background information on the situation, to answer questions and allay misunderstandings: israel_background_to_the_debate_and_faqs

"While the level of European and other foreign government funding for Israeli political advocacy NGOs is very large, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive accounting because, for many years, this funding was mostly done in secret. In addition, many Israeli non-profits, in violation of Israeli law, do not submit annual reports to the Registrar of Non-Profits (Rasham Amutot). However, as more information becomes available, particularly after the NGO Transparency Law (February 2011), additional and verifiable information will become available.

"As of November 2011, NGO Monitor's research reports list 23 Israeli political advocacy NGOs funded by foreign governments, all of which actively oppose, in varying degrees, the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. A number of powerful groups receive more than 70% of their annual donations from foreign governments. (Emphasis in the original)

"Although most of the foreign government funding is formally designated for 'educating the Israeli public' and 'changing public opinion' (both in violation of the norms on non-interference in other democracies), these Israeli NGOs are very active externally, in the delegitmization and political warfare against Israel. This campaign was crystallized at the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, where 1,500 NGOs adopted a document and plan of action calling for the 'total isolation of Israel.' To achieve this goal, NGOs frequently label Israel an 'apartheid' state, make false allegations of 'war crimes,' promote anti-Israel BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions), and bring lawfare cases against Israeli officials, among other tactics."


NGO-Monitor has also provided a list of those Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government donations, either directly or indirectly: government_funding_for_israeli_political_ngos_

You will note that every single one of these organizations is left wing. There is, by way of example, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which receives 53% of its funds from foreign governments.

As NGO-Monitor notes: "NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments..." Something is very amiss.


Giving a CNN interview today, Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared that Iran will be "unstoppable" in a year. Time, he said, is running out. Should Iran become a nuclear nation, it would result in nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey seeking nuclear arms, thus starting a "countdown" to terrorists getting nuclear materials.


Then see this by Tzachi Hanegbi, former head of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, who says, "Accepting a nuclear Iran would cause much more danger to Israel than the anticipated damage from any action designed to harm nuclear program."

Hanegbi presents a series of indisputable facts:

"Today no one disputes the fact that Iran has acquired the necessary know-how to enrich uranium for an atomic bomb.

"There is also no doubt that Iran has developed the ability to launch long-range missiles that can carry nuclear warheads.

"Even the biggest skeptics concede that if the moves designed to stop Iran fail, it will be able to fire missiles with nuclear warheads at any target in the Middle East and beyond in just a few years.

"The second fact concerns the dangers of Iran's nuclear threat to Israel...From the dismal failure of the international community's campaign against the nuclearization of Iran, and its refusal to take significant steps beyond economic sanctions, one can only conclude that the threat cannot be contained by the world.

"...for Israel, it is a very serious development. The leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have made it publicly clear that they would not leave Iran alone in the 'nuclear club.'

"The nuclear arms race in the Middle East will leave Israel under a nuclear threat growing with time, dictating limits and restraints too difficult to deal with as we face terrorist threats and provocations from other countries.

"In fact, it will leave Israel with no qualitative edge against its neighbors. To that, we should add other possible dangers: nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extreme terrorist groups...

"...The third fact that everyone should face directly, without self-delusion, is the absolute failure of diplomatic attempts to divert Iran from progressing toward acquiring a nuclear weapon...

"An analysis of reasons for this failure is not important now...

"The important thing is the bottom line: In the unequal race between the stammering international community and a determined fanatical state, the Iranian runner will be the first to cut the tape at the finish line..."


He then looks at the Israeli dilemma regarding what to do. Conceding that there are issues meant only for discussion behind closed doors and far too sensitive to be analyzed in an article, he goes on to say,

"All I would allow myself to say is that I totally reject the apocalyptic scenarios published in recent days. To the best of my knowledge, based on constant dealings with the Iranian issue in the most intimate possible way over seven consecutive years, I think that coming to terms with a nuclear Iran would cause much more danger and harm to Israel than the anticipated damage from any action designed to harm Iran's nuclear program.

"Because of my familiarity with the political scene in the US, I believe that the warnings about a 'destruction of relations with the United States' have no basis. The leader of the US understands well that it has no right to undermine Israel's right of self-defense against a strategic threat. This is true of the Obama administration as well as of any other administration, if there is a new one, following the US election in November 2012.

"I agree with those who recommend waiting for a US decision on whether to raise its hands and concede defeat in the wake of continued Iranian defiance, or to raise up a US Air Force attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"However, the waiting period should be limited..." Article.aspx?id=245160

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 20, 2011.

I've come to realize a hitherto hidden dimension of why it is so hard for Western establishment figures (policymakers, journalists, and academics) to understand the Middle East. It is the conflict between the thirst for good news and the reality of bad news.

Being optimists (based on the relatively good course of their own societies?) and believing that positive change is really easy if people only put their minds to making it happen (ditto and also liberal thinking), they exaggerate any sign that things are getting better.

Moreover, contemporary thinking trembles in horror about saying anything critical about Third World peoples (racism, Islamophobia) while it is considered noble to criticize "ourselves." On top of that is the assumption that no one can really be radical. They are just responding to past mistreatment and will revert to being moderate the minute the oppression is corrected.

So constantly we are led to an artificial optimism that ignores threats or even converts them into benefits.

How many examples I see every day!

A group of young Palestinians in Fatah, who explicitly say they want to wipe out Israel, form a new group and — hocus-pocus — we are informed that this is the long-awaited Palestinian equivalent of the dovish Israeli Peace Now movement!

We are told that the Libyan masses are fighting for democracy against dictator Muammar Qadhafi and suddenly we have prisoners being tortured and murdered, arms being sold to terrorists elsewhere, gun battles among factions, and a radical Islamist state emerging.

In Turkey the regime arrests hundreds of people, represses the media, pushes women out of government jobs, promotes antisemitism and, voila!, it is first called moderate Muslim (they deny it is Islamist) and then promoted (?) to moderate Islamist!

Radicals (except in the West?) are apparently representatives of backward, irrational, primitive societies and so if all Third World societies are equal to those of the West they just can't have such people. Everyone must be a moderate, concerned about global warming and ecology; dedicated to democracy; and passionate about getting more material goods as the highest goal in life.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who most loudly proclaim Multiculturalism, diversity, and the equality of all societies simply can't seem to comprehend that cultures and societies are different. They are in fact diverse! Living 40 years under Muammar Qadhafi in a semi-literate, tribal-based society does not create people like those on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. And not even the Upper West Side for that matter.

Equally ironic, is that while Western elites are quick to look down on their own unwashed masses (bitterly clinging to their guns, religion, and hating outsiders, right?), they fail to comprehend that this is precisely the central theme throughout the Middle East and many other parts of the world.

Perhaps I should suggest an amazing new formula that would make it easy for Western elites to understand what's going on in the Middle East:

Just think of the Islamists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey; the regimes in Iran and Syria; Hamas, Hizballah, and even the Palestinian Authority as being like the...Tea Party!

Scary, huh?

This was written by Barry Rubin, who 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 Contact him at The website of the GLORIA Center is at and his blog, Rubin Reports,

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 19, 2011.

Daniel Pipes analyzed the research of two other scholars and himself on the opinions about Canada by Muslims there. He concludes that Canadian Muslims are neither all hostile to Western ways nor totally accepting of them. They have a variety of views. Their attitudes are important during these times when Muslims are attempting to impose Islamic law on Western countries and wage jihad against them.

Why are they different? Muslim I migrants included "Qadiri and similar Sufi traditionalists, heterodox Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa, and secularists from Tunisia and Algeria." Muslims in Canada do not consider Canada racist and highly approve of the government there, as does the population as a whole.

Reviewing the studies, Daniel Pipes remarks, "I found it especially encouraging that Canadian Muslims understand democracy as not just a system for choosing leaders but as a mentality and a way of life permitting an individual the autonomy to think and act in freedom, to develop his own opinions, and to opt out of."

Job-seeking can be problematic for Muslims. Muslims have made problems for societies that employers are reluctant to let themselves in for; however, some employers may be prejudiced.

On the other hand, about 15% of Canadian Muslims want Islamic law applied to Muslims there. Radical views are found more among secular Muslims in Canada than among religious ones. Apparently Radical views there are more political than religious in motivation.

About 3% of Canadian Muslims favor al-Qaida. That percentage is small, but 3% of the 700,000 Muslims in the country amounts to 20,000 hard-core Islamists. That should alert immigration and other security officials.

Will Canadian Muslims, the most moderate and diverse, try to interest other Muslim immigrant populations in their attitudes? (Daniel Pipes, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 11/2011 canada-muslims-not-of-one-mind)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 19, 2011.

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

It was, admittedly, only during the course of the past 1-1/2 weeks that I was focused on family matters intensively enough so that I was prevented from posting. But now that I have returned to normal posting (and am so happy be back to doing so), I ask how things have changed in the course of those ten days. And the answer is that not much has changed. The same irritating and worrisome themes persist. The same world stupidity endures. Hadn't expected anything else.


In my book, no issue trumps that of the threat of Iran — even if much of the world still chooses, obtusely and at its own peril, to remain oblivious to this.

Back on November 8, the Israeli government was still expressing hope that once the IAEA report on Iran was released — that very day — the world would sit up and take notice.

The report — who contents had already been leaked — for the first time made it clear that Iran is secretly working towards the development of atomic weaponry: "Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device." A 14-page annex to the report provides a detailed description of the ways in which Iranian scientists have sought to develop the relevant skills and secure highly specific information and materials used in nuclear warhead design. Iran would require about six months to enrich the quantity of uranium necessary for building a weapon.

You can see the report here: world/2011/IAEA-Nov-2011-Report-Iran.pdf


Within a day, Russia announced that it would block any more stringent move against Iran in the UN:

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov declared that, "Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Tehran....That approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals."

Two days later, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, defending Chinese economic dealings with Iran, said that cooperation rather than coercion is the most effective approach to Iran.


And the US? It has been hedging with regard to sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank (considered one of the most effective ways of hurting Iran) because this would have drive up oil prices and hurt the US economy. Seems to me I've covered this ground before: the breathtaking idiocy of imagining that a world in which Iran has nuclear weaponry would be stable and not adversely affect the US economy.

A recent editorial in the Washington Post makes this point quite clearly:

"The Obama administration has been saying since last month, when it revealed an Iranian plot to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States, that it intended to press for tougher sanctions. But in briefing reporters this week, officials appeared to back away from measures that would have real impact...the administration is wary that, by effectively shutting down Iran's oil exports, it would provoke a spike in energy prices that would damage the fragile global economy.

"That is a legitimate concern. But President Obama has said repeatedly that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable — and the IAEA report makes clear the danger is growing, not diminishing. If Iran is to be stopped without the use of military force, the president, and the country, should be willing to bear some economic pain. The alternative — allowing Tehran to go forward — would be far more costly." (Emphasis added) running-out-of-time-to-stop-irans-nuclear-program/ 2011/11/09/gIQAiFDQ6M_story.html


Meanwhile Netanyahu made it clear that:

"The significance of the [IAEA] report is that the international community must bring about the cessation of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons which endanger the peace of the world and of the Middle East."

"Must." But will it? There is a veiled warning here.


A US official cited by the Wall Street Journal clearly recognized that warning: "We need to show to the Israelis that there's a sense of seriousness."

This is a fascinating statement. Not that "we [international leaders] need" to stop Iran because Iran must be stopped. But because Israel might otherwise do something "rash." So precisely who is viewed as the bigger threat here?


Last Sunday, during his statement at the beginning of the Cabinet meeting, Netanyahu made the warning even more dire:

"Iran is closer to getting a bomb than is thought. Only things that could be proven were written [in the report], but in reality there are many other things that we see."

While Foreign Minister Lieberman has observed that:

"So far the international community has imposed sanctions on Iran only on 30% of areas where it could be possible....Even if the Western world would impose sanctions without China and Russia, it would be enough to strangle Iran."


It's my understanding that two US officials — David Cohen, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who is charge of America's economic sanctions on Iran, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides — were here in Israel last week to discuss issues of how to proceed with sanctions against Iran. But there is no information I have uncovered regarding the discussions.


Just two days ago, Security Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon made the statement that Israel's readiness to hit Iran must be something that is credible to the Iranians — that is, that they take seriously and cannot dismiss as saber-rattling.

But, while Israel must be ready to take on Iran on its own, this option "is the last one and only comes after all other options have been used."


The welcome news about Iran is two fold.

First, it seems that Iran's computers are again affected by a supervirus similar to what hit it last year. This one is being called "Duqu." It is thought to be related to the original "Stuxnet" and is likely to have been created by the same parties. "Duqu" is apparently designed to secure information from computers to be utilized in a further virus attack.

And then, there was a major blast at a missile base just a week ago that killed 17 members of the Revolutionary Guard — including Brigadier General Hassan Moghaddam, who was in charge of missile development — and did extensive damage to the site. This is being linked to an explosion last October at a base that housed long-range Shahab-3 missiles. Fingers are pointed at the Mossad. But, as should be the case, no one is talking.


The second issue of high interest, of course, is that of PA shenanigans. Which are never-ending and ever so wearisome.

Sensing that its bid in the Security Council was not going well, the PA, some days ago, resorted to its default position of making threats regarding impending violence. (Its other default is making threats about Abbas's resignation and the dismantlement of the PA). In this instance, a PA official predicted that the region might be headed towards "violence and anarchy" if its bid for statehood failed.

But, as that threat — quite obviously — made no discernable difference in the situation, the PA has decided not to call for a vote in the Security Council with regard to its request for membership.

It had become clear that there were not enough votes to pass it: According to a Security Council subcommittee report, only eight states were prepared to vote for Palestinian membership, while nine of 15 were required. With the exception of the US, which was prepared to cast a veto, the other states that wouldn't vote in favor would have abstained — Britain, France, Colombia, Germany, Portugal and Bosnia. But abstentions would have been enough to prevent the PA from achieving its goal.

All of this was undoubtedly an enormous relief to Obama, who would have cast the veto he had committed to only reluctantly. As the result of effective lobbying by the US and Israel, it had become unnecessary.


But do not imagine that this is the end of the PA's UN gambit. Now, leaders have announced, they will be focused on the General Assembly, where there is no chance for a majority vote favoring the Palestinian Arabs to be blocked, and where they will be seeking observer status.

This does not, I emphasize, represent the creation of a Palestinian state by the General Assembly, which is not empowered to do anything of the sort. But observer status would grant the PA certain perks that it would try to parlay to its advantage in the international community. I will be tracking this carefully.


Then beyond the UN gambit, the PA has returned again, more actively, to its "form-a-unity-government-with-Hamas" gambit.

According to Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost, Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior West Bank Fatah official has revealed that he has had held secret meetings in Cairo with Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas politburo located in Damascus. Ahmed said that they had held several meetings "in order to create a positive atmosphere" ahead of an anticipated summit in Cairo between Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

Some six months ago a unity agreement had been announced, but stumbled on the issue of the formation of a joint government: Hamas was adamant that PA prime minister Salam Fayyad, whom they detest, would have no part in it, and Fatah was just as adamant that he must have a role. Now reports are that Fayyad has agreed to resign, and to withdraw with regard to any further involvement in government.

While many members of Fatah were themselves less than fond of Fayyad, who is an independent, they tolerated his continuing role as prime minister because he is the darling of the West — the one who has had the confidence of the EU and the ability to bring in financial support for the PA. A Palestinian government without him at its helm will usher in a different, more problematic, dynamic.


In addition to having to put together a government, the parties involved have to set a time for presidential and parliamentary elections, presumably in the spring.

Almost all Palestinian Arab issues are "wait and see" because of the inherent volatility of the situation. But I believe it is even more the case with regard to the formation of a unity government. In spite of a history of some cooperation and certainly at present some convergence of interests that suggest the possibility of such an arrangement, there is also an underlying dynamic of tensions and rivalries between Hamas and Fatah.


From my cynical perspective I see one particular advantage: Full readiness on the part of Abbas to enter into arrangements with an overtly terrorist entity goes a long way to removing his mask of moderation. I qualify by saying "a long way," because there are always parties ready to put on their blinders and dance around him, finding ways to exonerate his behavior. But he is making it tougher for the West to embrace him, which I rather like — as Fatah's goals and those of Hamas are one and the same.

In particular, I am hoping that once and for all Netanyahu would be freed of his compulsion to show the world how eager he is to sit at the negotiating table with Abbas — even as Abbas goes on about requiring a halt in all construction beyond the Green Line and the necessity of accepting the '67 line as the basis for negotiations.

Never a straight-forward statement: "We're sick of this guy, who has no interest in peace, and sick of pretending that he might come around."


This is the sort of statement that seriously irks me. No — in simple street jargon — that makes me bananas: An Israeli official on Thursday was quoted as saying that "if he [Abbas]... [moves] forward towards Hamas, it can seriously harm the peace process."

Say what? Peace process? What peace process? What nonsensical pretense.

Another official said more:

"If Abbas consummates this marriage in a meeting next week with Mashaal, it is a serious problem for us. We have said before that Abbas can choose peace with us or Hamas, but they don't go together."

Then it becomes time to watch closely how the Israeli government will respond.


Joke of the day, except its not funny:

From Maariv: "On Wednesday, the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad was chosen to be the Arab representative on the UNESCO committee that deals with issues relating to the implementation of human rights.

"UNESCO's decision comes after Assad's regime managed to kill 3,500 demonstrators and arrest tens of thousands, without any due process whatsoever."

Proof positive of the corruption of the world.


Speaking of UNESCO, please see "Who's destroying antiquities in Jerusalem?":

"Now that it has been admitted to UNESCO as a 'member state,' the Palestinian Authority plans to sue Israel for 'stealing Palestinian antiquities.'

"'We will take Israel to court for systematically destroying and forging Arab and Islamic culture in Jerusalem,' said Hatem Abdel Qader, former PA minister for Jerusalem affairs, after the UNESCO vote.

"PA Minister of Tourism Khuloud Daibes alleges that Israel's renovations of Jerusalem's Old City walls and its intention to replace the crumbling Mughrabi Bridge at the southern entrance to the Temple Mount are hostile attempts to 'change the Islamic and Arabic character of the city.'

"The Palestinians are also planning to ask UNESCO to declare several sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, international heritage sites belonging to Palestine, not Israel.

"If this weren't so funny, it would be outrageous..." Article.aspx?id=246012

Author David Weinberg, director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, then traces the sterling record of Israel on this issue, and the abysmal Arab/Muslim record.

This is information every supporter of Israel should have.


I want to end on a "good news" note that seems a bit frivolous in light of all that is above, but which I find both charming and hopeful in its broader implications:

In the 1940s and 1950s, the marshes of Hula Valley in northern Israel were drained because of malaria and in order to make the area arable. With the disappearance of its natural habitat, the Hula painted frog disappeared — one hadn't been seen in some 50 years and in 1996 it was declared extinct.

About three years ago, with recognition of the ecological damage done to the region when the swamps were drained, water was diverted back to areas of the Hula.

And now? Surprise! The Hula frog — described as having "a dark belly with small white spots and other colors including ochre and rust grading into dark olive-gray and gray-black" — has been spotted again. Don't know how it managed these past fifty years, but it wasn't extinct after all, Israel's Nature and Parks Authority now informs us.

Hang in there! is the watchword.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, November 19, 2011.

This was written by David M. Weinberg, director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He is also the director of the Israel Office of the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (Canada), and a spokesman, speechwriter, and lobbyist with 25 years of successful advocacy campaigns to his credit. Weinberg has been a senior advisor to deputy prime minister Natan Sharansky, coordinator of the Global Forum Against Anti-Semitism in the Prime Minister's Office, spokesman for the Herzliya Conference on National Security, and spokesman of Bar-Ilan University. It appeared November 17, 2011 in the Jerusalem Post


There is little doubt that Palestinian Muslim authorities are conducting this assault on the Temple Mount so as to erase any vestige of archeological evidence for Jewish (and Christian) history.

Now that it has been admitted to UNESCO as a "member state," the Palestinian Authority plans to sue Israel for "stealing Palestinian antiquities." An oxymoron if ever there was one.

"We will take Israel to court for systematically destroying and forging Arab and Islamic culture in Jerusalem," said Hatem Abdel Qader, former PA minister for Jerusalem affairs, after the UNESCO vote.

PA Minister of Tourism Khuloud Daibes alleges that Israel's renovations of Jerusalem's Old City walls and its intention to replace the crumbling Mughrabi Bridge at the southern entrance to the Temple Mount are hostile attempts to "change the Islamic and Arabic character of the city."

The Palestinians are also planning to ask UNESCO to declare several sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank, such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, international heritage sites belonging to Palestine, not Israel.

If this weren't so funny, it would be outrageous. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Israel set the international gold standard for unimpeded religious worship in Jerusalem, and for painstaking preservation of Muslim and Christian holy sites and archeological sites across Israel. In civilized and professional circles, Israel is recognized as having contributed enormously to the excavation, study and preservation of Holy Land historical sites and relics.

By contrast, there is no Arab or Islamic country in the Middle East where Christians or Jews can freely operate religious institutions. Under Palestinian Authority and Hamas rule, Christians in the West Bank and Gaza have been hounded, terrorized and driven out. Christian Bethlehem is, effectively, no more. The Church of Nativity was defiled by Palestinian Muslim terrorists who turned it into an armed refuge in 2002. Churches in Gaza have been bombed and burned. Can you imagine how the churches of Jerusalem might fare under Palestinian rule?

Meanwhile, Jewish synagogues and holy sites in Jericho, Nablus and Gush Katif have been burned to the ground while Palestinian police looked on.

In 1996, Palestinian mobs assaulted Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, and Palestinian policemen on the scene shot and wounded the Israeli soldiers guarding the Tomb. Ever since, the site has been sheathed in high concrete barriers, turning it into a Fort Knox-like encampment. Then a Palestinian mob, led by Palestinian policemen, assaulted Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, torched the synagogue inside and opened fire on Israeli troops at the site, killing six Israeli soldiers.

In 2000, Palestinian mobs once again attacked, killed one Israeli soldier and destroyed the building. Palestinian forces again took part. The Shalom Al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho, with its unique Byzantine-era mosaic floor, was also torched. Today, Israelis have only sporadic access to the site. As for Gush Katif, the wild Palestinian mob destruction of all the synagogues there is just too fresh and painful a wound to talk about.

The Palestinians learned from the Jordanians. Before 1967, Jews were not allowed to reach their holy places in Jerusalem at all; thousands of Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives were desecrated and the tombstones used to pave streets and latrines; and the synagogues of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter were dynamited.

The greatest crime of all — an antiquities crime of historic proportions — has been committed over recent years by the Palestinian Wakf on the Temple Mount. In 1999, the Wakf dug out hundreds of truckloads of dirt from caverns known as Solomon's Stables beneath the upper plaza (more than 1,600 square meters in area and 15 meters deep) without any archeological supervision or documentation.

Thousands of tons of earth rich in archeological remains from all periods of the Temple Mount were haphazardly dumped into the Kidron Valley and the city garbage dump at Eizariya. The Wakf also destroyed stonework done by Jewish artisans 2,000 years ago in the underground "double passageway."

Thousands of years of layered history — Jewish history, of course — were gouged out of the ground with heavy machinery and shoveled out of sight. UNESCO didn't say a thing.

Israeli archeological students are still sifting through this precious rubble, and have found numerous antiquities from the First and Second Temple periods, including stone weights for weighing silver, and a First Temple period bulla (seal impression) containing ancient Hebrew writing which may have belonged to a well-known family of priests mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah. Other findings are from the late period of the Kings of Judea (8th and 7th centuries BCE), including about one thousand ancient coins, jewelry made of various materials, stone and glass squares from floor and wall mosaics, and many other items.

The Wakf has also allowed the destruction of Christian relics on the Temple Mount, including the Crusader pillars of the 13th-century Grammar Dome in the southwestern corner of the Mount, and the Crusader-era Chain Gate.

According to the 1978 Law of Antiquities, it is forbidden to perform any "alteration, repair or addition to an antiquity located on the site," but that hasn't stopped the Wakf from sanctioning the haphazard addition of concrete and stone to these architectural relics, drilling holes into them, spray painting them, chopping through them for electricity cables, and more.

There is little doubt that Palestinian authorities are conducting this assault on the Temple Mount so as to erase any vestige of archeological evidence for Jewish (and Christian) history.

"In Arabic, this practice is known as as Tams al-ma'alem, which means 'erasing the signs,' in the sense of destroying the relics of all cultures that preceded Islam," asserts Dr. Mordechai Kedar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

And now the PA is going to sue Israel for antiquities theft? Inconceivable! Such chutzpa.

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volumes One & Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state. Volume 3 has recently been issued.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Sheskin, November 19, 2011.

It is rather unusual for me to comment on articles I read on the internet or even speeches by so-called distinguished speakers at live events. However, the other night I had the opportunity to attend a book signing event by Mosab Hassan Youssef (Son of Hamas) and to that I feel the need to comment.

I am a retired IDF intelligence officer having served 19 years for my country, and when I hear someone like Mosab speak, I feel a need to either beat him with a hammer or do what I'm doing now, which is to speak out against him. It is difficult for me to understand why the Jewish public buy his books when his story is only partially true. Yes, indeed he was an agent for Shabak (Shin bet) but, much of the intelligence he received about Israel he passed on to the Hamas organization. He managed to receive temporary residency in the USA under the pretense that if extradited, he would be assassinated.

I merely wish to point out that under the Hamas charter, it specifically states that anyone doing business with Israel must be killed, and converting out of the religion calls for a Fatwa. This man has no such Fatwa against him nor is his life in Peril. I asked him a question which is common knowledge, and also available on the internet. I asked him what the name was of the director of Shin bet during the years he was active. He not only refused to respond, but called me a troublemaker. I still have many colleagues in Israel that provide me with otherwise sensitive data.

Mosab has become very popular with the Christian community, but I will do everything in my power to stop Jews from buying in to his lies, and of course books. I deliver a lot of speaking engagements in Canada and the States, and will use every opportunity available to me to bring him down. My book is about the truth behind my career with Israeli Intelligence, and I am not here to promote my book. However, you may Google my name and find out who and what I am and was.

I want only for the truth to be known, and stop these so-called Israeli spy's and conspirators from earning money on the back of Jews. Enough is enough. There are numerous articles on the internet supporting what I say. Perhaps if you hear that I'm speaking in the area where you are located, you may wish to attend that engagement and hear about the history of Mossad and their fight against Radical Islam first hand.

Major Dave Sheskin (Major ret.-IDF)

Contact Dave Sheskin at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 18, 2011.

It seems to be awaiting financing. What we can say for sure is what happened to other real estate projects by Muslims involved in that mosque and by some other Radical Muslims.

The man originally selected to be the mosque's imam, Feisal Rauf, has other real estate holdings. In New Jersey, he obtained $2 million in public funds to renovate low income apartments. But the property reeks with complaints and odors from failure to collect garbage, stale deposits of urine, infestations by rats and bedbugs, apartments lacking heat and hot water. The major of Union City sued Rauf last year as one of the city's worst "slumlords." The buildings were place into receivership.

A similar story fits Sharif el-Gamal, the main developer of the Ground Zero mosque. His company owns 1835 Amsterdam Ave., where a court order requires him to fix almost 400 violations. He refuses to fix the vermin infestations, lack of heat, and obstructed stairs and fire escapes. He is involved in lawsuits with the city and with tenants.

In Philadelphia, another Islamist, Kenny Gamble, has been assembling a "black Muslim enclave." He buys property cheaply from the city of Philadelphia. The city gave his Universal Companies $330,000 to acquire and restore the historic Royal Theater in 2000. In 2005, he got a $90,000 federal grant to repair it. Now, "treelike weeds and bushes sprout form the building."

According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Gamble's company has other unfinished properties, constituting taxpayer-funded blight. But before leaving office last January, Gov. Ed Rendell awarded Universal $2.25 million to fix the Royal.

Perhaps our governments should learn not to finance developers seeking to advance Islamist goals (David J. Rusin, 11/4/11 2011/11/islamists-as-slumlords) but apparently not seeking to meet governmental housing goals.

Once a landlord neglects property, why do governments offer further subsidy?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Salomon Benzimra, November 18, 2011.

The Jewish People's Rights To The Land Of Israel
BY: Salomon Benzimra
(10 November 2011)
ASIN: B0065WZM14
Amazon Kindle Book:
Amazon Digital Services
SOON: Hebrew Edition

Editorial Review:

The Arab-Israeli conflict dominates the daily headlines with buzzwords such as "land for peace", "occupied Palestinian territories" and "illegal settlements." These warped notions have taken root in the past two decades and now seem to be accepted as indisputable truths.

The crucial facts of this conflict have long been dormant. In the words of Minister Moshe Yaalon, Vice-Premier of Israel, "'The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel' comes to fill this knowledge void" by expounding on the historical connection of the Jewish people to their ancestral land; the revival of their national aspirations in the modern Zionist movement; the recognition of their collective, national rights in international law; and the insidious violation of these rights during the British Mandate period, up to the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948.

In about a hundred pages, The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel offers the reader a gradual level of factual detail, from a short, comprehensive summary to an in-depth review and further references to many online authoritative sources. This book is not a substitute for the elaborate scholarly treatises which address these complex issues. It is a handy and invaluable resource for all those who believe in the primacy of facts over opinion and myth, and especially to students who are repeatedly confronted by emotionally charged falsehoods.

REVIEW: by Leyla of Beth-Laham-Judah

Comprehensive, Concise, Accessible Summary of Jewish Rights Salomon Benzimra avoids the fantastical distractions of framing Israel's return to its ancestral land as a "biblical deed". Too many ignore the secular laws which give Israel a far more meaningful claim on this ancestral land. Many books are too long, take too many unnecessary deviations and lose the essential arguments needed to fully grasp the roots of the legitimate claim of Israel and the rightful return of all legitimate heirs of Judea, Samaria and Israel.

Salomon Benzimra has a remarkably lucid style that never loses sight of the readers' needs — be they erudite or people seeking merely to understand the basic foundations of Israel's legitimate claims. This is truly a triumph for Benzimra whose organization of the information does not merely present an inventory of facts, but he ties them together in an easy to follow progressive narrative and he provides excellent graphics and illustrations with credible attributions.

Reading Benzimra's book requires the open mind of an honest search for understanding. Anyone who approaches this concise text or a lengthy tome will never be convinced if their minds are closed to factual truths. But even for a Palestinian, such as myself, seeking truth can be a painful necessity. Thus, I feel a great debt of gratitude to Benzimra. He must have laboured with fastidious care to provide both objective intellectual substance and credible source support to demonstrate the rights of Jews to Israel.

Benzimra's style and disciplined rigorous objectivity, unmoved by emotion or bias but dedicated to facts, cannot leave a rational mind unaffected by its persuasive proof. I am in awe now that Benzimra has demonstrated that public dialogue suffers a near fatal absence of legal arguments substantiating Israelis rights to the Land of Israel that have so long been ignored. One must question Israel's failure to sufficiently make its legal case in the court of public opinion.

As an advocate for Israel, Benzimra stands high above the crowd and earns the respect rarely accorded to a champion who succeeds with such dispassionate persuasion to simply and irrefutably demonstrate the legitimate rights of Israel. In a world steeped in irrational, passionate distractions that too easily lead to bloodshed, understanding the essential recognition of Israel's foundational legitimacy as demonstrated in Benzimra's book is indispensable. It is focused, clear, legitimate and one I would highly recommend both to history classes or individuals in search of a better understanding of the Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel.

REVIEW: by Miroslav Marinov

Calm and Logical Defence of Israel's Legal Rights

I have attended a few of Mr. Benzimra's lectures on the legal rights of Israel. It's admirable that he decided to publish his findings in a book. Israel is the only country in the world, which is so mercilessly scrutinized and attacked to the point where many are against its very existence. Even many defenders of the country think that it was created after World War II as a "gift" to the Jews from the European nations, which felt guilty about the Holocaust. And I won't even go into the Arab idea of Israel as an evil Jewish conspiracy trying to destroy Islam.

The whole issue is so deeply emotionally charged that it is refreshing to see somebody like Mr. Benzimra chiming in. His background in engineering has helped him bypass all the emotions involved and present a cold factual account of the issue. The facts he presents are not new, but in order to get them you need to sift through thousands of pages of historical books, where the legal problems are buried under the descriptions of numerous events.

The author convincingly shows that the state of Israel was not a result of a guilty conscience or an invasion — the reasons for its existence are rooted deeply in the ancient history and many legal decisions made during the 20th century.

Israel has a claim to that land starting from the antiquity — there is abundant evidence of massive Jewish presence in historical documents and archaeological finds. Even after the Romans expelled the majority of the Israelites, there still have always been Jews living there. Even the name "Palestina" was invented by the Romans to confront Jews, by referring to a people that disappeared long time ago.

After the horrors of the medieval anti-Semitism and the creation of the Zionist movement in the late 1800's, in the 20th century the idea of allowing the Jews to return to their homeland found wider support. Mr. Benzimra takes us through the legal stages of the process, starting from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which openly defended the need for "a national home of the Jewish people in Palestine".

It was followed by the creation of the Mandate of Palestine in 1919 by the League of Nations, which recognized the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine and called for reconstitution of their national home. A major step ahead was the San Remo Conference in 1920 — for the first time after the Romans, it made Palestine a legal entity. The Jewish people acquired legal sovereignty in Palestine, they became the main beneficiaries of the Mandate. It was to be an indivisible entity, it also included the territories west of Jordan river (thus legitimizing Judea and Samaria). It also encouraged more settlements within those boundaries. (Here Mr. Benzimra makes a good point refuting the "illegal settlement" accusation — worth reading). The Arabs received two other mandates — Syria and Mesopotamia (under French control).

The Mandate of Palestine was placed under British jurisdiction. Although its purpose was to establish a Jewish state, Great Britain took the liberty of changing the borders to appease the Arabs — carving out Transjordan. Britain repeatedly violated the status of the Mandate — a treacherous role, the same one they played in other parts of the world. They did that without the consent of the League of Nations, as it was required in the Mandate. A series of white papers caused irreparable damage, like limiting the Jewish immigration and increasing the Arab immigration. They also came up with the idea to provide a large part of the Mandate to the Arabs. Especially devastating was the 1939 decision to limit the Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next five years — it had a catastrophic effect on the European Jews during World War II.

From that legal point of view, the UN Partition Resolution 181 didn't annul the Mandate — it was accepted by the Jews under the constraint of the after-Holocaust period when hundreds of thousands of Jews were still in camps for displaced in Europe. UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding. The Arabs rejected the resolution by starting a war — and lost. The resolution is not valid anymore. Even its acceptance violated the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine, which was still in force at the time. It's ironic that the Palestinians are trying to resurrect it now.

Every event discussed by Mr. Benzimra is meticulously researched and analyzed from a legal point of view, considering all pros and cons, and its impact on the future of Israel. The short summary above was just an outline of the main stages in establishing the Jewish state. You really need to read the book in order to grasp the complexity of the real picture. Having done so, it would be really difficult to take seriously all lies and falsifications invented to make Israel look like an illegitimate state. I would highly recommend this book to everyone, whose purpose is to understand the truth about the Middle East.

To Go To Top

Posted by Alexander Dymshits, November 18, 2011.

Esther and Jonathan Pollard (Justice for Jonathan Pollard)

As Jonathan Pollard begins his 27th year in jail, his wife Esther Pollard pleads for clemency. This appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
( Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=246013) and is archived at 111711c.htm


Dear President Obama,

It is reported that on or about November 24 you will be pardoning this year's American National Thanksgiving turkey, thereby sparing its life.

While the pardoning ceremony is light-hearted, the values it demonstrates are solemn and deeply cherished. As the President of the United States, your granting clemency to a lowly barnyard bird demonstrates to the world the great respect that the American people have for the values of justice, compassion and mercy. It is in this light that I write to bring to your attention once again to the plight of my husband, Jonathan Pollard.

On November 21, 2011 — a scant three days before Thanksgiving — Jonathan Pollard enters his 27th year of a life sentence with no end in sight. I urge and implore you to include Jonathan in the list of holiday clemencies that are expected to be announced by the White House shortly, enabling those who are set free to get home in time for the holidays.

Mr. President, G-d has seen fit to elevate you to the position of the head of the mightiest nation in the world, the president of United States of America, and to invest in you powers of clemency second only to His own.

Clearly these gifts were bestowed upon you as a man worthy and capable of fulfilling the biblical injunction which describes what G-d requires of man, namely: "to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your G-d." (Micha 6:8)

Over the past year, since Jonathan submitted his clemency petition to you on October 15, 2010, there has been a burgeoning public awareness of the injustice in his sentence. Many senior American officials as well as high-ranking legal officials and elected representatives have appealed to you, both publicly and privately, to release Jonathan.

In their words, his release is a matter of simple justice because "his sentence is grossly disproportionate." And it is appropriate on humanitarian grounds because his health is failing after more than a quarter of a century of affliction in American prisons.

Those who know the case best have been very clear in their publicly stated opinions and in their letters to you, indicating that keeping Jonathan in prison any longer is a travesty of justice. These include, among many others: former secretary of state George Shultz, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, White House legal counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former attorney-general Michael Mukasey, former deputy attorney-general Phillip Heymann, former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb and former CIA director James Woolsey.

As well, in a historic display of bipartisanship, a group of 18 prominent former United States senators recently wrote to you, Mr. President, and asked that you commute Jonathan's sentence to time served.

A number of the signatories served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, including senators Dennis DeConcini (D-Arizona), Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming), Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), Birch Bayh (D-Indiana), Connie Mack (R-Florida) and David Durenberger (R-Minnesota). All of these individuals had access to the classified portions of Jonathan's file, enabling them to know the full scope of the case.

This letter, which marks the first time that a group of senators has united to request clemency for my husband, is an indicator of the solid support for Jonathan's release as a matter of justice. Some of the senators who signed the bipartisan petition opposed Jonathan's release in the past but now support an immediate commutation of his sentence to time served.

Internationally, Jonathan's release is supported by a number of prominent organizations and individuals, including the European Parliament, the European Jewish Congress and the African Redeemed Church of Christ, whose leader Pastor Enoch Adeboye was named by Newsweek as one of the 50 most influential people in the world. His ministry has over 14,000 branches in 110 countries and has more than five million members in Africa alone. On behalf of his millions of constituents, Pastor Adeboye wrote to urge you to commute Jonathan's sentence to time served without delay.

My husband, Jonathan Pollard, has now served more than six to eight times the usual sentence for the offense he committed. After enduring more than 25 years of the harshest afflictions in prison, including seven years in solitary confinement, it is time to release him, now, while he is still alive — before it is too late.

As you are aware, Jonathan has expressed remorse and the State of Israel has done so as well, promising that there will never again be a repeat of this offense.

Mr. President, if a lowly turkey is deserving of your compassion, how much more so is a man who has more than paid the price for the offense he committed and is now, after 26 years in prison, in danger of losing his life.

We are taught, "From Heaven did the Almighty look down upon the earth, to hear the groaning of the prisoner, to liberate those who are doomed to die." (Psalms 102:20-21) While those who hold the reins of power are urged: "Let the groaning of the prisoner come before you; According to the greatness of your power, set free those who are condemned to die." (Psalms 79:11)

Mr. President, I implore you, set my husband free, and send him home to me in the Holy City of Jerusalem for the Holiday of Light — and G-d will surely bless!

Esther Pollard
Mrs. Jonathan Pollard

Contact Alexander Dymshits at

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, November 18, 2011.

If you are a student of Islam, then you might have gathered that Islam has a doctrine of eternal hatred of Kafirs and their civilization. A student of Islam might also gather that after a 1400 year history of hostilities, murder, rape and enslavement that Islam was at war with us. But, the White House, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI and CIA have informed us that this is not the case.

It started when Steve Emerson and Steve Coughlin were going to give talks about political Islam to the FBI and Homeland Security . Then the White House informed them that not only were they not going to talk about the Islamic doctrine and history of jihad, but that henceforth, no Kafir could talk to any Federal agencies, unless they were vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now, Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has ordered a purge of all Department of Justice manuals and training of all material that will "offend" Muslims. "I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts,"

Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced during the Washington conference. U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton explained that FBI training materials that even remotely link Islam to violence will be banned.

"I want to be perfectly clear about this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive and they are contrary to everything this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for," he told Muslim activists gathered at the George Washington University law school. "They will not be tolerated."

The president and the Department of Justice do not stand for critical thought, on examination of all sides of a problem. The White House wants to see that Muslims are never offended. Notice that the White House does not say that the Kafir analysts are wrong in their facts and data. Instead, they say that facts have no place at the table. Our government no longer stands for logical thought, but only wants to insure that Muslims are not offended by Kafirs. The way for Muslims to not be offended is for the Kafirs to keep silent. This is pure Islamic doctrine, Sharia law.

Let's go back to the time of Umar II, a caliph of Islam. Under Sharia law, the Kafir is to be made completely harmless to Islam and there are two parts to this mental castration. Here are two of the many oppressive terms of the dhimmi (a dhimmi is a Kafir who agrees to obey Sharia law) treaty that deal with Kafir knowledge:

The Pact of Umar, 9th Century CE, includes:

We [Christians] will not teach our children the Koran.

We will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it.

Kafirs must not have knowledge of Islamic doctrine. Kafirs must not make their civilization attractive to Muslims. Kafirs must submit to Islam, not the other way around. This is why we are changing how our textbooks explain America because Muslims will read them. Islam must be praised and the West denigrated.

You might wonder why they would not want Kafirs to read the Koran. After all wouldn't they want the Kafir to read the wonderful Koran and become a Muslim? No, Islam wants for you to listen to a Muslim explain the Koran. A Koran reading Kafir might apply critical thought to the text and that would be a disaster. Only Muslims are allowed to know Mohammed and Allah under Sharia law.

So, as good Kafirs, we must remain ignorant and submit to Islam. We can become Islamic, but we should never try to convert the Muslim to our civilization and Western religions. Submission only runs one direction.

The Obama administration has invoked an ancient treaty, the Pact of Umar, and applied it to our nation. Our law enforcement agencies have now been made full dhimmis under Sharia law. Critical thought and knowledge of Islam have entered the first step of making any knowledge about Islam a hate crime that will be prosecuted to the full extent of a Fascist state. Now they deny truth. Next they will criminalize truth that offends Islam.

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at and visit their website at This article is archived at dhimmi-is-forbidden-to-read-the-koran/

To Go To Top

Posted by MS Kramer, November 18, 2011.

I'm not sure that this could have happened only in Israel, but I'm sure it doesn't happen in America. Imagine Hillary Clinton's second in command, William Joseph Burns, coming to your house to address a few dozen of your friends. Danny Ayalon did just that when he came to our home recently in Alfe Menashe. I don't recognize Mr. Burns' name, but Danny Ayalon is Israel's very well-known Deputy Foreign Minister.

Unaccompanied by any security, Danny showed up on time at our house, along with his young friend Gregg, an American who is studying at the Interdisciplinary Center (College) in Herzliya. Danny's political party, Yisrael Beytenu, is the next largest party after Likud in Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition. Yisrael Beytenu's leader is Avigdor Lieberman, the Foreign Minister of Israel.

The party's most prominent principles include the proposition that the "land for peace approach" is fundamentally flawed; emphasize loyalty to the State and readiness to serve in the army or in the National Service to enjoy state benefits; and maintenance of the Jewish character of the State. (

Danny, Israel's Ambassador to America 2002-2006, is at once both polished and casual. He made himself comfortable in our living room and began with his view of international trends. For the foreseeable future, Danny sees two political trends: disintegration in the Middle East and economic integration among cohesive nations. He called the Arab Spring a misnomer, contrasting it to the 1848 European spring, which caused the downfall of traditionally influential dynastic or religious authorities. While Danny thinks young Arabs are rebelling for good reason, he doesn't foresee a significant revolution occurring.

Reminding us of events that transpired 95 years ago in 1916, during the First World War, Danny referenced the Sykes-Picot agreement. At that time, the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire was almost complete. There were no Arab "countries" per se, other than Egypt. Sykes-Picot was a meeting held between colonial powers Britain and France, where they collaborated to redraw the map of the Middle East into arbitrary, heterogenous nations. Danny remarked on the current reemergence of the conditions which existed in the Arab world prior to Sykes-Picot: great divides in tribal and religious affiliations which are provoking a natural splintering of many Arab countries. Danny's conclusion is that the Arab world is imploding.

Danny sketched out three regional groupings: Northern — Iraq, Lebanon, Syria; Gulf: Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE; and the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya). There are many different ways these countries could fracture. For example, Iraq could divide itself into three parts: a Sunni Muslim nation, a Kurdish nation, and a Shia Muslim nation.

Egypt is in a class of its own, because it's sovereignty precedes Sykes-Picot and was unaffected by it. The question Danny proffered is, will Egypt become an Islamist-dominated country or "Mubarak without Mubarak," a country dominated by the military, with an accommodating civilian head. Egypt has many problems, such as being challenged for its 85% of the Nile River flow. Additionally, there are chaotic states on its borders, most notably the recently divided Sudan. Danny conjectured that the rulers of Egypt may find the stability of Israel indispensable to their control of the country. Egypt, and the entire Arab world, may be preoccupied with domestic problems.

However, Danny said, Islamist terror groups will not be so constrained. Iran remains a huge threat. The November 8 IAEA report on Iran's nuclear status is very harsh on Iran, citing excessive uranium enrichment plus rampant efforts towards weaponization. This report could galvanize opposition against Iran and is an opportunity for Israel and America to exert extra pressure on more reticent countries. Danny noted that there are 18 months or so until Iran reaches a nuclear weapons breakout. Though Danny didn't say it, we got the impression that pumped-up sanctions could cripple Iran's oil exports and its economy, making regime change possible. Israel shouldn't be leading the effort. Sooner rather than later, Iran may collapse from within as the USSR did in 1991.

Danny believes that though time works against those who don't use it well, time is Israel's most important asset. Wasting time by refusing to negotiate is a Palestinian tactic to pressure Israel to make concessions. Danny hopes that in a generation or two the Palestinians will realize the necessity to compromise and stop vicious incitement and terror against Jews and Israel. In the meantime, an interim agreement is the best we can expect, while using the time to enlarge Jewish communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines to counter Palestinian intransigence.

Regarding fruitless negotiations, Danny explained that to maintain the status quo, currently the best alternative, Israel should continue to talk even though it's an uphill battle. He opined that the United Nations is not the "real world." One example: France is a great trading partner despite voting against Israel in the UN. The Palestinians' diplomatic efforts seem to be effective, but their "all or nothing" approach hurts them. The proof is that they've accomplished almost nothing since 1946, while Israel has grown tremendously.

Israel must learn that giving in gets it little appreciation, so better to press ahead. Danny emphasized that Israel doesn't have to wait for international help to defend itself. Israel must maintain its qualitative edge, which includes building both national solidarity and putting facts on the ground. Arabs don't understand Israel when it lacks resolve; they think it's a kind of conspiracy. But there is no doubt that Israel is a regional power, together with Turkey and Iran. All three countries are non-Arab, perhaps fueling Arab paranoia.

In answer to my query whether Israel is trying to fashion an irreparable split between the Fatah-run PA and Hamas-run Gaza (throwing "Palestine" under the bus), Danny answered that Israel doesn't need to engineer anything between the two competing movements, which are quite capable of widening the divide between themselves.

In answer to a question whether Israel can defend itself against tens of thousands of missiles from both north and south, Danny answered that the IDF can unleash so much deterrence that missile showers will be curtailed quickly.

In reply to a question from Benjy, a college student, why he should vote in the future for Yisrael Beytenu, since it didn't fulfill all its pre-election goals, Danny made the point that parties can only fulfill their promises if they receive enough mandates. The way to fulfill the party's goals is to attract more votes, not for supporters to turn to another party.

One of the question marks concerning Yisrael Beytenu is the status of its leader, Avigdor Lieberman. Danny conceded that Lieberman is not the most diplomatic politician, but he is a great leader. The main question is will the party survive if Lieberman is indicted, as the police and judicial authorities have threatened for more than ten years(!). Danny doesn't believe there is a case against Lieberman. Besides, he said, the party doesn't depend on one man.

Danny Ayalon is an able spokesman for his party. Although his time as Deputy Foreign Minister has not been without controversy, he presents a likable and knowledgable face to the world. In addition, he is available to stand in for Lieberman in situations where the rougher Foreign Minister's political incorrectness is not welcome. Michal and I were happy to welcome Danny to our home. The many thanks we received from the others in attendance was proof that it had been a interesting evening for all.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey ( for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." Contact him at and visit

To Go To Top

Posted by Braunstein, Aaron, November 18, 2011.

The article seeks to inspire and fore-arm, from a Jewish perspective, the growing numbers of Christians who are increasingly troubled by the subtle and not so subtle reach of Christian "replacement" devotees — those who would have all believe that the Body of the Church has somehow replaced the Body of Israel. The article has benefitted enormously from the wise review and comment of several Jewish leaders and Christian pastoral supporters.!

It also seeks to alert and guide those Jews who do not fully realize the disastrous support that replacement theology gives to the delegitimization (1) of Israel as a specifically sovereign Jewish State and (2) of the Jewish People as the bearer of an eternal mission to the nations — the shofar-sounded call to struggle for humanity's spiritual victory over blood-thirsty evil idolatry.

Please help broadcast this message:

  • by informing colleagues about the JCA Association and its website;

  • by widely forwarding the attached article; and

  • by sending it to relevant publications (both print and electronic) to which you may have access.

I am sure you realize the importance of such effort at a time of growing threat from the satanic high priests in Iran and their fanatical devotees throughout the Middle East and beyond, an aberration of Islam itself. These dark forces continue to seek new ways to delegitimize Israel and the Free World. Heaven forbid that any Christian or Jew should be an unwitting party to this attack on everything that we all hold dear.


Christians who propound a replacement, supersessionist, secessionist or uprooting theology are a serious, but little recognized or understood, threat to Israel and all of mankind. They continue to hold fast to the antiquated doctrine that with the coming of Jesus and his crucifixion, the Body of the Church has somehow replaced the Body of Israel as His Chosen People. Such "Uprooters" usually don't trouble themselves to ask what each confession is chosen for, how the missions of Church and Synagogue may complement each other, or how redemption can possibly come about for all humanity without unity of action, not division. They claim that the Church is grafted onto the Tree of Israel, but believe that its Jewish branches are dead. Yet, their theology will only wither without the reflux of His People Israel's nurturing sap now rejuvenated in the Holy Land.

Many Uprooters are into medieval Master Church as we have seen would-be oppressors of mankind's body and soul rise and fall for more than 2,000 years. Neither Catholic nor Protestant is immune to the replacement virus that eats away at the very Body of the Church. Those, however, who cleave to Genesis' pronouncement, "I will bless them who bless thee and curse them who curse thee", have the built-in antidote to the replacement poison that continues for centuries to ooze at the far-reaching base of anti-Semitism and that deforms the very image of God in Man.

The danger of replacement theology and its advocates is thus not just an academic or philosophical matter. Whether overtly or subliminally, it affects the attitudes and actions of many Christians toward the State of Israel. In a phrase, what too many Christians offer as a concern for social justice and human rights primarily for Palestinian Arabs may clerically cloak a theological agenda, not a social or political one — the delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish State. The refusal of certain Moslems to acknowledge a Jewish State as such thus has its equally dangerous parallel in certain corners of Christendom.

Some Uprooters even abhor Jewish claims to sovereignty. They see the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy in our day as an aberration that leads Christians (rightly) into seeing the State of Israel as part of a redemptive equation in this world. They purposely would confuse us about the critical importance of Jewish renewal by switching to the obvious — that no particular Israeli government or policy necessarily has heavenly sanction.

In all this, they have a dangerous parallel even among Jews — the notorious Neturei Karta, an extremist sect among the ultra-orthodox, who believe that only the coming Messiah can bring a Jewish State into being. In cooperation with Ayatollah Iran, the Neturei Karta works actively for the destruction of Israel. If it were not politically incorrect and anti-American, some Christian Uprooters would even join openly those who actively challenge the very existence of Israel, like that of no other country.

Using the ruse of human rights, many Uprooters also represent an anti-American world outlook which is a child of dissimulated anti-Semitism, a child that has no Father! Since Sinai, Israel has a mission to struggle against moral relativism in this world, which is a struggle against modern-day idolatry and human blood sacrifice in diabolical service to some cause. This cause, Master Jihad, is today championed by Ayatollah Iran and its devotees — Hizbollah, Hamas and the Moslem Brotherhood.

Since 1776, the United States sees its own mission to champion freedom worldwide. Both America and Israel are despised for such commitment also by their Christian detractors. But the latter suffer the most. And more so, by questioning Israel's legitimacy, they undermine the very ground on which Western civilization stands.

Let Christians who would witness to Israel, take up witness among the nations for Israel.

It is not by chance that Christian Zionists especially, in their acknowledgment of His Chosen People, come to the aid of Jews specifically in Israel. Let replacement-believing Christians prove that they are not working, knowingly or unknowingly, for the destruction of Israel and its 7.5 million people, by also supporting Jews in Israel, not just in the Diaspora. Until then, such Uprooters will be suspect of hiding a theological agenda against Israel — until proven innocent.

Aaron Braunstein, USFSO (ret.) is Founding President of Jewish Covenant Alliance, R.A. in Jerusalem. Contact him by email at and visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, November 17, 2011.

This is the practical side to the Caroline Glick article sent out a few days ago. The Legal Forum is a small, almost completely volunteer organization — who are punching way above their weight. They have been able to effect change in a system that was considered unchangeable. They are making systemic changes, which repair years of systemic problems in Israel, changes that will affect and determine significant aspects of the future of Israel. The annual budget for this organization is only about $300,000, for a small staff and a small office to co-ordinate hundreds of volunteer professionals. The issue below is huge. Do check out their web site to see what else they have accomplished over the past 6 years. And DONATE.



The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel

(November 17, 2011) After many struggles by the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, it appears that the legal system is finally on its way to becoming politically balanced. Recently, a series of significant bills were proposed to the Knesset. Among them are bills that will most likely change the face of the Israeli Supreme Court, as well as restrict foreign funding of NGOs.

These bills provoked the media to discuss the effect they would have on the entire legal system in Israel. Post-Zionists called them undemocratic, however others consider them essential. Two of the bills were approved this week, both aimed at limiting donations from foreign governments to NGOs and thus preventing foreign countries from intervening in Israel's internal affairs. Another bill (that has yet to be approved) proposes to change the way Supreme Court judges are selected, and yet another bill aims to change the process for becoming chief justice. These last two proposals, which require further votes in parliament to become law, would allow officials to influence who joins the court system.

Until 7 years ago, before the Legal Forum was established, the Israeli public accepted the legal system as it was, believing it to be impossible to change. Judges were considered the ultimate authority and were criticized by no-one. Neither the Knesset nor the government had the ability to question, criticize or influence the judiciary. Under these circumstances, the Legal Forum managed to break the judges' hegemony and proved that real change in the State of Israel begins inside the legal system, in the Supreme Court, with the State Attorney and the Bar Association, and spreads from there to the whole society.

The Forum's activities focus on creating change from within the legal system. By doing this, the Forum has managed to cancel the seniority system which granted privileges to senior judges in elections for positions on the Supreme Court; made it an obligation to manage protocols in the judges election committee; required the publication of court protocols, strengthened the Knesset's status and more. After years of dominating the academy, media and politics, post-Zionist organizations now realize that the public is demanding a change. Earlier this week, an opinion column written by the Forum's chairman, Nachi Eyal, was published in the leading Israeli newspaper "Yediot Achronot", presented side by side with the former Justice Minister's opinion column. This represents the beginning of balanced media in Israel and the significance of the Legal Forum on the whole issue.

An objective examination of the new bills now being discussed in the Knesset will show that they provide a positive, refreshing change. After all, there is nothing wrong with preventing foreign countries from intervening in our internal affairs, and it is perfectly acceptable to keep a place for the Bar chairman in the judges election committee.

This new wave of changes became possible mainly thanks to the Legal Forum's members, hundreds of lawyers who together brought them about. However, there is still a long road ahead in order to protect the interests of the Israeli Jewish state.

The Forum's activities are carried out by volunteer attorneys, legal and financial experts, who act to protect human rights in Israel. To continue this valuable work, we need your help. Please donate to The Legal Forum so that justice can prevail. On the internet, go here. Or write to Legal Forum for Israel, POB 7442, Jerusalem 91073, Israel. 972 2 502 2202.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Salvato, November 17, 2011.

As the 2012 Election primary seasons begins to ratchet-up, we had all better get ready for a onslaught of talk about "political baggage." Whether it's Mitt Romney's "Louis Vuitton baggage" of having hired illegal aliens to manicure his lawn or Rick Perry's "Cabela baggage" of having not painted over a racial epitaph on a rock outside a family hunting lodge or the "Bebe baggage" leveled at Herman Cain in the form of as of yet unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct against disgruntled, Democrat operative represented, former employees, the political baggage angle is one that has toppled solid political candidates in the past and, if left unaddressed, will topple solid Republican candidates in the 2012 election.

As with all political baggage, there is always some truth to the matter. Mitt Romney's landscaping company did, in fact, break the law by hiring illegals to work on their crews. Gov. Romney, after warning the company that he could no longer employ their services should they continue the practice, terminated their services when it was found that they continued to employ illegals. And while it may have been true at one time that a rock outside of a family hunting lodge owned by Gov. Perry's family did offer-up a racial insensitivity, the offending label was painted over years ago. And Mr. Cain? Well, to date no substantial evidence has surfaced but for a Gloria Allred represented repeat complaint filer's make that call.

The constant in each of these instances is a bloodthirsty media all too anxious to bring to trial in the court of public opinion those who possess an alternate political philosophy, regardless of fact or evidence. Today, unless you live in the squalid "utopia" that is an #Occupy encampment, it is universally recognized that but for a very few mainstream news media outlets the global community of journalists — and I use the word "journalist" for lack of a better term, although propagandist would be more appropriate — leans so far Left that they have to crane their necks just to see where Ché Guevara once stood. That acknowledged, these "journalists" target Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and all others of a non-Progressive (read: neo-Marxist) bent. And one of their favorite tools is being able to define the "electability" of candidates.

Just like I continue to scratch my head over why the National Republican Party allows Blue States to influence the Republican primary field in the early goings, I am equally as perplexed as to why anyone voting in a Republican Primary Election would listen to anyone in the mainstream media regarding the "viability" or "electability" of a candidate, especially where the idea of "baggage" is concerned.

A perfect example of why we shouldn't place any value in the judgment of those in the mainstream media — and I am talking about anyone with a show and include anyone who places the title "strategist" behind their name — where political viability is concerned comes in the form of Newt Gingrich's media/pundit/strategist perceived "baggage."

Speaker Gingrich's baggage comes in the form of something all too common in the United States today: infidelity and divorce. The infidelity and divorce, in and of themselves, are not the baggage. If both were to be considered political liabilities tumbleweeds would be rolling down every street in Washington, DC, and the many State Capitols. No, Speaker Gingrich's baggage comes in the form of a grossly inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances surrounding those events in his life, beginning with the media's version of a singular visit with his ex-wife in a hospital so many years ago.

In the media version, Mr. Gingrich is an evil, contemptible man, as is illustrated by this piece of propaganda from writer Joan Walsh:

"Gingrich is probably best known for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery, so he could marry his mistress, whom he later divorced to marry a staffer. But he's also probably the only politician, who when you're asked 'What's the worst thing he's done?' has done a lot of things that rival leaving his cancer-stricken wife for his mistress."

As Mr. Gingrich's own daughter from that ill-fated marriage, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, testifies in a recent article:

"My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family.

"As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me. It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home. Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

"Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her. It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:

"My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested. Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother. She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign."

Two very different stories to say the least.

And while marital infidelity is a painful issue for spouses to confront, in many instances leading to divorce and the destruction of the family, inevitably it is an issue for spouses and, if one believes, their God. In Speaker Gingrich's case, infidelity led to divorce; a divorce which both parties believed to be best for themselves and their children.

As for Speaker Gingrich's moral burden to bear regarding this issue, he said of his past indiscretions in a March, 2011 interview:

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate...When I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics...I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them...[In the end I] felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness — not God's understanding, but God's forgiveness."

Tawdry, perhaps even distasteful; certainly a lapse in ethical judgment. But where "political baggage" is concerned, these personal issues are pre-minor league compared to the threshold of acceptability established by the very mainstream media propagandists who condemn Speaker Gingrich for his transgressions.

In 1998 President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky engaged in a prolonged and deviant extra-marital affair that took place, primarily, in the Oval Office of the White House. The sexual encounters included the President taking calls from Congressman while receiving oral sex from Ms. Lewinski and an account of his inserting his cigar in Ms. Lewinsky's vagina. Of the nine instances to which the offending parties admit took place, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton was present in the White House for at least some portion of five. The news of this extra-marital affair and the resulting investigation eventually led to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 by the US House of Representatives.

And while President Clinton's marital infidelities were morally egregious — and while they presented an insult to the American electorate in their having taken place in the Oval Office — the mainstream media chose to defend Mr. Clinton; to lionize him beyond reality, even as he lied to the courts, to Congress and to the American people about his infidelity; perjuring himself in the eyes of the law.

When one contrasts Speaker Gingrich's "baggage" to that of former-President Clinton one must conclude that Mr. Gingrich's, no matter how one feels about the morality of the issue, did not exist in violation of the law or the public trust, yet today the Obama Administration courts Mr. Clinton to campaign for President Obama's re-election, while disingenuous media operatives, pundits and so-called "strategists" opine critically about Mr. Gingrich's "baggage."

In 1989, ABC News reported:

"Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. Responding to a story in today's Washington Times, Frank said he had hired the prostitute out of his own funds as a personal aide and fired him when he found out what was going on."

And in 2009 — FOX News in Boston reported:

"Congressman Barney Frank was present during a marijuana arrest at James Ready's home in Ogunquit, Maine. Ready is well-known for his relationship with Congressman Frank...According to a police report, police charged Ready with marijuana possession, cultivation and use of drug paraphernalia in August of 2007. Ready admitted to civil possession and paid a fine. The remaining charges were dismissed in 2008."

Rep. Frank is quoted as saying of the marijuana cultivation, sale and usage by his boyfriend that he is, "not a great outdoorsman," and "wouldn't recognize most plants."

Yet, Congressman Frank not only continues to serve in Congress — and in a senior leadership role, even being allowed to co-author the notorious Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill — he is treated as a champion of the Progressive Movement, if, for nothing else, being obstinate in his demand for special treatment for Liberal special interests and for his defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two institutions whose actions served as catalyst for the mortgage meltdown.

Again, when juxtaposing Speaker Gingrich's "baggage" with that of Congressman Frank's, one must conclude that, at the very least, Mr. Gingrich's indiscretions affected his family — exclusively, and in a way that resulted in Mr. Gingrich admitting to and taking responsibility for his actions. By contrast, Mr. Frank, to this day, feigns ignorance to the two events; one that required the intervention of law enforcement and the other which should have; events so uncomplicatedly obvious that to believe that Mr. Frank was oblivious to both is be believe him a simpleton; a moron, or at the very least, vacuous. Yet today, Mr. Frank is sought out by the propagandist media, the Progressive punditry and — again — the so-called "strategists" as an elder statesman, while the same cadre of intellectually dishonest narcissists rail on about Mr. Gingrich's perceived "baggage."

On the night of July 18, 1969, Sen. Edward Kennedy, brother of Pres. John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, drove his car off a bridge and into a pond on Chappaquiddick Island on Martha's Vineyard. Mr. Kennedy swam to safety leaving Mary Jo Kopechne, then 28, a campaign worker on his brother Robert's presidential campaign, to drown; trapped in his submerged car.

According to, a comprehensive fact-checked, online educational resource:

"A fraction of a second before he reached the bridge, Kennedy applied his brakes; he then drove over the side of the bridge. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond and came to rest upside-down underwater. Kennedy later recalled that he was able to swim free of the vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times, then rested on the bank for around fifteen minutes before returning on foot to Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred. Kennedy denied seeing any house with a light on during his journey back to Lawrence Cottage.

"In addition to the working telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, according to one commentator, his route back to the cottage would have taken him past four houses from which he could have telephoned and summoned help; however, he did not do so. The first of those houses, referred to as "Dike House", was 150 yards away from the bridge, and was occupied by Sylvia Malm and her family at the time of the incident. Malm later stated that she had left a light on at the residence when she retired for that evening.

"According to Kennedy's testimony, [Senator Kennedy's cousin, Joseph] Gargan and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the waterway with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Both of the other men also tried to dive into the water and rescue Kopechne multiple times. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy testified, Gargan and Markham drove with Kennedy to the ferry landing, both insisting multiple times that the accident had to be reported to the authorities..."

Her body was found inside the submerged car 10 hours later. Kennedy had not reported the accident at that time.

Again from

"On July 25, seven days after the incident, Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. Kennedy's attorneys suggested that any jail sentence should be suspended, and the prosecutors agreed to this, citing Kennedy's age, character and prior reputation. Judge James Boyle sentenced Kennedy to two months' incarceration, the statutory minimum for the offense, which he suspended."

Senator Kennedy was re-elected the following year with 62 percent of the vote. Ms. Kopechne is still dead.

Couple this with myriad brushes with law enforcement where alcohol was involved — and a divorce — and any attempt to compare Speaker Gingrich's marital issues with the deadly legacy left by Edward Kennedy would be laughable at best; contemptible in the least.

Yet today, according to The Daily Caller:

"...the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, [is a] structure set to cost taxpayers no more than $68 million, $38.3 million of which has already been appropriated for the project.

"The money for the project will not just come from the good people of the Bay State but also from taxpayers across the country...[S]ince 2009 the Kennedy Institute has received three rounds of major appropriations from the federal government.

"In the 2009 federal budget, $5,813,000 was appropriated to the project through the Labor Department and Department of Health & Human Services spending bill. In the 2010 budget, $13,600,000 was funneled through the from the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services and another $18,900,000 through the Defense Department spending bill.

"In April of [2010], Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Edward Markey attempted to insert another $8 million more in the now defunct Omnibus bill."

But, the media pundits and "political strategists" insist, Mr. Gingrich has baggage.

It should also be noted here, that the man that today's Right — that Republicans and Conservatives — revere the most, President Ronald Reagan, he, too, was divorced and remarried. explains:

"His political views and business with being an actor hurt his marriage greatly. Reagan and [Jane] Wyman spent less and less time together, and finally, the strain of work pressures and different interests split them apart, and Wyman filed for a divorce. While in court she testified, 'In recent months my husband and I engaged in continual arguments on his political views...finally, there was nothing in common between us...nothing to sustain our marriage.' On June 29, 1948, the court granted the divorce and awarded Wyman the custody of their daughter and son. The divorce left Reagan, who was thirty-seven, very stunned.

"Reagan remained fully involved with SAG. He still had many friends and dated many young starlets, but he was still unhappy. 'My loneliness is not from being unloved, but rather from not loving,' he remembered. And then he found Miss Nancy Davis. They dated for two years and then were married."

There are many of you who might think that I am acting the apologist for Mr. Gingrich. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Infidelity is, in many cases, a heartbreaking event for one spouse or both. It is a betrayal of trust and illustrates a personal weakness in those who engage in it. And while there are many reasons given for personal infidelity, none compares to being honest enough to examine the reasons why one would be moved to infidelity, if for no other reason than to come to an understanding about whether or not a marriage is working.

In Mr. Gingrich's case, he did come to address the issue with his then-wife, Jackie. They decided — mutually — to divorce. Where the clandestine act of infidelity gave way to honesty in divorce for the Gingrich's, it took the glare of the media spotlights to extract honesty for the Clintons. As for Barney Frank and the late-Teddy Kennedy...well, honesty just isn't — or wasn't, as the case may be — their "bag."

The fact of the matter is this. As sad as the state of our society is today where infidelity and divorce are concerned, they are more common than we are willing to admit. In fact, in Hollywood circles, infidelity is the catalyst for reality television and considered almost acceptable among the glitterati.

The point I am trying to make is this. In an age when the world is being enveloped in darkness — both ideologically and violently; when our country stands on the brink of deteriorating from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy; when government has grown into such a behemoth that it is on the precipice of being the master to the very people who created it, We the People had better look beyond the imperfections of the personal man where "political viability" and "electability" are concerned.

Today, as we advance in the 2012 election cycle, We the People need the smartest man in the room at the helm of the Ship of State. We need someone who has humility enough to learn from past errors, correcting course when it is the best choice to make, leading our nation in this tumultuous time. We need someone who understands and respects the knowledge that only history can afford as we — as a nation; as the guardians of liberty — navigate the future.

What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his "baggage" is too heavy to carry. Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy and the threats of Islamic jihadism and Progressive neo-Marxism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network and has been a featured guest on al Jazeera's Listening Post and on Russia Today. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He is a featured political writer for, and He can be contacted at

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 17, 2011.
He is absolutely correct. However the coward of Lebanon has certain issues to over come before he can act. I suggest that in order to work up the necessary courage to actually attack Iran that he first pretend that it is a Jewish community and that all those Mullahs are really Rabbis. With a bit of creative imagination he should be able to, more or less, imitate a Defense Minister for the State of Israel and bombard Iran with threatening leaflets. This below was written by David Lev and it appeared in today's Arutz-7


Sanctions remain the key to halting Iran's nuclear program, DM Barak said Thursday — but Israel was considering what comes next.

In an interview Thursday morning, Defense Minister Ehud Barak sounded somewhat more pessimistic on the likelihood that the international community could stop Iran's nuclear program with sanctions than he did in an interview on American TV a day earlier. Speaking on Israel Radio, Barak said that although Israel was trying to convince members of the international community to economically isolate Iran, he did not think that effort would work. Despite his pessimism, he said, Israel needed to continue working through diplomatic channels — and avoid the alternative.

On Wednesday, Barak had told American interviewer Charlie Rose that it was in the international community's interests to stop Iran's nuclear program, because if Iran acquired "the bomb" it would prompt a major arms race in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states pursuing their own nuclear programs. And, he said, if the international community did push Iran, he believed they could convince Tehran of the wisdom of backing down.

Despite his preference for sanctions, Barak reiterated that "all options are on the table. I was the first to coin this phrase, and I am happy to know that nowadays we are hearing it from leaders in the West." Barak said that Israel could not come across as being afraid to take on Iran militarily. "We must make clear to the world that we understand the situation and are ready to deal with it, and that this is a challenge not just for us, but for the whole world."

Barak added that he had met recently with foreign ministers from around the world in order to emphasize the importance of dealing with the issue and using sanctions to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 17, 2011.

TO: Barry Rubin

Excerpt from your recent editorial:

"Why suddenly has Sarkozy turned against Netanyahu? I can't prove it but I think there is evidence for the following scenario. Sarkozy decided that he was going to broker a major deal at the UN, showing that France was a leading great power in the world. (A theme I think you have heard before is a major French goal.) So he went to Netanyahu with a proposal: Israel would accept unilateral independence for Palestine and Sarkozy would get Israel something from the Palestinians (perhaps recognition of a Jewish state?)."

RE: Sarky — You're onto something there.

Having dealt with Britz-lawyers for 40 or so years, here's my take on 'em: If a Britz lawyer/diplomat takes your hand in his, keep an eye on his other hand as it moves with such affected grace behind your back. The Britz have been seething for years over their losses in the Middle East which they blame on those pushy Yanks who dislodged them from top-dog position. But still, in the end, it was the Sods who opted to nurture relations with the US, which they saw as the larger and more useful market for their sludge-under-the-sand and the strongest potential protector. (Remember Henry Ford pere?)

The San Remo Resolution was a spanner tossed into the mix — recognized most of the Palestine region as the Jewish Homeland post WW 1. Methinks this event and the treaties that followed had much to do with blocking French influence in the region. (Let them eat Algeria.) For the sake of advancing their own respective national interests, methinks the Britz and the French would be happy to get rid of all US influence in the region in order to have a clear field for a go at each other, each aiming to succeed to the position of top-dog in the oil pot.

The Sods will play all of them just so long as the are paid whatever they want for the sludge under the sand. Shortly after the boy-king moved into the Oval office he took a side-trip to Sod-land and disgraced himself and the US in ways he still cannot understand when he bowed low before the Soddy monarch. Don't believe a word about his love for Israel or Jews, he just gets off using them. Swells his ego.

Bibi plays a dangerous game with his "gestures." He and his foolish, babbling predecessors made Israel look like easy prey and Jews as a people "dispensable." In the face of such apparent or at least overt appearance of frailties on the part of the US and Israel it's no wonder alla them are now more openly going for each other's throats.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 17, 2011.

"Egypt's Elections: Washington must press the army to stop meddling and commit to a free and fair vote," advises the New York Times.

The editors still are spinning a fairy tale about the Arab Spring. Thus the newspaper feels it must press Washington, not known as a font of foreign policy acumen, to continue meddling in Egypt to hasten a free but unfair vote likely to elect the only prepared slate, Islamists. The Islamists may make future elections neither free nor fair. The means, a snap election in the name of democracy, do not justify the ends, a theocracy in the spirit of jihad. Democracy is slow to emerge from infertile cultures such as Egypt's. The New York Times seems to expect instant development. Not realistic. Calling for an election before the country has democratic institutions and before democratic-minded parties can organize hardly nurtures democracy. It nurtures the well-organized Radical Muslims. How to interpret recent events? The editorial explains, "Egyptians are embarked upon the next step in their Arab Spring evolution — electing a democratic civilian government." When the Islamists win a hasty election, how democratic would be the resulting government, bent on oppressing women, Christians, perhaps Israel, the newly free media, perhaps its own pagan historical exhibitions, and people's personal behavior?

If the outcome is a theocracy, what is the difference whether the regime is military or civilian?

Stubbornly spinning out its fairy tale impression about the Arab Spring, the editorial finds inspiration from Tunisia. "Tunisia's election went smoothly last month." Who won it? Islamists did. Nobody here knows whether Tunisia will keep its tolerant and benign ways. Tunisia is not a good example to follow, though we haven't seen how bad it may get.

Turkey does show how bad Islamist rule can get, but neither the New York Times nor the Wall St. Journal get it. They fail to see the steady eradication of democratic rights in Turkey, similar to the steady encroachment of dictatorship in anti-U.S. Spanish-American countries to which the Times is blind but the Journal is not. What deceives the Times is Turkey's claim that its Islamist party is moderate. This is reminiscent of the Times being deceived by Soviet claims it was not purging millions, Mao's China posing as agrarian reformers, Castro calling himself a democratic revolutionary, the Sandinistas pretending to be benign, and the Palestinian Arabs feigning an interest in peace. Perhaps the Times should give less advice and take more advice.

In exhorting U.S. pressure, the editors advise using U.S. subsidy of Egypt as leverage. The U.S. has given Egypt $60 billion, mostly military. And you thought foreign aid was a gift for friends, rather than a bribe abroad and a taxpayer subsidy of the favored arms industry domestically? Instead of a program for building democracy steadily, and then, when the country is ready for elections, scheduling them, the editors want the date to be set. That means fairly soon. Meanwhile, the editors are right about the military trying to retain its leading role in governance. Egypt's military supports itself by tapping into the economy.

Privileged classes cling to power. And so the military wants to devise a constitution that retains its call on the national budget. It is proposing a series of elections that may keep it in power for another year, too long for the editors. But the military is blocking foreign funds for training election and party workers on a non-partisan basis. It also opposes foreign observers. Rather than oppose foreign observers, one would think they would ask Jimmy Carter to observe — he usually endorses undemocratic elections.

The usual Pollyannaish ending to a New York Times editorial this time is an exhortation: "Voters should aim high and elect a Parliament that will assert civilian control, ensure transparency and protect the rights of all, including religious minorities and women." (11/16/11.) Yes they should. No they won't. Just hear the Islamic war cries as Egyptian Muslims attack the aboriginal Christians, the popular demands for war on Israel, and the increasingly radical statements such as about destroying the pre-Islamic pyramids! How easy it is for editors deaf to such cries to advise foreign cultures deaf to such advice!

"Democracy now," the Times chants. Haste makes waste, I retort. The ideal is not practical without practical steps to build it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, November 17, 2011.

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is perhaps the best proof that the Nazis' "Big Lie" theory — tell something long enough and loud enough, and some people are sure to believe it is true.

A fabrication of the Russian Secret Police between 1897 and 1903, the documents described a putative Jewish plot to take over the world. Their speciousness repeatedly proven over the years, they continue to fuel anti-Semitism: in Nazi Germany, in communist Russia, in anti-Semitic Arab countries, in the writings of Western racists and so on.

And "The Protocols," translated into scores of languages, continue to live on in popular culture — a 2005 documentary, a new novel ("The Prague Cemetery") by Italy's Umberto Eco, a new nonfiction book ("License to Murder") by Alex Grobman, director of the America-Israel Friendship League.

THE JEWISH WEEK SPOKE with Grobman this week about "The Protocols."

Q: More than a century after "The Protocols" were written — and discredited as a fraud — why are we still talking and worrying about them?

A: The myth of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world as advanced in "The Protocols" has been exposed by historians, journalists, politicians, police and religious leaders. Yet this has not stopped "The Protocols" from being part of a view held by many people. The potential danger of "The Protocols" in shaping public opinion is real and should not be underestimated. When Jews are portrayed as manipulators who seek power over other people's lives, they come — only naturally — to be perceived as severe dire threats.

It is thus particularly disconcerting that this false and harmful perception of Jews is embraced even today by the leadership of the Arab-Muslim world, where "The Protocols" continues to be published in vast quantities, and cited in the writings of mainstream academics, who lend credibility and legitimacy to this falsehood and utter fallacy.

Who takes 'The Protocols' seriously today?

Aside from many in the Arab world, the belief that Jews have an inordinate amount of power in the world can also be found throughout the West as well. In September 2007, The Financial Times reported that "Currency Wars," a Chinese bestseller, claimed "The Battle of Waterloo. The deaths of six U.S. presidents. The rise of Adolf Hitler. The deflation of the Japanese bubble economy, the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis and even environmental destruction in the developing world," which occurred over two centuries "have a single root cause: the control of money issuance through history by the Rothschild banking dynasty."

Every time a friend returns from international theological conferences, he laments how pervasive the underlying belief in "The Protocols" is among leading theologians. Were you to confront them, they would be highly insulted, yet they accept the basic premise.

Jewish history is full of bogus accusations against Jews, like the blood libel. Why have "The Protocols" had such a lasting influence?

The notion of the Jew as a demonic character is still prevalent, allowing anti-Semites to use "The Protocols" to incite against Jews, particularly during times of political and social unrest. Conspiracy theories are attractive because they absolve the individual of any personal responsibility for failures, reverses and suffering. In this moral universe of "us" and "them," the victim is not responsible at all for what has occurred. The conspirators are the ones who are culpable.

The fact that it was allegedly written by Jews makes the work more authentic. Reliance on contradiction — that to succeed Jews employ capitalism and communism, philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism, democracy and tyranny — made it possible for "The Protocols" to reach out to all: rich and poor, right and left, Christian and Muslim, American and Japanese.

Debating the advocates of "The Protocols" doesn't work. Showing that "The Protocols" is a fraud doesn't work. Banning the book — as some countries have tried — doesn't work. What works?

Certain portions of the population will never be convinced that "The Protocols" are a forgery or that Jews are not an evil force trying to control the world. Logic and reason have little or no place in their way of thinking.

THE PURPOSE of [Grobman's new book] is inform those interested in historical truth why this canard and other lies against the Jewish people are so pervasive, and why they pose a danger not only to the Jewish people, but to all those who cherish a democratic way of life. If we do not respond to the canards, the assumption will be that we have no answers.

Do you think the authors of "The Protocols" foresaw how influential and long-lasting their product would be?

Russian anti-Semites working in Paris for the czarist secret police were instructed to fabricate a document identifying the Jews as the source of a plot to oust the Russian monarchy. Their objective was to fulfill their mission, not to worry about what its historical influence might be.

About the America-Israel Friendship League

The America-Israel Friendship League's (AIFL) mission is to strengthen the ties between the people of the United States and Israel; bridging distances to reveal the beauty, the humanity, and the modern democratic values that define both nations.

Dr. Alex Grobman's books include "Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe" [KTAV]. He is also co-author of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of California Press); Zionism=Racism: The New War Against The Jews. His most recent book is The Palestinian RIght to Israel (Balfour Books, 2010).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 17, 2011.

The New York Times covered bills that an Israeli Cabinet committee endorsed. The lead paragraph puts it as the "two bills aimed at curtailing the support of left-wing non-profit groups from foreign governments." That misleads readers from the start. The problem is that foreign governments have secretly been propping up

NGOs run by Arab and Jewish anti-Zionists as part of the Arab effort to take over the Territories and Israel. This is a form of war, of jihad.

Before describing how the bills would work, the second paragraph rushes in with a denunciation of the bills "as violations of free expression and an effort by the government to silence its critics." The newspaper frequently sequences its paragraphs in that way, with the result that, lo and behold, tends to prejudice readers before they have been shown the bone of contention. What critics claim may not match the facts, but they can get away with false claims, because the newspaper reports the facts never or after having prejudiced readers or without having the other side clearly rebut the critics.

Some more objective and informed Israelis, considered right wing, such as NGO Monitor and Prof. Steven Plaut, a writer on this subject, find that the various bills addressing the problem run the gamut from requiring transparency, which is not repression but democratic, to measures of questionable effect on civil liberties. Neither the newspaper nor the bills' critics make such distinctions.

From the failure to acknowledge the problem and to make distinctions in the various remedies proposed, one reasonably can infer insincerity. As Prof. Plaut long has pointed out, the Israeli Left constantly denounces any mere criticism of the Left as McCarthyism, and demands that such criticism be stifled. Stifling criticism is undemocratic. Many leftists now advocate Arab terrorism and demand that whoever objects, merely objects, be punished as criminal.

Paragraph 4 finally describes the bills. One bils would limit the amount that a foreign government or a foundation supported by it may give to "political" Israeli groups. Another bill would heavily tax such contributions. We are advised "The bills were largely aimed at groups that focus on Palestinian rights, civil liberties and other causes advocated by the Israeli Left, many of which rely on European government support."

In paragraph 4, the word, "political," should not have been put in quotation marks, as if there were any reasonable doubt they are political. Of course they are! They do not focus on Arab rights, but on curbing Jewish rights in behalf of Arabs. In other words, they denounce Jewish purchases of real estate in certain areas but not Arab squatting or usurpation of real estate. Some of them seek privileges for Arabs. Most devote themselves to wresting the Territories away from the Jewish people. They take the side of Arabs who attack Jews but never the side of Jews attacked by Arabs. They defame Israel but do not denounce Palestinian Authority support for terrorism. These NGOs utilize the language of civil rights to promote a political agenda for undermining Israel. That is the European agenda. So the European governments are financing a tiny leftist minority's assault on the Zionist state. Up to now, it was done in secret.

These two bills are problematic, unlike bills that the government is not endorsing. The bill that would tax contributions aims to influence behavior. That is punitive, rather than revenue-seeking. I believe that is an improper use of the power to tax. The U.S. abuses the power of taxation similarly, but also with tax credits.

The bill limiting foreign donations has a questionable rationale, too. Either permit or ban in entirety. I think that a ban would not violate civil liberties, if done as a matter of national integrity, so foreign governments do not gain influence within Israel, and as a matter of national security, so foreign governments do not facilitate jihad against Israel. Foreign donations to political campaigns are banned officially. The donations to NGOs also are political interference, as PM Netanyahu notes.

According to NGO Monitor, European governments spend more per year on left-wing Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups than their total contribution to non-profit human rights groups in other countries in the Middle East." That disparity implies that the European motive is not human rights but anti-Zionism.

A prior bill now law merely required that foreign donations be reported, for accountability, so the Israeli people know who is subsidizing what.

The report states that the bills would hardly affect right wing groups, because their foreign donations come mostly from private sources. The report does not explain what those right wing groups spend such money on. Do they spend the money on housing or, like the NGOs in question, on political propaganda?

The article explains that the issue of foreign government subsidies in Israel became egregious when the Goldstone UN report that accused Israel of war crimes, obtained its claims largely from the foreign-supported NGOs. Many Israelis conclude that those NGOs are "helping the country's enemies in a campaign to delegitimize Israel."

Well, those Israelis are right. I wrote many articles proving that those NGOs defame Israel in general and they exaggerated, misled, and maligned Israel in the false claims about war crimes. They misrepresented international law, too. Judge Goldstone accepted alleged evidence without verification and often without logic, while down-playing the many and obvious war crimes by Hamas. Hypocrisy in such circumstances demonstrates bias and an attempt to impair Israel's reputation in favor of war criminals. The report was full of libel. Indeed, Judge Goldstone later retracted the accusation that Israel committed war crimes. The charges had been made and used to impair Israel's reputation.

Will the Supreme Court rule on the bills, if enacted. Would it overrule the laws? A spokesperson for Gisha, one of the NGOs in question, didn't expect much from the Court, because, she claims, the Knesset is seeking to control and intimidate Supreme Court Justices (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 11/14,11).

That last claim is one-sided and misleading. Israel's justice system is both biased and undemocratic. Unlike the U.S., Israel does not have a constitution with separation of powers among the branches. The Israeli Supreme Court is practically self-appointed, whereas the U.S. justices are nominated by the elected President and confirmed by the elected Senate. The Supreme Court usurps legislative and executive power, revising legislation not by any legal standards but according to the judge's preferences for what the law should be. And so the Court regularly accepts undocumented Arab claims and rules arbitrarily against Jews. Prosecutors accept contradictory evidence by Arabs against Jews. Police arrest Jews who defend themselves from Arab mobs. Police arrest rabbis who discuss Jewish law about self-defense, as making "incitement," but not Arabs who exhort to murder and many who throw firebombs. (I have written dozens on articles on this.)

Those abuses of the justice system are what some Members of Knesset hope to reign in.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, November 17, 2011.

He should have stopped on the third day of creation after he had designed and then fabricated the first Fig tree. I'm talking about the Creator. As we say on Passover — Dayenu — It is sufficient. Well, maybe another day of work to pleasure the world with the watermelon — another glorious creation. Beautiful, nutritional, symmetrical, voluptuous — a blessing for mankind. If only he had stopped there. No wolves, hyenas, diphtheria, bacilli, sour apple trees, or man. Watermelon, the perfect edible creation. You could eat it, wash with it, drink it. No, you couldn't use it as a weapon — no limbs — no trunk. You couldn't even throw it. Yes, He should have stopped with the watermelon.

But no, He was seething with ideas to decorate His brave, new world. So, He had to populate it with people. A mistake as He discovered a few aeons later. But correctable, as He demonstrated with the flood — messy, however. Trees and plants strewn all over the earth's meadows and fields — not to mention corpses of man and animal. I'll say it again. He should have stopped with Fig trees.

Crumpled roofs and heart attacks due to raking, would be unheard of since the Fig tree is really a modest bush, not a tree. Takes up very little space and in a gale, would never dent your car, mash your roof, or fall on you or a visiting friend.

I've always had a fondness for figs. Truly, an equal opportunity fruit. One of the few fruits you can't buy in the grocery; equally unavailable to rich and poor. Why? Because their fragility prohibits shipping. Beyond the reach of money. Besides, all the common fruits — papayas, mangoes, kiwis, a dozen exotic varieties of the Creator's imagination — can be yours if you've got a few bucks — but not figs. Grow your own or do without. Or you can cultivate a friend who'll grow them for you. That's why my friends hate me in December but love me in mid July. "Gee, Teddy, we don't get to see enough of you — me and Helen will drop by Wednesday." Yeah, with a sack, I'm thinking, and your three kids who can empty a bush in five minutes.

The secret to my seasonal popularity is my three Fig trees. My friends are from New York City. Never had a fig in their life — which is as painful as never having a barbecue or a fresh-baked biscuit — till they visited one summer. We were showing off the back yard and one of their undisciplined kids plucked a fig. "Wow, that's great. What is it?" "Oh, just a wild fruit — probably poisonous," I replied. Mama gasped. But this larcenous kid grabbed another. And another. And another. After we revived Mama, I told her they were harmless unless you ate six or seven. She had a few, too.

The goodness of this rare (and sometimes "poisonous") fruit was a known fact thousands of years ago — even in Bible days. And every man shall have his own Fig tree, says the book. I paraphrase, but that's the general idea. If you've been blistering your feet on sand dunes for forty years, guess what the Master of the universe dangles as an incentive before your eyes? No, not a cup of hot tea, but grapes and figs — a) to quench your thirst, and b) to fill your shrunken stomach. The height of peace and prosperity. Your own Fig tree! And I've got three of them.

As I say, the hero of our story is the modest, little tree. No big Magnolia blossoms for her; attracting pollination with vulgar advertising. "Hey, look at me, smell my perfume. Come on over. Let's pollinate." The Fig blossom is so small, that we humans can't even see it. And she's choosy. She doesn't welcome common backyard insect visitors like honey bees. He or she needs a special kind of wasp to fertilize the flower and make a fig. There's nothing common about the Fig tree. And if you ever lose all your clothes in a game of strip poker — run for a Fig tree. It worked for Adam and Eve. Remember?

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His 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 and

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, November 17, 2011.

JPOST reports,

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in private conversations on Tuesday that a draft law mandating that a Knesset committee hold hearings approving appointments to the Supreme Court is against the country's status quo and not in keeping with the coalition's guidelines.

Netanyahu directed Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, and coalition chairman Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) to remove the proposal from the agenda.

"A law like this will not pass in a government I head," he said.

OK, so Bibi thinks the bill is against the status quo. Huh? Isn't every Bill against the status quo? What kind of an argument is this?

But Bibi went further,

"The independence of the judiciary is above everything. I view as paramount the separation of powers and the rule of law."

This really riles me. While Bibi is stressing the separation of powers, the US stresses "checks and balances". Nobody there has unfettered power. Nor should they. Yet that is inherent in Bibi's notion that the Court should have "independence". But this is a limited concept. It should be independent in the sense that it should suffer no interference in its decision making process. But it is not independent in the sense that it must follow the law of the land. That law restrains it.

Unfortunately the Court itself violates such law when it usurps the legislative process for itself. This Court is notorious for creating law rather than enforcing law as it was written. If for some reason the law is not clear or violates other law, then the Court should correct the matter by sending the law back to the Knesset. For Bibi to suggest that the Court should have the right to do this is outrageous.

But all that has nothing to do with the appointment of judges. In the US all proposed judges for the Supreme Court must be vetted and approved by the Senate. How does that differ from the proposed law that Bibi has squelched?

Channel 2 reported that Netanyahu's position on the matter was heavily influenced by Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein, who met Netanyahu and his advisers on Monday and said that the law went too far. According to the report, Weinstein said the proposal was a "bad law" that upset the balance of power between governmental branches, politicized the judicial system and would harm the public's confidence in the judiciary.

This is just too much. The Bill is intended to "upset the balance of power" as the Left carries too much weight and isn't representative of society at large. This legislation would redress, not upset, the balance of power. Furthermore, the judicial system is "politicized" and must be more representative of the values of society rather than of the left only.

In the U.S. it is common practice for conservatives and liberals to appoint conservative or liberal judges respectively. Overtime, the Court alternates between dominance by conservative judges and liberal judges. How much more balanced can one get?

But the worst is to allow the Judiciary to perpetuate itself by appointing only like-minded judges.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, November 16, 2011.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the passing of an unsung Jewish hero, Captain Arthur Carlos de Barros Basto.

Captain Arthur Barros Basto

His exploits extended from the battlefields of World War I to the struggle to reclaim crypto-Jewish identity, but this intrepid figure met a cruel and unwarranted end at the hands of Portugal's dictatorial regime. Despite the passage of so many decades, the injustice committed against him cries out for resolution. The time has come to give this man his due.

Barros Basto came from a family of Bnei Anusim (whom historians refer to by the derogatory term "Marranos"), descendants of Jews whose ancestors had been forced to convert to Catholicism in the 15th century.

Raised a Catholic, he went on to become a decorated soldier who commanded a Portuguese infantry company in World War I, where he fought in the trenches of Flanders and took part in the allied offensive to liberate Belgium.

After the war Barros Basto decided to re-embrace the faith of his forefathers. He studied Judaism intensively, then traveled to Spanish Morocco in December 1920 to undergo a formal return to the Jewish people before a rabbinical court.

Back in Portugal, Barros Basto settled in the northern city of Oporto, where he launched a public campaign to persuade other Bnei Anusim to return to their roots. Donning his military uniform and medals, he traveled among the towns and villages of Portugal's interior, giving rousing speeches, conducting Jewish services and seeking to inspire others to follow his example. After centuries of hiding, thousands of Bnei Anusim answered his call and tentatively agreed to join his movement.

Barros Basto turned to world Jewry for help, and succeeded in raising the necessary funds to build the magnificent Mekor Haim synagogue, which still stands in Oporto. He opened a yeshiva that operated for nine years, where dozens of young Bnei Anusim learned about Jewish life and lore. He also single-handedly produced a Jewish newspaper, Halapid (the Torch), and was responsible for the publication of numerous books on Jewish history and law in Portuguese.

BUT HIS open identification with Judaism, and the thousands of people whom he touched, did not sit well with the government or with Church authorities. They sought to quell his nascent movement by bringing him up on charges connected to the practice of the Jewish religion. On June 12, 1937, the Superior Disciplinary Council of the Portuguese Army concluded that Barros Basto lacked the "moral capacity" to serve in its ranks.

And just what exactly was his "crime"?

Incredibly, the military council declared that Barros Basto had "performed the operation of circumcision of several students pursuant to a precept of the Israelite religion he professes" and said that he was excessively affectionate toward his pupils.

As a result, they summarily drummed him out of the armed forces, destroyed his career and sullied his name. This brought about an end to his efforts to reawaken Portugal's Bnei Anusim, many of whom saw the treatment meted out to Barros Basto as a sign that the authorities would not tolerate their return to Judaism.

In 1961, he died, a broken man. Stripped of his rank and publicly humiliated because he was a Jew, Barros Basto has been likened by historians such as Cecil Roth to Alfred Dreyfus, the French general staff officer who was convicted of treason on trumped-up charges in 1894 and drummed out of the military.

But unlike Dreyfus, Barros Basto has yet to receive the exoneration he deserves. Once Portugal began its transition to democracy in 1975, his family appealed to the authorities to rectify the situation, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.

For the past decade, Shavei Israel, the organization I chair, has been involved in the Barros Basto case.

Over the years, we elicited support from American Jewish organizations such as the Conference of Presidents, the Orthodox Union and the Religious Zionists of America, all of whom have written to the Portuguese ambassador to Washington about the matter.

Last month, on October 31, there was an important new development.

With the help of an attorney, the captain's granddaughter, Isabel Maria de Barros Lopes, submitted a formal request to the president of the Portuguese parliament seeking her grandfather's posthumous reinstatement into the military.

Isabel told me that she is determined to see things through. Just like her grandfather, she is not afraid to fight for what is right.

But more pressure must be brought to bear on Portuguese officials. Contact your local Portuguese embassy or sign the petition to the leader of the Portuguese parliament online at:

We must garner as much international support as possible to bring closure to this painful chapter.

Barros Basto was a courageous figure who stood up for the Jewish people, defying the powers that be to help his brethren. He was a victim of anti-Semitism, so how can we remain silent?

Several years ago, in the northern Portuguese village of Amarante, I entered the local cemetery and stood before Barros Basto's simple and unadorned grave. Then and there, I made a promise to do what I could to restore his honor and bring about justice.

There is now an unprecedented opportunity to do so and we must not let it pass.

The stain on this noble man's name is also a stain on Portugal itself, and it is time for it to be removed, once and for all.

Rehabilitate the Portuguese Dreyfus and let justice be done, so that his soul may finally rest in peace.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (, which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term in office. Contact him at This article was published in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at arthur-carlos-barros-basto

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, November 16, 2011.


Can we be a free people in our land without the first Jewish city in Israel?

Several years ago, on the anniversary of the liberation of Hebron in 1967, I was interviewed by a journalist who queried me about various problems facing Hebron's Jewish community. His concluding question/statement was, "Well, I guess you're not celebrating today?"

"Why not?" I replied.

"Well, you have all these problems and issues, how can you celebrate?"

"You just don't understand," I answered. "Look at where were we 70 years ago, or 60 years ago. Were we in Hebron? Today I'm here, in the first Jewish city in Israel. I live here, I work here, I'm bringing up my children here. This is my home. True, we have problems. There are ups and downs. Issues must be dealt with. And they will be overcome. But I'm here. And as long as I'm here, I have what to celebrate, and that's exactly what I'm doing today!"

One of our most special celebrations will occur this weekend. The Torah portion of Hayei Sarah, otherwise known as "Shabbat Hebron," is an extraordinary event. It is not an ordinary shabbat (which in Hebron is also unique). Rather, it is an event.

Over the past decade, some 20,000 people have capitalized on this special Sabbath to crowd into Hebron and nearby Kiryat Arba to rejoice. Starting on Friday morning, Israelis young and old will begin flocking to the city. Jews from the United States and other countries fly to Israel to be in Hebron for this exceptional occasion.

Well over six months prior to this Sabbath we begin receiving phone calls and emails requesting places to sleep and eat on this auspicious day. Dozens of tents are pitched outside Me'arat Hamachpela, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Matriarchs. Public buildings are transformed into dormitories, with separate facilities for men and women. It's the only time of the year when my living room is wall-to-wall people sleeping on the floor.

One year, on Saturday night, a young woman walked into our kitchen to thank my wife. She asked what for. The woman said she had slept in one of our rooms. We had no idea she was there, or where she slept, because the room was already packed.

A huge tent is constructed outside the Avraham Avinu neighborhood, providing meals thousands of guests. Literally every nook and cranny in Hebron is utilized, with people sleeping and eating wherever they can find a few free meters.

All hours of the day and night the streets are full of people walking to and from the various neighborhoods in Hebron. Saturday afternoon, multitudes tour the city, visiting the Hebron Heritage Museum at Beit Hadassah, the tomb of Jesse and Ruth in Tel Rumeida, and the Avraham Avinu synagogue in the Avraham Avinu neighborhood. Special Casba tours are also included in the day's agenda.

The heart of the day's events takes place at Me'arat Hamachpela. On Friday night, literally thousands of people gather at this holy site, inside and out, to offer joyous Sabbath prayers. Singing and dancing during a huge "Carlebach minyan," conducted in the Machpela courtyard, is unbelievably uplifting.

But the pinnacle and actual raison d'être for the ingathering begins early Saturday morning.

By 5:15 a.m., thousands make their way to early morning prayers at the Machpela. The entire building is open to Jewish worshipers, including "Ohel Yitzhak," the Isaac Hall, available to Jews only ten days during the year. The first vatikin service, with the sunrise, is a spiritually inspirational way to start the day.

However, the peak takes place about an hour into the service. A Torah scroll is removed from the Holy Ark and opened. The first person, usually a cohen, or priest, is called up to the Torah. Following recitation of a blessing, the reader begins:

"And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years; these were the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in Kiryat Arba — the same is Hebron — in the land of Canaan; and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her... and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver...four hundred shekels of silver... And Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre — the same is Hebron — in the land of Canaan..." (Gen: 23, 1-20).

HERE, AT Machpela in Hebron, some 3,800 years ago, Abraham, the first Jew, purchases the first Jewish property in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel. It is an amazing thought: here we are, almost 4,000 years later, the offspring of the first Jew, present at that very site which we read about in the Torah. It is all the more astonishing considering that fact that this sacred site was off-limits to Jews for seven centuries, following the 1267 Mamluk conquest of Israel. Only since our return to Hebron in 1967 has this holy place again accessible to any and all who wish to visit or worship here.

If that isn't a reason to celebrate, what is?

As a result of political anti-Semitism, the first Jewish site of national heritage has become an object of international controversy. UNESCO has recognized our first holy site as a "Palestinian heritage site," demanding it be removed from Israel's list of "national heritage sites."

Should this site again be placed under Muslim control, Jews (and Christians) will no longer be allowed to enter and worship at this holy place, as was the case for 700 years, as the Arabs consider it to be a mosque. According to Islam, only Muslims may enter and pray in a mosque.

Support for a continued Jewish presence in Hebron and at Machpela is tangible. Some half a million visitors of all religions visit Hebron and Machpela annually, letting their feet do the talking. Polls show that almost 90 percent of Israelis reject relinquishing Me'arat Hamachpela. Rejection of Hebron and Me'arat Hamachpela is equivalent to chopping off our roots. And we all know what happens to a tree when you sever its roots.

Shabbat Hayei Sarah in Hebron is an affirmation of our people's right to live and worship freely in our land. This is the embodiment of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva: Lehiot am hofshi, b'artzeinu — to be a free people in our land. Can we be a free people in our land without the first Jewish city in Israel; without free, unlimited worship at the first Jewish holy site in our land?

This Sabbath, some 20,000 people from Israel and around the world will answer that question, at Machpela, in Hebron.

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: or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: or phone: 718 677 6886.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Sholom DovBer Goldshmid, who passed away last week. Born in Hebron 86 years ago, he survived the 1929 Hebron massacre, but his father, Moshe, was killed at their home. He loved Hebron with all his heart and soul. May his memory be blessed.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 16, 2011.

The 92nd St. YMHA in Manhattan treated the audience to Bret Stephens' interview of Irshad Manji, a Muslim reformer, on November 15. Some Muslims abandon their religion because its more powerful leaders present it as oppressive. Miss Manji wants to preserve the religion but reform it by reinterpretation. She opposes so-called moderates, who end up supporting many of the oppressive or discriminatory rules that the Radicals insist on. The example she gave was of Imam Rauf, who wants to build a large Islamic center on the edge of the World Trade Center destruction by Radicals of his religion. He admitted to Miss Manji that the swimming pool he intends would segregate by gender. (Actually, as earlier articles of mine demonstrated, Imam Rauf is not even moderate, he just pretends to be.)

He admitted the planned segregation to her after trying to avoid answering her. She challenges many conventional Muslims, who often denounce her, evade her challenge, or pretend she is insulting the faith or themselves. She knows how to deal with them by reasoning. She is brilliant in clarity of thought and in expressing herself logically. She denies that asking them to think is insulting them. She induces them to debate.

Clever in debating, she gets Muslims to see that the full veil is not protective so much as smothering of personality. She also does not approve of Western attempts to appease Muslim practices, quoting as she does Islamic teaching that Muslims do not have to follow all the rules when in a non-Muslim country.

Miss Manji is organizing reformist Muslims in Europe. The idea is to unite into a force that can gain attention, which the media presently does not give them. She has written Allah, Liberty and Love and The Trouble with Islam Today. She has had more than two million readers. Mr. Stephens, deputy editorial page editor of the Wall St. Journal, testified to have met many young Arabs in the Mideast who follow her doings appreciatively. They want to discard the tribal cultural nature of the religion, but their elders dominate them. Her opinion is that reform has a chance to succeed.

In her quest, she asks us to be patient. After all, she reminds us, the U.S. took a couple of hundred years to develop democracy. Actually, the U.S. started with many elements of democracy. We no longer have a hundred years to wait for the Islamic world to follow suit. The Islamic world is oppression millions and billions now, is on the warpath, and is developing nuclear weapons.

Islamic reform could save the world from the totalitarian onslaught of the Radical Muslim imperialists. What is the basis of reform? According to Miss Manji, it is parts of the Koran that propose tolerance and peace. She would reinterpret the Koran and related Islamic teachings.

I can see that the first principle of reform would be to unlock the present interpretation and Islamic judicial findings that declare the religion closed to further interpretation. I regret not having asked her how she can justify basing the faith on some of the teachings — those she likes — and none on teachings she doesn't like. Too bad she did not discuss the Islamic ruling that reconciled those contradictory points! Islamic jurists reconciled them by ruling that the later ones supersede the earlier ones. Unfortunately, the earlier ones reflect Muhammad's non-dominant position and his hope to convert the Jewish people; they speak favorably of them. The later ones reflect his dominant position and his realization that he cannot convert the Jewish people as a whole. Hence the later teachings are antisemitic, more bellicose, etc..

She faced audience questions good-humoredly and unflinchingly.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, November 16, 2011.

This was written by BareNakedIslam and it archived at


In a breakthrough development, the Israeli company Vaxil BioTherapeutics has formulated a therapeutic cancer vaccine, now in clinical trials at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem. If all goes well, the vaccine could be available about six years down the road, to administer on a regular basis not only to help treat cancer but in order to keep the disease from recurring.

While the Muslim world is focused on the best way to destroy the Jewish state, the Jewish state is focused on the best way to save mankind.

United with Israel — The vaccine is being tested against a type of blood cancer called multiple myeloma. If the substance works as hoped — and it looks like all arrows are pointing that way — its platform technology VaxHit could be applied to 90 percent of all known cancers, including prostate and breast cancer, solid and non-solid tumors.

"In cancer, the body knows something is not quite right but the immune system doesn't know how to protect itself against the tumor like it does against an infection or virus. This is because cancer cells are the body's own cells gone wrong," says Julian Levy, the company's CFO. "Coupled with that, a cancer patient has a depressed immune system, caused both by the illness and by the treatment."

The trick is to activate a compromised immune system to mobilize against the threat.

A traditional vaccine helps the body's immune system fend off foreign invaders such as bacteria or viruses, and is administered to people who have not yet had the ailment. Therapeutic vaccines, like the one Vaxil has developed, are given to sick people, and work more like a drug.

Vaxil's lead product, ImMucin, activates the immune system by "training" T-cells — — the immune cells that protect the body by searching out and destroying cells that display a specific molecule (or marker) called MUC1. MUC1 is typically found only on cancer cells and not on healthy cells. The T-cells don't attack any cells without MUC1, meaning there are no side effects unlike traditional cancer treatments. More than 90% of different cancers have MUC1 on their cells, which indicates the potential for this vaccine.

Contact Avodah at and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-Sheva Staff, November 16, 2011.

There has not been much "understanding" lately between the Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas continues to launch missiles at Israeli cities, towns and kindergartens. The PA continues to refuse international blandishments to get it to the negotiation table and its request for recognition at the UN put paid to whatever remained of the disastrous Oslo Accords.

Israel's Red Magen David Emergency Services (MDA), however, seems in 2005 to have succeeded in reaching an "understanding" with the PA's Red Crescent Society (PRCS) on how to run emergency rescue services in Judea and Samaria.

But there's a catch — or maybe several.

The "Memorandum of Understanding between Magen David Adom in Israel and Palestine Red Crescent Society," a copy of which reached Arutz Sheva, includes having Israel called an "occupier" and agrees that "internationally recognized borders" are the line of demarcation for Red Crescent chapters rather than those of Red Magen David. In addition, Israel's famed Red Star of David is scrapped and exchanged for a Red Crystal.

The memorandum was signed in Geneva on November 28, 2005 by Dr. Noam Yifrach, the Israeli Organization's chairman and Younis Al-Khatib, President of the Palestine Red Crescent Society, in the presence of official representatives of the ICRC, IFRC and a special representative on the emblem.

As a reward, the Israeli rescue organization was to obtain its long-coveted membership in the International Red Cross. The agreement, on how to operate rescue services, states that its goal is "to pave the way for the membership of both societies in the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, committed to operating in accordance with international humanitarian law."

The existence of the joint International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies enables Moslem countries to avoid having a cross on their rescue vehicles. Israel, wanting neither cross nor crescent, chose the emotion-evoking Red Star of David and functioned independently. It was never accepted into the organization anyway, despite repeated requests, due to Arab opposition.

The year 2005 was cited in Israel as a breakthrough, but at what cost that change in attitude was achieved was not publicized.

Arutz Sheva spoke to Yoni Yisraeli, head of rescue operations for the Shomron Regional Authority, who explained that motivation for joining the IFRC, aside from Israel's natural and often hopeless desire to be part of world bodies, also has a financial aspect.

A $100,000 award for signing the document was part of the deal for each of the local societies, perhaps to be followed by more, and given Magen David Adom's ongoing financial crisis, this must have been tempting, he said.

Except, he added, that the heads of the societies seem to have received that sum for themselves.

And the Red Cross did not give that money for nothing. Below are some direct quotes from the document signed by Israel's representative — no Oslo-created Areas A,B,C here [Area A is only PA, B is shared, C is only Israeli], just "Palestinian territory". The context makes the definition of those two words clear enough:

"MDA and PRCS will operate in conformity with the legal framework applicable to the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967."

"MDA and PRCS recognize that PRCS is the authorized national society in the Palestinian territory and that this territory is within the geographical scope of the operational activities and of the competences of PRCS".

"After the Third Protocol Additional is adopted and by the time MDA is admitted to the ...International Red Cross and Red Cresecent societies, MDA will ensure that it has no chapters outside the internationally recognized border of the state of Israel."

Efrat, Gilo, Maaleh Adumim, Ariel and Kedumim and other Yesha communities, take note.

"Operational activities of one society within the jurisdiction of the other society will be conducted in accordance with the consent provision of resolution 11..."

That seems to say, Israeli ambulances over pre 1967 borders — yes; chapters, no.

"MDA and PRCS will use a distinctive emblem in conformity with the requirements of the Geneva conventions and its Third Additional Protocol."

The Third Additional Protocol introduces a third symbol, the red crystal, which, to quote the Protocol itself "will make it easier for national societies who do not wish to use the red cross or the red crescent emblems to be recognized and admitted to the Movement. This consolidates the Movement's universality".

Cross and crescent, yes. Jewish star, no. Sublimely universal.

Oddly, for six years after the agreement, nothing changed visibly. Suddenly, in recent weeks, Israelis were up in arms to see that the Red Star of David symbol had disappeared from Israeli ambulances in Judea and Samaria, to be replaced by an odd symbol that meant nothing to anyone.

Questioners were told that the Star of David is not recognized by the international organization and that the rest of the country's ambulances would soon follow suit.

A grassroots rebellion saw red Jewish star stickers being pasted on ambulances and volunteers from Judea and Samaria refusing to go to their stations.

That may or may not work, said Yisraeli, but since local authorities are not allowed to own ambulances but must rent them from Red Magen David, the society's agreements affect everyone.

But what is to become of the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding? And did the Foreign Ministry know and agree to MDA's relinquishing jurisdiction in Judea and Samaria as well as replacing the Star of David symbol for some pieces of silver? It depends on who is asked and whose interpretation of the document is accepted.

Arutz Sheva did not get any clear answers and the head of MDA was not available for comments. The Knesset is supposed to debate the issue in the near future, said a Shomron Regional Authority source.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 16, 2011.

There is, however, a man who Obama loves to deal with, if not every day at least as often as possible: Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

As Turkish expert Soner Cagaptay put it, "The United States and Turkey are on a honeymoon, with President Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan having formed what is probably the best relationship between a U.S. president and a Turkish prime minister in decades.... Obama and Erdogan seem to have really hit it off.... The two leaders speak often... and frequently agree on policy." I would also stress that Erdogan is Obama's tutor on Middle East affairs:

  • When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other Obama Administration officials claim that Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood are really moderate and will be further moderated by being in power, the only example provided was that Erdogan's regime is moderate.

  • The U.S. government announced last September 11 its self-described main initiative for the tenth anniversary of the attacks on America. It was an international counterterrorist organization with Turkey as the sole co-chair. Israel was not invited to join.

  • When the Turkish regime has engaged in anti-Israel tirades — which Turkey's opposition leader has called going to the verge of war with Israel — no U.S. criticism, pressure, or lessening of the Obama-Erdogan love affair has taken place. By acting in this way, Obama has licensed Obama's anti-Israel policies and his regime's at times antisemitic rhetoric.

  • Despite the Turkish government's opposition to additional sanctions on Iran last year and Erdogan's effort to sabotage U.S. efforts by cutting a separate deal with Tehran, Obama was not perturbed.

  • Erdogan's close and supportive relationship with Hizballah and Hamas have not brought any U.S. negative reaction.

  • The U.S. government and mass media have systematically avoided talking about this regime's ties to terrorist groups, including its sponsorship of the Gaza flotilla which was organized by the IHH terrorists. The Turkish regime has also been involved in antisemitic actions, like an antisemitic website sponsored by the Turkish Education Ministry.

  • Erdogan has publicly stated that he believes Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and that Iranian President Ahmadinejad was his friend. Lately they haven't been getting along so well. Why, Turkish moderation? No, Erdogan wants a Sunni Islamist regime in Syria; Ahmadinejad wants the current Damascus government which is his ally.

  • The regime's foreign minister Ahmed Davuto?lu wrote a book in Turkish saying that his plan was to move from alliance with the West to one with the Islamist world in order to fight the West. The book has never been translated and the regime has bought up copies. No Western news media has written about it. Recently, he wrote a book in English saying the regime wanted to be friends with everyone and loved the West. This has been widely reviewed and favorably discussed.

  • Far from being a moderate Muslim or even a moderate Islamist, Erdogan has been carrying out the fundamental transformation of Turkey into an Islamist dictatorship.

  • Under the guidance of Erdogan's regime, much of the Turkish media has been generating anti-Americanism. Polls show a huge rise in anti-American public opinion which Erdogan has augmented, not combatted.

  • Incidentally, Erdogan uses the warm report he receives from the Obama Administration at home for political purposes. If the Americans like us, the government tells voters, we couldn't possibly be Islamists. Far from isolating Turkey, our policies abroad (alliance with Iran, Syria — up until recently — Hamas and Hizballah) shows our government's success. Everyone in Turkey knows that the U.S. government is helping the regime in electoral terms.

  • Among Erdogan's past statements was his famous remark that democracy is like a streetcar and you just must decide where to get off. The Turkish model is inspiring Islamists elsewhere not toward moderation but merely toward patience in implementing their programs. They participate in elections not because they believe in democracy but because they know they will win the elections and then can consolidate power and irreversibly transform their societies along the lines they wish.

  • U.S. embassy reporting from Ankara, as we can see from Wikileaks, showed the radical Islamism of Erdogan's regime on many occasions. Obama simply ignored it.

    He has certainly not arrived at that destination yet but he is well on the way. The independent power of every Turkish institution has been broken. Thousands of dissidents have been arrested and thrown into jail for years on flimsy charges. Turkey has more journalists in prison than any other country in the world. The list of oppression, repression, and Islamization goes on and on.

    In other words, Erdogan tells Obama that there's nothing to fear from Islamists in places like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and elsewhere. They are really moderates or soon will be. Of course, Erdogan doesn't care a Smyrna fig for U.S. interests or democracy or moderation. He only wants to promote Islamism in general and Turkish leadership of the Middle East in particular.

    But, they say, Erdogan is now opposed to Iran. Sure, though their economic relations continue to be very strong, but only about which country would be the Islamist power in the region. If it serves his purpose, Erdogan will guide Obama into siding with the Sunni Islamists (the Muslim Brotherhood and himself) against the Shia Islamist bloc (Iran and the Syrian regime).

    If so, we will soon be told that the Sunni Islamists are really moderate. Just as backing them is the "best" way to combat al-Qaida, it will also be portrayed as the "best" way to defeat Iran.

    Erdogan is a con-man in this regard; Obama is his sucker we are their victims. As a result, nations will be enslaved (or further enslaved); the prospects for real democracy will recede, Israel will face tremendous dangers, and U.S. interests will suffer greatly.

    Let us, then, summarize the situation:

    The president of the United States adores a radical, anti-American Islamist who supports radical terrorist groups, seeks to overthrow U.S. allies and replace them with other radical Islamist governments, and wants (no, he doesn't say it publicly, but what do you think?) Israel wiped off the map.

    This is a formula for disaster. And it is precisely what we are seeing every day.

    This was written by Barry Rubin, who 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 Contact him at The website of the GLORIA Center is at and his blog, Rubin Reports,

    To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-7 TechIsrael Staff, November 15, 2011.

There are now seven billion people in the world, and as in the past, experts are wringing their hands over the possibility that Malthus could finally have his day. Malthus was the English philosopher who expected the world to starve eventually because of a lack of resources, and so far he's been wrong. But seven billion, now... that's a lot of people!

All those people do have to be fed. So far, the world has been able to (more or less) supply its population with food, and in fact most people — even in many third-world countries — are better fed today than ever. But still, the system is showing strain: Grain prices have skyrocketed around the world, the seas are overfished, and pesticides are being overused because pests have been building up resistance to smaller, safer doses. Scientists are working overtime trying to come up with new breakthroughs in food production, before Malthus' prediction comes true.

While much of the work on expanding the food supply is taking place on farms and in labs, Israel's Bio[pack] ( is taking a different tack — preventing the loss of food after it's been produced.

Supermarkets and other foodsellers lose a significant portion of their stock each year because of insect infestations in warehouses, manufacturing plants, and store shelves. As everyone knows, getting rid of bugs that have taken up residence in a home or office isn't so easy, and usually requires copious applications of insecticide — an option that is less than ideal for places where food is processed, handled, and stored.

Bio[pack] preserves food by keeping bugs away from the places where it is handled and from the packages they are stored in — safely and efficiently. Using advanced technology, Bio[pack] has developed packaging and storage containers (retail and industrial) that keep bugs away using naturally-occurring bug repellents in fruits, vegetables, grains and spices.

"Our solution is safe and natural, based on natural occurring elements," says Bio[pack] co-founder Shlomo Navarro. "We have managed to distill many of the elements in plants, grains and spices that repel certain insects, and we have thus been able to develop products that repel insects from factories and warehouses, as well as make sure they stay out of packages on supermarket shelves."

The product is based on research Navarro did with several colleagues at the Vulcani Agricultural Research Center. That research showed that there were many fruits, vegetables, grains and spices that seemed to have a built-in bug repellent; certain insects just seem to stay away from certain plants.

For example, spearmint plants are known to repel ants; the bugs just cannot stand to be in the presence of spearmint. The same holds true for many other plants, like coriander (repels aphids), horseradish (Colorado potato beetle), and even tomatoes (Cabbage maggot) and potatoes (Mexican bean beetle).

"These properties were known for thousands of years in many cultures around the world," Navarro says, but it was only recently that scientists began studying which elements in plants repel insects. "Our innovation is that we know which elements to remove, and how to integrate them with other solutions — such as packaging that in and of itself repels bugs."

Bio[pack]'s innovative packaging may not be the innovation that ends world hunger, but it's definitely a poke in the eye at Malthus!

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, November 15, 2011.

This was written by Jamsheed K. Choksy, and it is archived at choksy-iran-zoroastrian/index.html?hpt=hp_t2. The original has live links to additional material.

Jamsheed K. Choksy is professor of Iranian studies, senior fellow of the Center on American and Global Security, and former director of the Middle Eastern studies program at Indiana University, Bloomington.


Bloomington, Indiana (CNN) — As Zoroastrian funerary processions enter the graveyard overlooking the Tehran suburb of Ray, their sobriety is often shattered by the sound of explosions and gunfire. Frequently, the way forward is blocked by Islamic Revolutionary Guards conducting a combat exercise among the tombs. According to Zoroastrian custom, burial needs to take place within 24 hours, and the Revolutionary Guards will not halt their training activities there for the funerals.

This is just another sign of religious freedom fading in the Islamic Republic.

Much that is written about the Zoroastrians of Iran portrays them as a venerable and quaint religious community. But these followers of an ancient faith are not insulated from the tribulations of their country.

Zoroastrianism is named after its founder, the prophet Zarathustra — or Zoroaster, as he came to be known in the West — who preached sometime between 1800 and 1000 B.C. Zoroaster spoke of humans siding with God (called Ahura Mazda, or the Wise Lord) against the devil (called Angra Mainyu, or the Angry Spirit) and fighting for all that is right. In time, those concepts became central to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So did Zoroastrian beliefs that each soul faces judgment after death before entering heaven, limbo or hell, and that all of humanity will experience resurrection, final judgment and heaven on Earth.

Ancient Persian kings like Cyrus and Darius followed their faith's basic tenet of doing good by freeing Israelites from the Babylonian Exile and supporting construction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem. Zoroastrianism's clergymen, or magi, are known around the world as the wise men in attendance at the nativity of Jesus. Until Arabs conquered Iran during the seventh century, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians there could practice their own devotions unhindered. Thereafter, they became minorities who were persecuted and largely converted to Islam.

When the Islamic revolution occurred in 1979, fundamentalist Shiites stormed the fire temple at Tehran. There, Zoroastrians worship in front of a blazing fire, as a symbol of God's grace, just like Christians face a cross and Muslims turn to a qibla pointing toward Mecca. The portrait of Zoroaster was tossed down, a photograph of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was put up in its place, and the congregation was warned not to remove the image of Iran's new leader. Only months later could the prophet's picture be mounted upon an adjacent wall.

Their schools and classrooms began to be covered with images of Supreme Leaders Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and with verses of the Quran that denounce non-Muslims. Those who do well academically nonetheless find no openings within state-controlled universities.

When the bloody war with Iraq raged from 1980 to 1988, young Zoroastrians were involuntarily drafted for suicide missions in the Iranian army. Rejecting the Shiite mullahs' claim that military martyrdom would lead them to a heaven full of virgins was futile. Failing to offer their lives on the battlefield could result in execution for treason.

Then in November 2005, Ayatollah Ahmed Jannati, chairman of the Council of Guardians of the Constitution, disparaged Zoroastrians and other religious minorities as "sinful animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption." When the Zoroastrians' solitary parliamentary representative protested, he was hauled before a revolutionary tribunal. There, mullahs threatened execution before sparing his life with a warning never to challenge their declarations again. A frightened community subsequently declined to re-elect him.

Over the past two years, many Muslim Iranians have begun publicly rejecting the Shiite theocracy's intolerant ways by adopting symbols and festivals from Zoroastrianism. Those actions are denounced as causing "harm and corruption" by ayatollahs like Khamenei and Jannati.

Sensing that popular sentiment among Iran's Muslim majority is shifting away from the mullahs, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has begun utilizing Zoroastrianism's past for his own political ends. In September 2010, he arranged for the Cyrus Cylinder, a sixth-century B.C. document that speaks of religious tolerance and Iranian greatness, to be loaned from the British Museum. During a public ceremony in Tehran, Ahmadinejad lauded indigenous traditions as superior to Arab-imposed Islam. Privately, his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, even referred to King Cyrus as "a messenger of God."

Their tottering political base has sharpened the Shiite clerics' ire. Like members of the Christian, Jewish and Baha'i minorities, Zoroastrian activists who protest the theocracy's excesses are sent to Tehran's notorious Evin prison on charges of sedition. At the ayatollahs' instigation, Iranian media characterizes the followers of Iran's ancient faith as polytheists and devil worshipers. Lesser mullahs rant against Zoroastrians not only in Iran, but even at mosques in Toronto.

The Zoroastrian cemetery outside Tehran now faces another challenge: The municipality seeks to lay a highway through it. Some schools and devotional centers in other Zoroastrian strongholds like Yazd and Kerman have also been notified of pending annexation. Communal gatherings are routinely monitored by fundamentalist Muslim authorities who allege that Zoroastrianism "threatens national security and subverts the Islamic revolution."

Protections offered by the Islamic Republic's constitution have been rendered meaningless in practice. Not surprisingly, the daily regimen of discrimination makes Zoroastrians feel wholly unwelcome in their Iranian homeland. Only between 35,000 and 90,000 now remain in a country of approximately 74 million citizens — and, fearing persecution, many do not readily identify themselves as Zoroastrians.

Yet, Zoroastrians are no mere footnote in human history and religiosity. Their ideas still determine how many of the globe's residents behave. The end of Zoroastrianism in Iran should be prevented. Making religious freedom a priority in U.S. and EU foreign policies will help achieve that goal.

Zoroastrian worshipers pray near the central Iranian city of Yazd in 2004

Contact Dr History by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, November 15, 2011.

What if a group of youthful Palestinian activists, fed up with Hamas and Fatah for leading the Palestinian Arabs over and over down bloody, self-defeating dead ends, were to emerge as a new political and social force — something like a Palestinian "Peace Now"?

This was written by Elliot Jager and it appeared in Jewish Ideas Daily. It is archived at finallyapalestinianpeacenow


What if a group of youthful Palestinian activists, fed up with Hamas and Fatah for leading the Palestinian Arabs over and over down bloody, self-defeating dead ends, were to emerge as a new political and social force — something like a Palestinian "Peace Now"? The Washington Post thinks it has found them.

Palestinians are once again experiencing the futility of the rejectionist strategy. Their effortless victories in UNESCO, with more predicted in the General Assembly, seem only to stoke their frustration. Their expectation of Security Council recognition for a Palestinian state is about to be dashed. Imagine the possibilities, then, in a Palestinian movement revolted by the old militarism, religious fanaticism, and bloodlust; exasperated with Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas for placing a wreath on Yasir Arafat's grave — of all places — to mark the festival of Eid al-Adha; and challenging Abbas's decision to spend lavishly on violent Palestinian inmates released from Israeli prisons in the Gilad Shalit exchange. Imagine their compatriots in Gaza, though necessarily more cautious, offended by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh for telling Eid al-Adha worshippers that "sacrifices — not only [of] sheep" — are "a way in which we praise God." Couldn't a Palestinian "Peace Now" emerge from recognizing, finally, that neither depraved violence nor an automatic UN majority has brought the Palestinians what they want?

Sure enough, the Washington Post recently ran a feature about an avant-garde group of activists on the West Bank and Gaza — non-Islamist men and women in their 20's, born in the first intifada and teenagers during the second, who are disillusioned with both Fatah and Hamas and uninspired by symbolic victories at the UN. Post reporter Joel Greenberg, a veteran Israel-based advocacy journalist, came upon this "still-undefined, embryonic group of a few hundred." The paper's headline writers billed them as a "new political and social force." Has Greenberg found the future Palestinian leaders who are ready for painful concessions in order to achieve coexistence with the Jewish state?

Hurriyah Ziada

As a narrative hook, Greenberg focuses on attractive 22-year-old university student Hurriyah Ziada, who is "active in protesting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank." Does this mean that Ziada wants to push Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines? No, she thinks this is "inadequate." What she wants is a single Muslim-majority country from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, its population swelled by the "return" of some 750,000 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 War plus millions of their descendants living in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. And the six million Jews who are presently Israelis? Ziada would munificently grant the new minority "equal rights" in Greater Palestine.

Instead of rolling his eyes at this warmed-over rejectionism, Greenberg deems Ziada's vision of the disappearance of Israel a "human and civil rights" breakthrough, resembling the "American civil rights movement" and the "struggle to end apartheid in South Africa." Why would he attempt to sanitize the old Palestinian Arab agenda and present it as something progressive?

Greenberg's attitude is less mystifying in light of his record. He so opposes a Jewish presence beyond the Green Line that he once served as a spokesman for Hamoked, yet another EU-funded NGO promoting Palestinian interests in the "occupied territories." He served in the IDF (though he reportedly refused reserve duty in Lebanon), but his soft spot for the Palestinian narrative has long permeated his reporting. He describes Arab opposition to the "occupation" as "bombing and shooting attacks on Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza." He expressed this blinkered view of who was under attack even when Israelis within the Green Line were targeted daily in 2004. And while no one denies that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria feel "occupied," the possibility that the land is disputed seldom appears in Greenberg's stories.

As for Ziada, Greenberg tells us that her father belongs to a "militant leftist faction"; her brother is a "member of Fatah's armed wing." The apple does not fall far from the tree. Ziada rules out any compromise with Israel: "When I have kids, I don't want them stuck in the West Bank. I want the right to move freely. I want to go to Jerusalem, the city where I was born, and to the village my family was kicked out from in 1948." Perhaps Ziada is disingenuous — or perhaps the 22-year-old does not recollect that West Bank and Gaza motorists could drive unimpeded throughout Israel before the suicide bombings of the second intifada. Moreover, if, as she claims, she was born within the Jerusalem municipality to parents who were legal residents, it is puzzling that she lacks the blue Israeli ID card that would permit her to move freely about the country. She tells Greenberg her family was "kicked out" of the subsequently "destroyed" village of al-Falauja. But they might be living there still had an earlier Palestinian leadership not rejected the UN's 1947 Partition Plan — and had gunmen from al-Falauja not laid siege to neighboring Jewish communities and attacked Haganah convoys delivering food and water to them.

In undertaking their "creative nonviolent action" (i.e., violent confrontation with the IDF), Greenberg says Ziada and her activist comrades must overcome a "wall of apathy": The older generation is "exhausted," while most of her peers are "alienated from established political movements." In fact, however, Ziada's "new" ideas meld perfectly with the standard Palestinian mindset. In an October 2011 poll by Nabil Kukali's Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, a staggering 89.8 percent of respondents said they would rather have "no peace deal" and no "independent state" if it meant giving up the "right of return." Far from uncovering a new political and social force among the Palestinians, Greenberg's story demonstrates that across the generational divide, Palestinians remain appallingly unrealistic and intransigent. The reason is stark: The moderates have been assassinated, leaving Fatah and Hamas in charge. Sadly, in opposing the "limited political horizons of the Palestinian leadership," Ziada and her comrades are pushing Abbas and Haniyeh not toward reconciliation with the Jews but in the direction of war without end.

Contact Hadassah Levy by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, November 15, 2011.

Daniel Greenfield is an Israeli-born artist, writer and freelance commentator on political affairs with a special focus on Jewish concerns and the War on Terror. He maintains a blog at, where this article was published on December, 13, 2011 and it is archived at 2011/11/dangers-of-legitimizing- islamic.html


There is no surer path to Muslim violence than through the legitimization of Muslim grievance. And once you accept the legitimacy of the grievance, then you are also bound to accept the legitimacy of the violence that follows.

Violence begins with grievance. Grievance is the pretext for violence and the narrative for the violence. Liberals make a fetish of separating the grievance from the violence, emphasizing constructive means of resolving the grievance. But what do you do when the grievance and the violence are inseparable?

Grievance is the stories that Muslims tell themselves to justify their violence. To explain why they kill children and why they murder the innocent. The list of grievances is an endless as the violence. Every act of violence carries its own narrative. The endless Muslim conflicts throughout the world all carry their burden of history. But it isn't a history that can be resolved with a tolerance session.

Muslim grievances are the frustration of conquerors, the broken teeth of predators who weren't allowed to feed on the world until their stomachs burst. All the lands they couldn't conqueror, the peoples who rebelled against their rule, the inferior civilizations that pushed them back and drove them off. The swine who build skyscrapers and enjoy the fine things in life.

The civil rights model of social conflict resolution accepts grievances as legitimate and then tries to 'heal' through them through social justice. And when that model is applied to Muslims, it turns into empty appeasement because the conflicts at the heart of Muslim violence cannot be resolved through integration or representation. Applying the word "justice" in any form to a conflict involving Muslims is wasted ink.

The problem begins with a clash of definitions. To a citizen of a secular Western state, "injustice" means a lack of representation. To a Muslim, "injustice" means a lack of Islamic jurisprudence. A Non-Muslim state is always unjust simply because it is not ruled by Islamic law.

The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure. The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power... everywhere.

If you believe that Islam is the fundamental law of mankind, that all mankind at one time were Muslims and that there is no true justice except through Islamic law — then it follows naturally that Muslims have been cheated of their rightful power, that they are forced to live under "atheistic" regimes and that "justice" demands that the world "revert" to Islamic rule.

It's why the rhetoric of democracy falls notoriously flat when it comes to Islam. Muslims are not out for representation except as a preliminary stage to absolute power. They may route the guardianship of that absolute power power in various ways, through a dictator or some form of popular democracy, but these are only vehicles for the imposition of Islamic law.

The absolute power of Islamic law is justified by its origin in Allah and the unjust nature of non-Muslim law is equally proven by its lack of divine origin. If you take Islamic assumptions at face value, then this makes perfect sense. Therefore a devout Muslim cannot view a non-Muslim society as just. Equating an infidel code with Sharia is blasphemy. And so the logic of Islam dictates that Western Muslims must view themselves as oppressed.

Like the struggle with the left, this is a clash between the ideal and the real. Totalitarian idealists are always outraged because compared to their ideal every system is rotten, corrupt and unjust. Whether it's the ideal of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or the Guardianship of the Jurists, it all comes down to the tyranny of the ideal against the immorality of the real. The representational compromises that make the modern Republic work are anathema to people who believe that they have the perfect system which will be absolutely just... because it is perfect.

Muslim grievances justify endless war against the real, in the name of the ideal, without ever having to deal with the shortcomings of the ideal. The collectivism of the ideal disdains the individual except as a foot soldier, a martyr in bringing about the ideal. The infidels are unworthy of life because they are immersed in the grossness of the real. And the suicide bomber rejects the real for the ideal by disdaining his own life, much as he disdains the despised earthly women, but the demon virgins of paradise who represent another ideal.

The common denominator of the cartoon controversies, Muslim wars around the world and just about every other grievance, from their claim to Spain to their demand for more mosques, is an insistence on power at the expense of others. Everyone has to keep paying a price for Muslim grievance — either in rights and freedoms, or in blood.

Muslim violence is already a self-perpetuating grievance engine. If Muslims win a war, then they're heroes. If they lose a war, then they were betrayed, undermined from within and had what was theirs stolen from them. The grudges will fester for a thousand years and touch off endless wars until they get what they want or they lose the ability to fight those wars.

The purpose of war is conquest. Islam treats Muslim conquest as a form of justice. A failed conquest is an injustice. Try applying social justice to a mindset like that and what you're left with is Europe today.

Since no Muslim should ever have to live under the unjust rule of infidels, there is always a cause for war and a fifth column waiting to rise up and demand their right to rule over everyone else. And the war is endless — its origins written in blood on the pages of Islamic scripture.

Innocence is the root of grievance, the "I was minding my own business until he came up and hit me and then I had to burn his village, rape his daughters and spend a thousand years enslaving his descendants" narrative of Islam. First comes the innocence and then comes the genocide.

Legitimizing Muslim grievance means accepting their narrative of innocence. Their "I was minding my own business until this cartoon offended me, until I was hauled off to Gitmo for absolutely no reason, until people give me dirty looks on the street for absolutely no reason and then I just had to kill as many of them as I could" narrative.

That narrative of innocence is a lie. People are not innocent, and the conquerors and oppressors of much of the world are certainly a long way from innocent. Historical Islam was a brutal conquering ideology that fed off blood and human misery. No amount of revisionist history will make that go away and the revisionist history is a disgusting insult to the millions killed and the cultures wiped out for the greater glory of Islam.

A religion that has never stopped practicing genocide, slavery and repression as religious mandates is the worst positioned to act out the charade of innocence, to pretend that everything was fine until the Ottoman Empire fell and the British and French colonialists replaced the Muslim colonialists and gave the local minorities civil rights instead of a spiked boot in the face.

Legitimizing Islamic grievance is dangerous not only because it feeds the self-righteous violence of Muslims, but because it convinces well-meaning Westerners that maybe they have a point. Once we accept the grievance, then it becomes hard to resist the violence, except by calling for more peaceful means of resolution. And if those peaceful means of resolution fail... then the violence is justified.

The Israeli peace process is a case study of how this process operates, how the legitimization of Muslim grievance comes to justify its violence, and how its own obstruction of negotiations disproves the peaceful means of resolution, which then doubly justifies the violence.

Rejecting the grievance also rejects the violence, it prevents the narrative from getting its foot in the door, the mosquito whine that pitifully pleads even as it's sinking its stinger into your neck. Fighting that narrative requires pulling back to see the sweep of history, the conquering armies of the Caliphs bringing slavery, destroying cultures, burning books and oppressing millions. And it requires that we see history repeating itself again.

Grievance was at the root of Mohammed's conquests. His "I was minding my own business, preaching a totalitarian ideology that said non-Muslims are inferior dogs when someone made fun of me, so of course I had them killed and fought a war and enslaved their descendants for all time" narrative. Poor innocent me.

Muslims must believe themselves to be moral, or accept that they are mass murderers fighting wars and destroying civilizations. And they need us to accept their narrative, to view them as moral actors resisting oppression and injustice — rather than monsters spreading pain, hate and fear in formerly peaceful places. While we may not be able to prevent them from believing their lies, accepting their lies deludes us and them... and directly feeds violence.

When Americans keep repeating that Islamophobia is a major problem, Muslims treat this as an admission of guilt and a justification for violence. When Europeans accept that freedom of speech should take a back seat to Muslim sensitivities, then Muslims hold it up as proof that they don't really believe in freedom of speech and that those who insist on it are not following principles, but are deliberately agitating against Muslims.

Everyone who shouts "Blood for Oil", denounces Gitmo, rants about Israeli occupation and all the rest of it is legitimizing Muslim violence, whether or not they mean to do so. And when they perpetuate a myth of Islamic innocence, they are denying Muslims the opportunity to make a moral reckoning without which they cannot improve or change.

Wars begin as stories and end as stories. The Muslims have been telling their story for a long time. And these days we're telling their story too.

Contact Dr History by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, November 14, 2011.

Iran is a man made volcano in the making

For the past 16 years in the making the entire world ignored the warning of Israel's leaders that Iran is digging deep in its terrain building nuclear volcano centers, now close to erupt.

When a volcano erupts it cannot be stopped. It spews fire, clouds of poisonous gases and lava that snails downhill and petrifies anything and everything in its way.

For years, under the command of Mohamed ElBaradei, as its director General, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has allowed the maniacal Iranian regime to pursue its nuclear ambitions uninterrupted, in fact encouraged. It has been pursuing to unravel world order and accomplish its dream to destroy the State of Israel in the process. To cause another Holocaust, while denying that the first one ever occurred.

And while Iran develops her nuclear volcanoes, the world scratched its head not knowing what to do next. What to do in order to stop Iran from causing an atomic explosion that will destroy much and many.

The question to be asked is why the world will not get together to stop Iran's nuclear ambition, now much advanced in its track? What stops world's leaders stopping Iran from carrying on developing nuclear arsenal? Why is the world suicidal?

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is nothing but a dangerous murderer megalomaniac, yet, the world allows him a stage. He speaks at the UN where he threatens to destroy Israel and insults the USA, yet, many in fact will sit to listen to his despicable rant. That speaks volume of those who listen to him as no decent person, who believes in human rights, will listen to this man's incitement and rhetoric, much more his stupidity.

Iran's volcanoes are manmade, thus can be stopped being made before eruption. However, for some unbeknown reason, the world is waiting for them to start spewing nuclear fumes, before it wakes up to try stop it.

In a world where common sense has been hijacked by utter stupidly and paralyzing fear, Iran's nuclear volcanoes are likely to erupt and cause irreversible damage on the planet that will and throw the world into a whirl of upheaval and a tailspin of nuclear disaster.

Fear is the impediment that will allow the Iranian destructive power to take over.

The choice is ours, not Iran's!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, November 14, 2011.
This was written by Caroline Glick and it was published in the Jerusalem Post. It is archived at

It's important to understand how much effort she puts into each issue, fact checking and supporting every statement and bringing together thoughts, ideas and events in a way that only someone with her education, broad experience and immense knowledge, could. This article is a shining example of all this, her clear thinking and passion for Israel, but mainly for what is fair and right. The fight she talks about is central to what Israel is, and will be in the long-range future. This article is very important to understand.


US Embassy cables leaked by Wikileaks in September exposed the ugly truth that self-described champions of Israeli democracy would like us to forget about the actual goals of Israel's self-described human rights organizations.

In a meeting with then US Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv in January 2010, B'Tselem director Jessica Montell explained what her group wished to achieve by colluding with the UN's Goldstone Commission's inquiry into Israel's handling of Operation Cast Lead. According to the embassy report, Montell said, "Her aim...was to make Israel weigh world opinion and consider whether it could 'afford another operation like this.'"

In other words, in colluding with the UN's anti-Israel commission, whose mandate from the UN Human Rights Council was to explain how Israel broke international law by acting to defend its citizens from Hamas's illegal, indiscriminate missile assault, B'Tselem's goal was to undermine Israel's ability to defend itself. B'Tselem wished to use the UN commission to foment an international witch-hunt against the Jewish state that would exact a prohibitive price for defending the country. Israel's democratically elected government would react to the international onslaught by ignoring the needs of the Israeli public and opting not to defend the country again.

Obviously, if Israel ceases to defend itself, in light of its enemies' dedication to its destruction, it will cease to exist. And in a meeting with US Embassy officers in February 2010, Hedva Radovanitz, the New Israel Fund's then-associate director in Israel said that would be just fine by her. According to a leaked embassy cable report of the meeting, Radovanitz said "she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic."

THE LIKES of Radovanitz and Montell are acutely aware that most Israelis do not share their extremist goals or their radical visions for Israel's future.

Radovanitz acknowledged that public support for the radical left, which the NIF supports to the tune of $18 million per year, has no serious domestic constituency.

As the cable put it, she described the "disappearance of the political left wing" in Israel and the lack of domestic constituency for the NGOs.

She noted that "when she headed ACRI's [the Association for Civil Rights in Israel's] Tel Aviv office, ACRI had 5,000 members, while today it has less than 800, and it was only able to muster about 5,000 people to its December [2009] human rights march by relying on the active staff of the 120 NGOs that participated."

As for Montell, in a meeting with the US Embassy's political officer in February 2010, she "estimated that [B'Tselem's] 9 million NIS ($2.4 million) budget is 95 percent funded from abroad, mostly from European countries."

The reality that these Wikileaks-leaked documents expose is precisely the reality which the Knesset this week launched a renewed effort to contend with by submitting three separate bills for consideration. Two of the Knesset bills address the issue of foreign funding to NGOs. One bill would limit the amount of funding Israeli political NGOs can receive from foreign governments and international organizations like the EU and the UN to NIS 20,000 per year. A competing bill would deny tax exemptions — that is, government subsidies — for such contributions and apply a 45% tax to all such foreign contributions.

While the laws would apply to all NGOs, obviously they would be particularly problematic for the NGOs run by Israeli radicals like Montell and Radovanitz that have no domestic Israeli constituency and rely on foreign governments to support their anti-Israel efforts.

THE THIRD bill addresses the main source of the political power of these foreign-funded NGOs — Israel's radicalized Supreme Court.

For the past 20 years or so, as the radical left has discredited itself as a political force in Israel, it has increasingly used the Supreme Court to achieve its aims. The Court is dominated by far leftists who legislate laws from the bench that would never pass in the Knesset.

Petitioning the Supreme Court, EU-funded groups like B'tselem, Peace Now and Adalah have been able to place court-imposed constraints on IDF operations.

They have been able to block or hamper the implementation of security measures that enjoy broad public support like the construction of the security fence.

They are able to block political leaders from devising and carrying out policies they believe serve the country's interests such as preventing illegal PLO activities in Jerusalem and building Jewish communities on Jewish-owned land in the Galilee.

The Supreme Court's radical legislative agenda is not limited to political and security issues. It has also overturned Knesset laws to liberalize the media and privatize sectors of the economy like the prison system. It has acted on the basis of constitutional claims that have little grounding in actual law, and that it applies inconsistently in accordance with its judges' ideological leanings.

The public has taken notice of the Court's increasingly undemocratic activities. According to a recent Maagar Mohot poll, the Supreme Court, once the most trusted institution in Israel, is now seen by 54% of the public as politically biased and, by a 75% to 11% margin, slanted left. Sixty-three percent of the public believes that the personal political views of the judges influence their legal decisions to some degree.

The Supreme Court's radical agenda is facilitated by Israel's undemocratic method of selecting its members.

Court members are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Committee. For all practical purposes, the committee is controlled by the Supreme Court itself and so the justices effectively select themselves. Fifty-six percent of the public wants this selection method changed.

The bill submitted by Likud MKs Yariv Levin and Zev Elkin would subject all Supreme Court nominees to public hearings conducted by the Knesset's Law, Constitution and Justice Committee. These hearings would provide legislators and the public with full disclosure on the views, activities and associations of prospective justices. Doing so would constitute a tiny step toward bringing court appointments procedures more in line with those in effect in most other western democracies.

While the bills dealing with foreign funding of NGOs and the bill concerning Supreme Court appointments are ostensibly unrelated, in fact they are directly linked.

Speaking to the media, the heads of various NGOs claim that the bills addressing their foreign funding are "unconstitutional" and therefore of little concern.

They know that they can depend on their ideological brethren in the Supreme Court to protect them from the public and its representatives in the Knesset. Just as the Court has not hesitated to block legitimate governmental policies and reforms in the past in the interest of the justices' radical ideological convictions, so the NGO representatives believe, the Court will protect them from the Knesset's actions this time around as well.

This means that the only way to protect Israeli democracy from subversive, foreign funded groups who seek to undermine the foundations of the state is to reform the Supreme Court that enables their activities.

All the bills that were submitted this week are serious attempts to tackle a serious threat to Israel democracy.

And they are not the first of their kind. Over the past several years, Israel's legislators have introduced several bills aimed at achieving the same goals. And each of these bills in turn has been attacked by the leftist Israeli media as "anti-democratic."

The media are repeating their standard practice today. Rather than foster debate about the substance of these bills and the problems they seek to address, the media are colluding with the heads of the NGOs and their foreign governmental donors to demonize the bills' sponsors and to threaten Israel with "diplomatic consequences" if the Knesset moves ahead with the initiatives.

All of this is bad enough. But what makes the situation even worse is the behavior of self-declared champions of democracy among senior Likud politicians. In the name of democracy, Ministers Bennie Begin, Michael Eitan, and Dan Meridor all oppose these measures, which are all focused on protecting and strengthening Israeli democracy.

Meridor can always be depended on to take the position of the left against his party's voters. But Begin and Eitan have distinguished themselves as independent thinkers. Eitan has taken a tough and independent line on governmental corruption. Begin has not hesitated to oppose the leftist media and bureaucracy in issues related to terrorism.

Yet here, these men habitually embrace the specious and frankly indefensible arguments of the radical left that represents no one but itself and its foreign funders.

It was the opposition of the likes of Begin, Meridor, Eitan and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin that gave the radical left the necessary political cover to torpedo previous parliamentary initiatives to protect Israel's democratic institutions from their foreign-funded onslaughts.

And the Supreme Court's success to date in averting any serious parliamentary or governmental attempts to check its anti-democratic actions owes in large part to these Likud leaders' championship of its judicial usurpation of legislative and governmental power.

It is hard to know what is driving these men to act as they do. But it is high time that they exercise some independent judgment and rethink their support for the radical left's foreign funded, judicially enabled assault on Israeli democracy.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz Sheva, November 13, 2011.

This was written by Elad Benari and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva.


The police recently arrested a citizen of Jerusalem simply for responding to a Facebook status written by an extreme leftist.

The incident occurred this past week when Y (whose full name cannot be revealed for reasons of confidentiality) was surfing on Facebook. He came across a post by extreme leftist Dorit Eldar (a lecturer at Tel Aviv University), who was calling on Israelis to come and protest on Friday against the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria.

Y told Arutz Sheva that Eldar was complaining in her post that several weeks ago as she and her friends were protesting and blocking the entrance to the Jewish village of Anatot next to Jerusalem, IDF soldiers in the area conducted a "pogrom", as she put it, against her.

"When I saw this post, I replied to her in a polite manner and told her that it's inappropriate and illegal to prevent people from entering their home," Y said.

"Two days later I was in my car," he continued, "when suddenly I got a call from the police asking me to come for questioning. I said I was on my way, and I never even thought it had anything to do with what I wrote on Facebook. Seconds after I got off the phone with them I was blocked by a police car that stopped me for questioning. They interrogated me for two hours."

He added, "They asked me what organizations I was a member of. I told them I was a member of Yisrael Sheli and of Im Tirtzu. They found in my car a spray for the wheels and accused me of using it to spray-paint graffiti (of the kind used in so-called "price tag" operations -ed.). They picked me up like a criminal with several illegal Arabs and only let me go home late at night."

Y said that while he was being interrogated at the police station, detectives came to his home and confiscated his personal computer and cellular phone. He has yet to get them back.

Y, who served in the IDF for three years as every citizen is required by law, said that he does not understand why he was arrested while extreme leftists, such as the one he responded to on Facebook, who speak against IDF soldiers and incite against Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, are not detained.

"I am deeply hurt that the State of Israel is acting against people who truly love the country," he said. "It's a disgrace."

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 13, 2011.


The TLC network announced a "reality" series following five Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan, to show what "misconceptions and conflicts" face them. "Through these families and their diverse experiences, we will explore how they blend their values and traditions with everyday life in America. Viewers would gain "Insight into their culture with care and compassion."

By contrast with TLC's notion of misconceived hostility toward Muslims that would warrant such a program, "The announcement comes as positive attitudes in America towards Muslims appear to be on the rise. Earlier this year CNN found that 46 percent of Americans have a positive view of American Muslims, while 26 percent have an [sic] negative view. In 2002, the number of Americans with a positive view of Muslims stood at 39%."

A genuine reality show would explain Muslim theology, history, politics, and current events. Instead, this show will indoctrinate people about Islam by screening just a few, selected U.S. Muslims. Since Islamists are waging war on the U.S., we need facts, not propaganda.

Those five families supposedly will reflect diversity in Islam, because their lives differ from each other and from the [alleged] Muslim stereotype. For example, one Muslim girl wears "sports piercings and tattoos," as if that instructs us about Islam. Others claim that they are "trying to find the balance between their traditional Muslim roots and American culture, or are "working tirelessly to educate...about the Muslim religion in an effort to reduce discrimination and ignorance." Were they prompted to say that?

The show's Muslims are representative neither of U.S. Muslims nor of Dearborn Muslims. Dearborn, after all, is where: a Christian preacher was threatened by the Islamic war cry, "Allahu Akbar!," a resident had been indicted in a Hizbullah terrorist plot against Israel, the FBI had a shoot-out with jihadists in the street, and an American politician says that Islamic law prevails. Dearborn is replete with extremism, but the program seems designed to disregard that, yet claim it is showing a diversity of Muslims. Dearborn police repress Christian leafleting in Muslim areas (See Background article below).

"Far from trying to depict the "other" — the infidel — as 'just one of us,' the Arab media is devoted to making the West look as if it is on a 'crusade' to destroy Islam, and that the Jews are 'pigs and monkeys' who are behind any number of animal-related conspiracies. Meanwhile, here is America's media, floating in an idealistic, Utopian bubble, conditioning minds accordingly" (Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, 8/4/11 muslim-reality-show).

I asked whether the subjects of the TV show were prompted to say appealing things. Does TLC realize that deception both in propaganda and negotiations is one of the principles of jihad?

"Diversity" is one of the most misused words. Colleges claim to value diversity, but although they recruit people from all races, they repel or repress conservatives. How does TLC define it?

The significance to us of diversity in Islam would be in non-violence and tolerance. The challenge to a TV series is to find and quantify that difference so we know what we are up against, what proportion of Muslims are moderate, and whether they would help us stave off Radical Muslims and not themselves try to take away our culture by imposing theirs.


Four Christian missionaries were charged with "breach of peace," last June, for discussing religion with Muslims at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Their video won acquittal by jury.

Another three Christians, including one from Repent America, began singing a hymn and reading from the Gospels on the public sidewalk outside a mosque in West Philadelphia near the University of Pennsylvania, last July 3. At least a dozen boisterous Muslims gathered and argued with the Christians. A University security guard told the Christians to move off. They refused. He called University police.

Police ordered the Christians to step back, lower their voices, and demanded that they stop videotaping the incident. Police arrested two Christians for creating a hazardous conditions and or obstructing a mosque door.

Their defense attorney called this a free-speech case — Federal and Pennsylvanian courts protect the right to controversial speech in public spaces. If other people get angry, and make a problem, that is not the fault of the speakers.

Witnesses contradicted each other. The video showed that the preachers were near the curb, not the door. [The judge said the video could not be used as evidence, because the prosecution hadn't had time to review it.] Why would they block the door, thereby keeping Muslims from hearing them? Charge withdrawn.

No witness testified that the preachers were fighting, threatening, or making noise. An antagonistic police officer admitted that the Christians had been detained partly for their own safety. As for traffic, Muslims running over, not the preachers, had blocked some cars. Remaining charges dismissed.

The defense attorney observed that if the preachers had been discussing something else, they would not have been arrested. He believes that the police were deferring to "Islamic sensibilities."

The Philadelphia branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations persuaded a local TV station that this incident exemplifies "Islamophobia." The station repeated the disproved notion that protestors tried to block the door of the mosque. There was no protest demonstration.

The acquittals were appropriate, but the charges were not legitimate in the first place. Missionaries should not have the burden of defending their actions. Police should uphold the law and not Muslims hypersensitivities (David J. Rusin, American Thinker, May 1, 2011 6929/may-christians-preach-outside- a-philadelphia).

Free speech is in jeopardy.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Alexander Dymshits, November 13, 2011.

This was written by Gil Hoffman and it is archived at FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=245168

Ahead of the 26th anniversary of Jonathan Pollard's arrest, an exclusive look at year-old clemency request reveals how his case was mishandled.



Esther and Jonathan Pollard (Reuters)

Following the release of Gilad Schalit from the clutches of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, one of the questions most often asked to spokesmen for Israel who address audiences in the United States is why Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard remains in an American federal prison.

Pollard will enter his 27th year in captivity on November 21, even though the median sentence for those convicted of passing classified information to an ally is just two to four years.

No one else in American history has ever received a life sentence for this offense.

Successive Democratic and Republican regimes in Washington can be blamed for not commuting Pollard's sentence. Some hold American Jewish leaders responsible for not taking a public stand on Pollard until recently and still not taking enough action.

The last seven prime ministers of Israel undoubtedly could have each made Pollard a higher priority.

But an exclusive look at Pollard's request for clemency from US President Barack Obama, which he submitted a year ago, tells a deeper story of intrigue, legal misconduct and the interference of an American defense secretary known for being anti-Israel.

Pollard filed his request for clemency last October and over the past year added seven supplemental filings with letters to Obama calling for his release from many current and former senior American and Israeli officials. After a plea from Pollard's wife Esther, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu followed up with his own formal request three months later.

A White House spokesman confirmed in May that such requests tend to be answered within six weeks. He has not said why Obama has been dragging his feet.

Clemency requests were also filed in 1992 to thenpresident George Bush, in 1993 to then-president Bill Clinton, and in 2008 to then-president George W. Bush. The first two announced that they had denied the request to commute Pollard's sentence.

George W. Bush left office without responding to the request at all.

While the US Board of Prisons web site lists a "presumptive parole date" in 2015, following 30 years of Pollard's sentence, the US Justice Department is expected to oppose parole, so Pollard is unlikely to apply. If he did apply and was rejected, it could bar him from requesting parole for another 15 years and harm chances of persuading a president to grant clemency.

Those close to Pollard warn that due to his poor health, he may not survive four more years in prison. His clemency request reveals for the first time his long list of ailments: Diabetes, nausea, dizziness, blackouts and ongoing issues with his gall bladder, kidneys, sinuses, eyes and feet. He also suffers from Meniere's disease, which causes him to lose consciousness and fall without warning.

Despite an exemplary prison record, applying for parole is also not an option for Pollard because of a severe impediment unilaterally imposed by the US Justice Department preventing his pro bono attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, from seeing key documents that were submitted to the judge before he was sentenced in 1987.

Requests for the lawyers to have access to Pollard's file have been rejected even though both lawyers obtained the appropriate "top secret" security clearances.

Since the lawyers have not seen their client's entire court file, those opposed to parole have free reign to say anything about Pollard without the risk of being contradicted by the documents.

Explaining that their client was not seeking to exonerate himself via a pardon, Pollard's lawyers wrote in the clemency request that "while there are serious and substantial issues surrounding the sentencing process, Mr. Pollard has exhausted his remedies in the US court system.

His sole remaining avenue of relief from his life sentence is executive clemency."

The request lists Pollard's offense as "conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government," but Pollard stressed in his own words: "I was never charged with, nor did I plead guilty to harming the United States or aiding a foreign government that is an enemy of the US."

Pollard has expressed his remorse for his crime on multiple occasions and also made a point of reiterating his remorse in the document. The loyalty that he expresses to the US sounds surprising from a man who hasn't exactly been treated well by American institutions.

"I have never, to this day, lost my love, respect, and gratitude for everything this country has given me," Pollard wrote. "I deeply regret what I did.

While my intention at the time I committed this offense was only to help protect Israel and never to cause damage to the US, I have long since come to understand that what I did was wrong and that I should have acted on my concerns in a more appropriate, legal manner."

Pollard received a life sentence on March 4, 1987, despite a plea agreement he signed a year earlier in which he committed to plead guilty and cooperate fully with the investigation against him in return for a commitment by the American government not to seek a life sentence.

Prior to the sentencing, the Department of Justice submitted a victim impact statement which revealed that no concrete harm had been done to the US as a result of Pollard's espionage.

But then-American defense secretary Caspar Weinberger submitted a 46-page classified declaration two months before the sentencing that apparently claimed the opposite. Just one day before the sentencing he submitted another, shorter letter to the judge in which he falsely accused Pollard of causing at least as much harm to American national security as had spies for the Soviet Union who were given life sentences.

Portions of the Weinberger declaration that are in the public record indicate that it consisted largely of projections of possible future harm.

Pollard's lawyer at the time, who had full access to the document, responded to it by saying that "Secretary Weinberger nowhere alleges that the US has lost the lives or utility of any agents, that it has been obligated to replace or relocate intelligence equipment, that it had to alter communication signals, or that it has lost other sources of information, or that our technology has been compromised.

Indeed the memorandum only discusses the possibility that sources may be compromised in the future."

Years after other agents were convicted of revealing information that Pollard was accused of leaking, his current lawyers wrote in the clemency request that it is likely that many of Weinberger's projections never came to pass and that scrutinizing his declaration would confirm that.

"The passage of nearly a quarter century has demonstrated that the anticipated harm to the US has not materialized and never will," the lawyers wrote. "Inasmuch as Mr. Pollard's life sentence was premised, in substantial measure on these projections, commuting of the sentence would be just and appropriate."

Weinberger's downplaying of Pollard's case in a 2002 interview with journalist Edwin Black substantiated the lawyers' belief that the harm Weinberger projected did not materialize.

"The Pollard matter was comparatively minor," Weinberger told Black. "It was made far bigger than its actual importance."

Weinberger's deputy at the time of the Pollard affair, Lawrence Korb, who is currently one of the most outspoken advocates for Pollard's release, recently said that "Weinberger had an almost visceral dislike of Israel."

If Weinberger's declarations were so damaging, why didn't Pollard object to the last-minute submissions, rebut them or request a hearing at which the government would have had to prove Weinberger's charges or withdraw them? The apparent answer is that Richard Hibey, the lawyer of Lebanese descent whom Israel paid to represent Pollard, did not tell him that he was entitled to any of those approaches. Pollard's clemency request includes a lengthy opinion written by former federal judge George Leighton of Chicago in which he blamed Hibey for not preventing the life sentence Pollard received.

"The evidence shows that the government engaged in serious misconduct that went unchecked by an ineffective defense counsel, Richard Hibey, and that these constitutional violations severely prejudiced Mr. Pollard and resulted in his life sentence," Leighton wrote. "He was deprived of effective assistance of counsel as a result of his counsel's failure to deal competently with unproven, highly damaging eleventh hour factual assertions made by the government in a supplemental declaration of secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger submitted the day before sentencing."

The most problematic mistake by Hibey, who later represented the Palestinian Authority in American courts, was that after the sentencing, he did not file a onepage request for an appeal within the required 10 days. This barred Pollard from ever appealing his life sentence, and as a result, there has never been any direct appellate review of the sentencing.

Lauer and Semmelman, who became Pollard's lawyers in 2000, have attempted unsuccessfully to bring the case back to courts, but their efforts have been rejected on procedural grounds, leaving clemency by an American president as the only way Pollard can leave prison alive.

"After nearly 25 years, we respectfully suggest that further incarceration of Mr Pollard would serve no purpose," Lauer and Semmelman wrote Obama. "Any deterrent effect on others based on the sentence's severity has been accomplished."

Contact Alexander Dymshits at

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 4, 2011.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at
Go to to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jacob Richman, November 13, 2011.

Hi Everyone!

I created a new Learn Hebrew Phrases album on Facebook for Chanukah. The are 26 phrases including Hebrew with Nikud, English translations and transliterations.

The address is:

You do not have to be a Facebook member to view the images at the above address. Feedback is welcome and you may share the images. If you like the album, please click on "like" on Facebook.

To hear all the phrases visit:

Shavua Tov. Have a good week,

Contact Jacob Richman at and visit his website

To Go To Top

Posted by Norman Berdichevsky, November 13, 2011.

Five months ago I returned from a trip to Denmark where I visited my son and his family. I also made the trip to publicize my new book, An Introduction to Danish Culture (McFarland Publishing) The book on Denmark was published in September a few months after The Left Is Seldom Right (New English Review Press).

Why did these two books appear within a few months of each other and what do they share in common? They are my answer to the moral crisis that grows ever more ominous and threatening with the conviction of distinguished Danish author Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society for exercising the right of free speech in criticizing the reluctance of many Muslim immigrants in Denmark to meaningfully integrate in Danish society and accept responsible citizenship and President Obama's call for Israel to return to the Cease-Fire lines of 1949-67 as if they qualified for what U.N. Resolution 242 explicitly called secure and defensible borders.

Both of these events are our 2011 equivalent of the appeasement agreement at Munich in 1938 that sealed the destruction of Czechoslovakia, the only democracy in Central Europe, a country compelled to bow before the all powerful ruse of "self-determination" for a recalcitrant and hostile German minority. Instead of referring to the minority as Germans, the preferred term in the Western press was the politically correct mantra of "Sudetens" as if they were not part of a powerful and aggressive German nationalism steered by Hitler, akin to the ocean of crocodile tears shed for the "Palestinians" anxious to dismember the State of Israel with the full backing of the Arab world and Muslim ummah.

The Danish philosopher Andreas Simonsen, remarked on the great respect most Jews feel towards the past, old friends and their parents as well as the long historical memory of nationhood and the many religious obligations and commemorative holidays. This is what he termed the Jewish ability "to carry their past with themselves and be nourished by it." It is the best definition of Zionism, and an essential characteristic of pride and self respect that is now completely out of tune with most of contemporary culture and its anti-historical attitude.

According to Simonsen, "Jews live because they remember, anti-Semitism lives because people forget," and "the better people remember their past and are able to integrate it with their appreciation of life, the better they are able to develop their intellect, humanity and vitality."

The Danes, as the oldest nation in Europe with the oldest flag, have been subject to a concerted campaign of Leftwing opinion and a multiculturalism that would erase much of their historical past and cultural values. For many of those on the political Left at the time of the Mohammad cartoon affair, Danish culture and society were reduced to the pale stereotypes and clichés of socialism, cradle to the grave security, football, pornography, Hamlet, pigs, dairy cattle, beer and the inevitable charges of "racism."

Denmark's contribution to science, engineering, seafaring, shipping, exploration, literature, philosophy, music, art, the theatre, the cinema, dance, sports, agriculture, architecture, its record on human rights, democratic institutions, and humanistic traditions deserve to be much more widely known, especially in the wake of the negative publicity spread by the international media following the Muhammad-Cartoon affair that presented a distorted view of Danish society and ignored its centuries-old respect for democracy and tolerance.

I am an American who lived in Aarhus, Denmark from 1980-1988, a stone's throw away from the headquarters of the now world famous newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and got to learn firsthand about the Danish folk character and the country's long history. Denmark has more than once faced the dilemma of standing alone to uphold fundamental democratic and humanitarian principles against overwhelmingly powerful political, military and economic interests.

What was so shocking about the the cartoon crisis was the general ignorance in the United States and even in Western Europe regarding Denmark. It was a bitter pill to swallow for many Danes who saw their country turned into a pariah state in 2006 by worldwide demonstrations and violence in Muslim countries over the cartoons just as Israel had been by the JIHAD GENIE that will continue to run amok (an old Danish expression) and needs to be put back in the bottle. Yesterday, Israel, Today, Denmark ....... tomorrow the World! Nevertheless, the full cost of the Muslim boycott of Danish goods and services was far less than first feared and more than made up by a spontaneous "Buy Danish" campaign that was wholly the initiative of individuals and owed nothing to any formal support or statement by Denmark's "allies" in NATO and among Western heads of state.

The record needs to be set straight and proclaimed loudly and strongly. My familiarity and appreciation of Denmark, family connections, its people, culture, language, traditions and way of life were gained through first-hand knowledge of Danes I am proud to call my friends, many years residence in the country and a profound respect, admiration and sense of obligation to acquaint my fellow Americans and others with a realistic picture of what I learned. I also wrote the book as a personal testimonial to my deep sense of gratitude towards the Danish people for their conduct during World War II and especially for the aid and comfort they provided to their Jewish fellow citizens.

Obama's call to return to the Auschwitz Cease Fire Lines prior to June 5, 1967 and his delirious infatuation with the so called Arab Spring after refusing to lift a finger or express outrage during the mass demonstrations in Iran against the theocratic mullah state is the result of a common delusion in the West that everything must be done to placate 'the Arab Street' (i.e, mob rule). This attitude confronts both Israel and Denmark that have had to face similar challenges in order to simply exist or maintain their democratic way of life and essential rights. It is my fervent hope that many readers, including some who have accepted that "The Left is Always Right", or who know little about Denmark, will have much to ponder.

Norman Berdichevsky teaches Hebrew at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, November 12, 2011.

This was written by David M. Weinberg and is entitled "Fighting for Jerusalem". It is archived at Israel Hayom at newsletter_opinion.php?id=810


Americans for Peace Now this week put to pen their opposition to a united Jerusalem. In a shocking and revealing legal brief, Peace Now opposed the designation of Jerusalem as "Israel" on American passports because this would "undermine the establishment of two capitals in Jerusalem," and Peace Now believes that "any action that undermines the establishment of two capitals in Jerusalem jeopardizes the vital interests of Israel."

The group presented its opinion to the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition brought to the court by estimable Washington attorneys Nathan and Alyza Lewin on behalf of my friends, Rabbi Dr. Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky of Beit Shemesh (whose son Menachem was the "delisted" American born in Jerusalem). The case had become an argument about presidential privilege in deciding foreign policy, since Congress has allowed the listing of Israel in the passports of Americans born in Jerusalem.

But Peace Now went far beyond the constitutional technicalities at the heart of the case. The all-knowing, strategic geniuses at Peace Now informed the court that they had investigated and plumbed all the historic, political, military, national and Jewish considerations that could possibly be considered, and concluded that "the vital interest of Israel" held that there be "two capitals" in Jerusalem!

Oh, really? The assertion that splitting Jerusalem into two capitals will lead to peace between Jews and Arabs is an egregious error. On the contrary: The shearing of Jerusalem into Arab and Jewish sovereignties will turn it into the bull's eye of the Middle East battle — a city that would make Belfast at its worst look like paradise.

The main reason for this is that any section of the city handed over to Arab rule or sovereignty will immediately become Ground Zero for the fierce wars being waged within the Arab world over Islamic lifestyle, ideology and legitimacy.

Just who is going to rule in "Arab" east Jerusalem? Will it be the declining secular Palestinian national movement (whose sway in the West Bank is tentative at best), or the radical Islamist Hamas (which openly seeks Israel's destruction), or the annihilationist al-Qaida affiliated forces (who are growing in strength in the territories), or the increasingly radical and violent Israeli Arab Islamic movement (which has been the main force behind unrest on the Temple Mount), or the Jordanians (who have a superior claim to Arab leadership in Jerusalem under the 1994 peace treaty with Israel), or the Moroccans (who head the Arab League's Supreme Jerusalem Committee), or the Saudis (who see themselves as the true custodians of Islamic holy sites)?

Each of these forces will seek to prove its supremacy and bolster its legitimacy in the Islamic world through control of Arab Jerusalem and aggression against what remains of Jewish Jerusalem. What better way to prove one's loyalty to the Islamic cause than to attack the rump Israeli presence in the city? And with bases of operations to work from in the eastern half of the city (whose neighborhoods will no longer be under Israeli security control) such terrorism will be oh, so very easy. So irresistibly tantalizing.

What Israeli family is going to walk to the Western Wall on Friday night through checkpoints and alleyways patrolled by Palestinian police? (Perhaps Peace Now families ...) What Birthright group is going to shop in the Mamilla pedestrian mall below Jaffa Gate with Palestinian or Arab League sharpshooters on the Old City walls above? What American church group is going to march along the Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem's Christian and Muslim Quarters with Hamas or Saudi modesty patrols harassing the women? What hi-tech company is going to invest in Jerusalem when the Qassam missiles start flying from Sheik Jarrah into Har Hotzvim?

Americans for Peace Now and other well-meaning strategists who would engineer our future need to be reminded: It is only complete Israeli security control over united, greater Jerusalem that prevents the city from becoming a boiling cauldron of conflict. There is no "neutral" peacekeeping force in the world that will do a serious or better job than the Israeli army and police of keeping Jerusalem a terrorist-free zone. Similarly, there is also absolutely no empirical basis to believe that Arab rulers of Jerusalem will maintain the Israeli gold standard of unimpeded religious worship in the city.

Neither the purported Arab rulers of east Jerusalem that Americans for Peace Now so earnestly want to invite in, nor the international community, will competently guard Jewish, Christian and Western interests in Jerusalem. Israel is the only reliable, responsible guardian of Jerusalem.

And while we're at it, here is another non-politically correct truth that needs to be articulated. Israel needs, desires and has developed Jerusalem as a workable, attractive city; it is the centerpiece of the ancient Jewish people and the modern state of Israel. The Arabs and Palestinians, however, don't really care about Jerusalem; they never did. In fact, they would consider it a triumph if Jerusalem were so wracked by conflict and poverty that it was ruined for 1,000 years — just as long as it would be lost to the Jews. Partitioning Jerusalem will destroy the city. It will die, in every way — culturally, religiously, economically and more.

Thus, the demand that Jerusalem be sundered into parts is unwise, and unfair both to Jewish history and to Israel's fine stewardship of the city. It is an obstacle to peace, not something that helps bring peace now. It is not the Zivotofsky petition that "jeopardizes the vital interests of Israel" but Peace Now's demand that Jerusalem be divided.

During the U.S. Supreme Court discussion of the Zivotofsky case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that passports were not the best way for Congress to push the administration to change its policy on Jerusalem. Congress could, for example, withhold approval of an ambassador or refuse to fund an embassy, she said. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, remarking that Congress "has as innumerable number of clubs with which to beat the executive (branch of government)."

I encourage Congress and American Zionists to take up the Sotomayor-Scalia challenge. It shouldn't be left up to the stalwart Zivotofskys to push the administration into a more realistic and honorable policy on a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 12, 2011.
Background: Using the guise of being a human rights and social justice group, The New Israel Fund (NIF) has always promoted Arab causes against Israeli Jews. They also fund Israeli Jews who work against Israel. NIF is pressuring whoever they can to reject the two bills before the Knesset that "would severely limit or tax foreign-government funding for Israeli civil society." Because NIF is funded by foreign governments to destabilize and weaken Israel. NIF claims it isn't a player; it is merely a humble messenger who tells us about "the problems revealed by Israeli human rights organizations" on account of how much it wants Israel to stay free and democratic.

Below is my answer:


The problem with you NIF-ers is that you don't respect or even for that matter recognize Israel's sovereignty but you do seem to prefer giving aid and comfort to Hamas and the arab invaders who declared war on Israel. You think the Satanic Verses won't apply to you if you sprinkle dirt on yourselves and beat up your Israeli brethren? Ha! You forget that all Muslims are taught to despise and despoliate Jews. (Whether they believe or not is not at issue here.) As the self-proclaimed voice for Jewish-dom on K Street, why aren't you NIF-ers defending Israel and why aren't you criticizing, carping about, kvetiching, whining, complaining and focusing your lamps on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt etc. etc.??? You make yourselves sound like crazed contrarians with your jibber-jabber self-hatred which is why non-Jews and decent Israelis reject you. You NIF-ers did a world of harm to US interests with your anti-Israel propaganda. Where are you living? In Jimmy Carter's pocket? Did the Saudis bless your organization with as much pelf as bestowed on Jimmy's NGOs? Do you think dragging Israel down will free you from your self-induced curse that appears to be related to your fear of an arab dissing you? Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z. Just say NO to the NIF!

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Mladen Andrijasevic, November 11, 2011.
The main stream media has finally begun discussing the death of MAD. About time! What took them so long?

This was written by Israel Kasnett and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post Opinion/Article.aspx?id=244996


The basic tenet of deterrence is built on a foundation of rational decision-making — a capacity which Iran lacks.


On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its much awaited report on the progress of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Unsurprisingly, it affirmed what Israel has long been clamoring about: Iran is definitely on the road to producing nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that slumbers and has little understanding of the realities we face today.

European diplomats speak of sanctions and possible future negotiations. The IAEA conducts site visits in Iran and calls on the regime there to "comply" with UN demands. But the world fails to understand that conventional diplomacy and rational deterrence simply do not apply in the present-day scenario in which we find ourselves.

Nuclear deterrence will not help prevent Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons since the Iranian regime has religious motives to bring about the return of the Mahdi and is prepared to die for it.

Iran is led by a group of irrational men who believe they can hurry the arrival of the Mahdi — the 12th Imam who, according to Shi'ite Islamic tradition, went missing in 874 CE and will return under conditions of global chaos. The Iranian leadership appears willing to sacrifice the population of its own country to achieve this goal.

In his book The Rise of Nuclear Iran, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold writes, "Mahdi Khaliji, an Iranian Shi'ite scholar... has noted that there are apocalyptic hadiths [received Shi'ite traditions] that the Mahdi will not return unless one-third of the world population is killed and another third die. But Ahmadinejad and his followers believe man can actively create the conditions for the Mahdi's arrival in the here and now..."

In 2006, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting website said in a program called "The World Towards Illumination," that the Mahdi will reappear in Mecca and form an army to defeat Islam's enemies in a series of apocalyptic battles, in which the Mahdi will overcome his archenemy in Jerusalem.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hojatieh society, a group which believes it can and should hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. According to Islamic tradition, the Mahdi's arrival will be accompanied or followed by near destruction of nations. The group appears to maintain a deep desire to create the necessary global chaos. And Ahmadinejad has publicly called for the Mahdi's speedy return. In his first speech to the UN in 2005, he ended his remarks with:

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

In the same venue in 2006, he began his speech by saying: "... hasten the reappearance of the Imam of the times and grant to us victory and prosperity. Include us among his followers and martyrs." The same occurred in 2007 when he said: "Oh God, hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness."

Clearly Ahmadinejad has one objective on his mind — to bring back the 12th Imam.

The IAEA report states, "Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.... The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing."

It is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the Iranian regime has a dangerous plan cooking in its enrichment facilities around the country. The IAEA report is too little, too late. What may be news for some is old news for others. Israel already knows what the IAEA report has now confirmed. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an interview with Israel Radio Tuesday, "We've known these things for years. We know more [about Iran] than The Washington Post knows and we know more than the IAEA does."

Barak also said, "The government has been working for years at showing the world that the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran is one that affects the whole world, not just Israel. But Israel is responsible for its own safety and protecting itself."

One of the main points the world has failed to understand is that Israel is simply the first in line in Iran's crosshairs. The chaos Iran wants to create has less to do with Israel than it does with the West. Already today, Iranian Shahab-3 and Korean-made BM-25 rockets are capable of reaching major European cities.

So ultimately how does a world confront a country like Iran hell-bent on a religious mission to bring about the return of Islam's lost Mahdi?

At this point, Israel believes the US will take the lead in pushing the UN and other Western countries to impose tougher, new sanctions on Iran following the publication of the incriminating IAEA report. Israel also seeks sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, which has yet to be directly affected by earlier rounds of sanctions. Sanctions imposed on the CBI would, for example, make it difficult for Iran to bankroll its nuclear program and buy components it requires to build new, advanced centrifuges.

But in truth, Iran will never come under full sanctions anyway, as Russia and China adamantly refuse to support such a motion. On Wednesday, Russia clarified it would not support further sanctions against Iran and, together with China, argued in favor of finding a better solution through diplomatic means.

As they benefit greatly on an economic level in their relationship with Iran, both Russia and China are operating on self-interest, as all countries generally do, but they appear to fail to recognize that they too are in Iran's sights.

The military option often discussed in national security circles, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, has never been removed from the table as both the US and Israel have repeatedly emphasized.

In Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in favor of predictable nuclear deterrence, calling for "presenting the enemy with an unfavorable calculus of risks" by means of "military operations in phases which permit an assessment of the risks and possibilities for settlement at each stage before recourse is had to the next phase of operations."

But his assessment then has little relevance today. The Cold War players were considered to be rational and fearful of the horrifying consequences nuclear warfare would bring. Iran simply is not. In June Ahmadinejad calrified, "If we do want to make a bomb, we are not afraid of anybody."

In his paper The Great Cold War: A Journey Through the Hall of Mirrors, Gordon S. Barrass, a member of the Board of the Cold War Studies Centre at the London School of Economics, describes a war game that took place in the presence of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.

"After the Moscow Summit Marshal Grechko invited Brezhnev and some of his colleagues to take part in a 'war game,' seemingly hoping to stiffen Brezhnev's resolve in dealing with the harsh realities of a nuclear war. The exercise began with generals describing the impact of a surprise attack by over a thousand American missiles. They grimly explained that 80 million people would be killed, the armed forces obliterated, 85 percent of industry destroyed and European Russia so irradiated as to be uninhabitable."

General Danilevich recalled that "Brezhnev and Kosygin were visibly terrified by what they heard. Marshal Grechko then asked Brezhnev to push a button that would launch a 'retaliatory strike,' which in reality involved the launch of just three missiles with dummy warheads along a test range. Brezhnev turned pale, began perspiring and trembled visibly. He repeatedly asked Grechko, 'Is this definitely an exercise?' The leadership were traumatized by this experience. None of them ever again participated in such an exercise. Brezhnev immediately ordered yet tighter controls to ensure that there could never be unauthorized use of Soviet nuclear weapons."

TODAY'S PLAYERS in the clear and present war game of nuclea capability are not all rational. Iran has clearly stated its intention to attack Israel and the West. Israel and the rest of the world must not take Iranian statements lightly and must base their planning assessments not on rational behavior but on actual behavior.

The basic tenet of deterrence is built on a foundation of rational decisionmaking by both sides — a capacity which Iran lacks.

Nuclear strategy is based mainly on the non-use of the weapons. That is, having the weapon and the ability to deliver it is meant to be a sufficient threat to deter any enemy country from attacking.

In his Nobel lecture in 2005, famed economist Thomas Schelling said, "The most spectacular event of the past half-century is one that did not occur. We have enjoyed sixty years without nuclear weapons exploded in anger." In his book The Strategy of Conflict, Schelling explained that countries need not concern themselves with the application of force, but rather with the exploitation of potential force.

After the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by nuclear weapons, Bernard Brodie, a military strategist well-known for establishing the basics of nuclear strategy, together with some of his colleagues, authored The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order, which predicted that the atomic bomb would revolutionize international politics.

And even today, this rings true as a nuclear Iran would completely transform the balance of power in the Middle East — to Iran's sole advantage.

And while sanctions are an important tool of foreign policy, they are less aggressive than the use, or threat of use, of armed violence and in the case of Iran have proved insufficient in getting them to stop their pursuit of a dangerous nuclear weapons program.

The concept of deterrence was born at the beginning of the nuclear age when it became clear that military objectives had changed from how to win a war to how to avert war at all costs. Keith B. Payne writes in Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age that "the fundamental problem with the deterrence theory is that it posits a rational — hence predictable — opponent."

In an essay titled Future of Deterrence: The Art of Defining How Much Is Enough, Payne wrote "deterrence is the art of persuading others to practice self-control by creating conditions that make their self-control their own preferred option."

But as mentioned earlier, Iran is not looking to practice self-control but rather to create world chaos.

Some analysts have proposed that war would simply be senseless destruction were it not for the purpose of reaching a specific political objective. But again, in Iran's case the objective is not political but rather religious, and therefore rational deterrence, sanctions and negotiations have little if any value.

In his book Fighting Terrorism, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote, "One does not have to be an expert in international terrorism to sense that this rising tide of Islamic terrorism is qualitatively different from the terrorism which the West has had to face up until now. For it derives from a highly irrational cultural source, militant Islam.... The trouble with militant Islam is that it appears to be an irrational goal being pursued irrationally... Once Iran has nuclear weapons there is nothing to say that it will not move to greater adventurism and irrationality rather than greater responsibility."

Forget what you know about containment, sanctions and negotiations. As long as the present Iranian leadership with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at its helm remains in power, the threat of nuclear warfare is very real. Dennis Ross, President Barack Obama's point man on Iran, wrote in The Washington Post in 2006, "As for those who think that the nuclear deterrent rules that governed relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War will also apply in a nuclear Middle East: Don't be so confident."

The great Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote: "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."

The world has failed to understand who Iran's leaders are and that they truly intend to implement their oft-repeated threats to destroy Western nations. Today's containment strategy of using diplomatic and economic means to prevent Iran's success in reaching nuclear capability will ultimately fail. Deterrence, as we know it, is a faulty approach when dealing with Iran. Their leadership is not afraid of retaliatory strikes.

Ideally, Israel and the West can and should, as a more viable solution, seek a way to strengthen Iran's opposition and bring about the political downfall of the current regime. This scenario at least offers the opportunity to usher in an era of sane Iranian leadership that would operate on the basis of rational thinking. The protestors of 2009 would at least receive the freedom they deserve and the leadership would likely be willing to negotiate with the West over the Iranian nuclear program and use it for peaceful purposes only. Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher once stated: "There is a memorial to the failure of conventional deterrence in every town and village in Europe."

At the end of the day, if all else fails, Israel and the West need to ensure that one of the reminders existing for other nations who believe they can threaten the free world with nuclear weapons, are the obliterated remains of Iran's nuclear facilities.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, November 11, 2011.

This was written by Janice Arnold, Staff Reporter for the Canadian Jewish News and it is archived at node/88734


MONTREAL — When her mother's hairdresser in Winnipeg started talking about the way the Palestinians are being treated, historian Catherine Chatterley realized that propaganda against Israel is having an impact on the "average non-Jewish Canadian."

Neither Chatterley nor her mother is Jewish, but the former is the founding director since last year of the Canadian Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (CISA) at the University of Manitoba.

The "insidious" campaign accusing Israel of being an apartheid or racist, even Nazi, state is succeeding among ordinary people with no personal stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict and who are not haters, she indicated.

"As a non-Jew, I say, with respect, that I do not think the Jewish community is prepared for what's happening," Chatterley said at a daylong conference on "Combating the Delegitimation of Israel," organized by the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR), with support from Federation CJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the U.S.-based Middle East Forum.

"Much that is being said about Jews on campuses and in the media is libelous, and some of it is by respected people," she said.

When she entered university in 1987, it was extremely difficult to access antisemitic material, like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "Today, it is on the Internet and everywhere," she said.

Chatterley teaches a year-long course on Antisemitism and the Holocaust, but even non-Jewish students interested in the subject "know nothing about Israel or Zionism, little about the Holocaust or Jewish history, but they do know about Hitler and fascism and it fascinates them."

The Jewish community, she thinks, should be concerned with educating non-Jewish youth, as well as their own, because "allies are key" in the fight against the undermining of the Jewish state and antisemitism.

Throughout the day, the 200 conference participants heard from speakers from Canada, the United States and Israel who believe Israel's ideological enemies are gaining ground. The overall tone was that the Jewish community and Israel itself should more vigorously defend the Jewish state.

"We cannot allow any posthumous victories for Hitler," said CIJR founding director, Concordia University professor Frederick Krantz.

The threat is not only coming from the Arab world or the left wing.

Sally Zerker, York University professor emeritus and a pioneer in Canadian Professors for Peace in the Middle East, deplored the apparently increasing number of Jews who publicly denounce Israel.

She accused them of playing into the "old canard of Jews damning other Jews, making themselves 'good Jews' in the eyes of the gentile world."

Zerker also thinks the American political action group J Street, that describes itself as pro-Israel, is actually damaging Israel, including by their support of President Barack Obama, who she does not believe is a friend of Israel.

Jewish professors who oppose Israel should be "exposed for who they are and what their true motives are," she said.

Zerker is especially enraged by Israeli professors she calls "fifth columnists" and "traitors," terms she doesn't hesitate to use because "Israel is at war, delegitimation is war, which means the Jewish people is at war as well."

Fellow panelist National Post columnist Barbara Kay concurred, but instead of getting angry she finds Israeli academics and intellectuals who denounce Israel ludicrous.

She cited several examples, singling out Tel Aviv University as "the epicentre of the phenomenon. They'll never see another dollar from me."

Charles Small sees the political left and radical Islam, especially when they combine forces, as the most cause for worry. The Montreal native was founding director of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YISA), which was shut down by the university this summer after five years.

He believes university officials caved in to the "red-green alliance," liberals and Muslim groups that did not like YISA's speaking out against the "genocidal" antisemitism of radical Islam, in which Small includes Hamas.

The owners of Boutique Le Marcheur, Yves Archambault and his wife, Ginette Auger, were honoured at the conference lunch for their courage in resisting for more than a year a boycott campaign by Palestinian and Jewish Unity. The store's stock includes a small percentage of Israeli shoes.

CIJR director Frederick Krantz, left, congratulates Le Marcheur owners Yves Archambault and Ginette Auger.

Archambault said his determination not to acquiesce is motivated by principle, not politics.

Quebec, he said, is a democracy, and that includes commercial freedom and the right to be free from intimidation. Archambault thanked the Jewish community and other Quebecers for their solidarity and friendship.

The conference concluded with the adoption of a resolution calling on "all Jewish organizations that claim to represent us to do everything in their power" to combat the delegitimation of Israel wherever it occurs.

Kay, however, felt the conference did not "alleviate the frustration many people have" about what to do.

She thinks those who are pro-Israel should not attempt to engage with their opponents because rational discourse is impossible, but rather "go over their heads" to the public at large. She also thinks Israel has to improve its international public relations.

A videotape of the conference will soon be posted on CIJR's website,, as well as abstracts of the papers presented.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top

Posted by Teresinka Pereira, November 11, 2011.

There are still

waves on the sea

blue in the sky

hope in our destiny

and silence in the rock.

We go on living

and dying

as always.

Contact Teresinka Pereira at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Alpern, November 11, 2011.

"The enlightened international community" (mostly Western democracies) clings to several "sacred cows." Among them is the mantra that all conflicts can ultimately be resolved "if we just walk long enough and talk long enough."

Another sacred cow is that there simply MUST be peace in the Mideast. Its absence is totally inconceivable and unacceptable. Consequently, we must have and constantly maintain a "peace process" or at least the appearance of one, never mind that Israel is managing quite nicely without genuine peace, the grave threats against her notwithstanding.

Thus, because one party to the conflict incessantly incites against the other and refuses to compromise or even sit down to negotiate honestly and fairly with the other party while that other party naively (and quite stupidly) makes real, tangible and painful concessions for that elusive "peace" that ultimately don't lead to peace, the objective and fair-minded observer must conclude that the former is at fault. But, incredibly, it is the latter, i.e. ISRAEL, that is constantly blamed and pilloried.

As this excellent article by Caroline B. Glick indicates, no one outside Israel seems to care that its democratically elected Prime Minister is treated with such vile hostility and contempt. It was published in Jewish World Review and is archived at 1111/glick111111.php3



Obama and Sarkozy yucking it up

The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week's G-20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant.

Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu saying, "I can't stand to see him anymore, he's a liar."

Obama responded by whining, "You're fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day."

These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents' characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally. To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama?

This week the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency's report about Iran's nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel — Netanyahu included — has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.

Since Iran's nuclear weapons program was first revealed to the public in 2004, Israel has provided in-depth intelligence information proving Iran's malign intentions to the likes of Sarkozy, Obama and the UN. And for seven years, the US government — Obama included — has claimed that it lacked definitive proof of Iran's real and true intentions.

Obama wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program. He stubbornly ignored the piles of evidence presented to him by Israel that Iran was not interested in cutting a deal.

Perhaps Obama was relying on the US's 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran's nuclear weapons program. As Israel said at the time, and as this week's IAEA report proves, it was the NIE — which claimed that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 — not Israel that deliberately lied about the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program. It was the US intelligence community that purposely deceived the American government and people about the gravest immediate threat to US national security.

Israel, including Netanyahu, was telling the truth.

So if Netanyahu never lied about Iran, what might these two major world leaders think he lies about? Why don't they want to speak with him anymore?

Could it be they don't like the way he is managing their beloved "peace process" with the Palestinians?

The fact is that the only times Netanyahu has spoken less than truthfully about the Palestinians were those instances when he sought to appease the likes of Obama and Sarkozy. Only when Netanyahu embraced the false claims of the likes of Obama and Sarkozy that it is possible to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River could it be said that he made false statements.

Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians. And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.

There was never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West's favorite Palestinian "moderate," Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt's Dream TV on October 23, "I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will never recognize the 'Jewishness' of the state [of Israel] or a 'Jewish state.'"

That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

Acknowledging this, on Tuesday Netanyahu reportedly told his colleagues that through their recent actions, the Palestinians have abrogated the foundations of the peace process. As he put it, "By boycotting negotiations and by going instead to the United Nations [to achieve independent statehood], they [the Palestinians] have reneged on a central tenet of Oslo."

That tenet, which formed the basis of the Oslo peace process, was "land for peace." As Netanyahu explained, Israel gave up land within the framework of the Oslo accords. In exchange the Palestinians committed to resolve their conflict with Israel through direct negotiations that would lead to peace. Their UN gambit, like Abbas's statement to Egyptian television, shows the Palestinians — not Israel — have been lying all along. They pocketed Israel's territorial concessions and refused to make peace.

So why do the likes of Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu? Why is he "a liar?" Why don't they pour out their venom on Abbas, who really does lie to them on a regular basis?

The answer is because they prefer to blame Israel than acknowledge that their positive assessments of the Palestinians are nothing more than fantasy. And they are not alone. The Western preference for fantasy over reality was given explicit expression by former US president Bill Clinton in September.

In an ugly diatribe against Netanyahu at his Clinton Global Initiative Conference, Clinton insisted that the PA under Abbas was "pro-peace" and that the only real obstacle to a deal was Netanyahu. Ironically, at the same time Clinton was attacking Israel's leader for killing the peace process, Abbas was at the UN asking the Security Council to accept an independent Palestine in a de facto state of war with Israel as a full member.

So too, while Clinton was blaming him for the failure of the peace process, Netanyahu at the UN using his speech to the General Assembly to issue yet another plea to Abbas to renew peace talks with Israel.

Clinton didn't exhaust his ammunition on Netanyahu. He saved plenty for the Israeli people as well. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Palestinians freely elected Hamas to lead them, Clinton provided his audience with a bigoted taxonomy of the Israeli public through which he differentiated the good, "pro-peace Israelis" from the bad "anti-peace" Israelis.

As he put it, "The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs, second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel's founding."

As for the bad Israelis, in the view of the former president, "The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious who believe they're supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they're not encumbered by the historical record."

By ranking the worthiness of Israel's citizens in accordance with whether or not they agree with Clinton and his friends, Clinton was acting in line with what has emerged as standard operating practice of Israel's "friends" in places like Europe and the US. Like Clinton, they too think it is their right to pick and choose which Israelis are acceptable and which are unworthy.

Wednesday we saw this practice put into play by British Ambassador Matthew Gould. This week the Knesset began deliberations on a bill that would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 to Israeli non-governmental organizations. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis with Netanyahu's support.

According to Haaretz, Gould issued a thinly veiled threat to Okunis related to the bill. Gould reportedly said that if the bill is passes, it would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.

Last month Makor Rishon published a British government document titled, "NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office." The document showed that in 2010, outside of Iraq, the British government gave a total of 100,000 pounds to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

In contrast to Britain's miserly attitude towards Arab civil society organizations, Her Majesty's Government gave more than 600,000 pounds to far-leftist Israeli NGOs. These Israeli groups included the Economic Cooperation Foundation, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim, and Gisha. All of these groups are far beyond Israeli mainstream opinion. All seek to use international pressure on Israel to force the government to adopt policies rejected by the vast majority of the public.

So for every pound Britain forked out to cultivate democracy in twenty Arab non-democracies, it spent six pounds to undermine democracy in Israel — the region's only democracy.

And the British couldn't be more pleased with the return on their investment. Speaking to the British Parliament last year, Britain's Minister of Middle East Affairs Alistair Burt said the money has successfully changed Israeli policies. As he put it, "Since we began supporting these programs some significant changes have been made in the Israeli justice system, both civilian and military, and in the decisions they make. They have also raised a significant debate about these matters and we believe these activities will strengthen democracy in Israel."

In other words, as far as Britain is concerned, "strengthening democracy" in Israel means tipping the scales in favor of marginal groups that have no noticeable domestic constituency.

These shockingly hostile statements echo one made by then-presidential candidate Obama from the campaign trail in February 2008. At the time Obama said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a[n] unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

Scarcely a day goes by when some foreign leader, commentator or activist doesn't say that being pro-Israel doesn't mean being pro-Israeli government. And like Obama's campaign trail statement, Clinton's diatribe, Sarkozy's and Obama's vile gossip about Netanyahu and Britain's self-congratulatory declarations and veiled threats, those who make a distinction between the Israeli people and the Israeli government ignore two important facts.

First, Israel is a democracy. Its governments reflect the will of the Israeli people and therefore, are inseparable from the people. If you harbor contempt for Israel's elected leaders, then by definition you harbor contempt for the Israeli public. And this makes you anti-Israel.

The second fact these statements ignore is that Israel is the US's and Europe's stalwart ally. If Sarkozy and Obama had said what they said about Netanyahu in a conversation about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or if Netanyahu had made similar statements about Obama or Sarkozy, the revelation of the statements would have sparked international outcries of indignation and been roundly condemned from all quarters.

And this brings us to the other troubling aspect of Sarkozy's and Obama's nasty exchange about Netanyahu. Their views reflect a wider anti-Israel climate.

Outside the Jewish world, Sarkozy's and Obama's hateful, false statements about their ally provoked no outrage. Indeed, it took the media three days to even report their conversation. This indicates that Obama and Sarkozy aren't alone in holding Israel to a double standard. They aren't the only ones blaming Israel for the Palestinians' bad behavior.

The Western media also holds Israel to a separate standard. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel and its elected leaders for the Palestinians' duplicity. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel for failing to make their peace fantasies come true.

And that is the real message of the Obama-Sarkozy exchange last week. Through it we learn that blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies' behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today.

Contact Dave Alpern at

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Hand, November 11, 2011.

This was written by Aaron Lerner, who

Dr. Aaron Lerner, 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 Write Dr. Lerner at


Does the Iranian leadership really believe what they profess to believe? The overwhelming majority of the analysis and recommendations prepared for Western policy makers has hinged on the assumption that they aren't.

Take for example a simulation organized last May 16 by the Lauder School of Government to consider, among other things, how a nuclear Iran would act. Former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate Maj. Gen (res.) Zeevi Farkash participated in that simulation playing the role of Iranian Supreme leader Ali Khamenei. Khamenei is a "Twelver Shiite" as is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and as such believes that incinerating Israel with nuclear weapons — "even if followed by the incineration of Iran — "would be a positive thing because the apocalyptic result would bring the return of the Hidden Imam.

But Farkash apparently maintains that deep down inside Ayatollah Khamenei actually subscribes to some sort of universal value system that considers the incineration of Iran an unacceptable outcome rather than a reasonable price to pay for the return of the Mahdi. As a result, the simulation found that Iran would only brandish its nukes for deterrence and never actually use them. As Farkash put it, "Iran would regard its bomb as a means of self-defense and strategic balance."

Was Farkash's critical assumption correct? Perhaps a more responsible approach would have been to run the simulation both ways to see how things play out in a world where the leaders of Iran genuinely believe what they claim to believe. It might have turned out that the results were so catastrophic that even if there were only a 10 percent chance that these Twelvers are true believers, policymakers would have to adjust their recommendations to account for it.

Again, if the purpose of the exercise is to find temporary comfort, then we can all simply join the retired military Israeli intelligence head, who apparently sleeps well, confident that the Twelvers leading Iran are faking their religious belief in the return of the Mahdi. But if the purpose of the exercise is to genuinely address the possible consequences of a nuclear Iran, policy makers would be remiss if they did not very seriously consider the possibility that the leaders of Iran genuinely believe what they claim to believe.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 10, 2011.

Palestinian Authority Calls Haifa "Occupied"

The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) indoctrinates its people to believe that Israeli areas are "Palestinian" [meaning Arab]. P.A. TV, under direct control of P.A. Chairman Abbas, recently described these Israeli cities and area as "Palestinian:" Haifa, Acre, Ashkelon, Jaffa, and the Sea of Galilee. The broadcast was more flowery in describing those areas' note. Such statements have been reiterated dozens of times in the past few years. P.A. maps still show all of Israel included in Palestine, as if there were no such country as Israel. A P.A. song mentions Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, Nazareth, and other Israeli cities as "Palestinian." (Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, 157&doc_id=5803
from, 11/4/11 via IMRA,

There is more significance to the P.A. calling Haifa and other Israeli cities "occupied" than a casual reading may glean. The word, "occupied," implies that the area belongs to other people than those in control. Using that term, the P.A. induced much resentment against Israel over the Territories, although the Territories did not belong to any Arab jurisdiction. One can imagine that as soon as the P.A. were to get the Territories in return for signing a peace agreement, the P.A. would raise the same arguments against the State of Israel. Raising the same arguments would add to the mounting evidence that the P.A. is in a state of war with Israel now, despite existing peace agreements, and intends to take over Israel when it can. Gaining the Territories are just a step in the conquest of the State of Israel.

The rest of the world usually sides with the Arabs against Israel. First the Arabs and their non-Arab anti-Israel allies called Israel an "occupier" of the Territories. Eventually, Israelis emulated their enemies' false claim. When the P.A. makes its claim of Israeli "occupation," the rest of the world probably would suggest that Israel "compromise" on its State territory.

Anybody Still Think Abbas is a Moderate and for Peace?

The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) held a ceremony welcoming the prisoners released by Israel. Remarks were made in behalf of P.A. head Abbas and his Fatah party by Jibril Rajoub. Rajoub was himself released in an earlier deal, while serving several life sentences for murder — he organized terrorist actions.

Rajoub said that words cannot express the courage and heroism of the currently released prisoners, many convicted for attacking Jews. He praised those who helped kidnap for ransom and guard the Israeli soldier, released with them (IMRA, 11/3/11).

Does anybody still think Abbas is a moderate and for peace? How much honoring of terrorists and how many violations of his peace agreements and how many threats of war must he make, before western officials and journalists stop pretending that he is a man of peace and that his society wants peace and not to fulfill their religious duty to make war on non-Muslims?

That Western leaders stoop so low reflects their ethics. We know that jihad is barbarism. Are not Western leaders who support much of jihad barbarism against Israel quaisi-barbarians?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, November 10, 2011.

This was written by Brenda H. Mitchell and it is archived at wp-content/uploads/2011/11/france11.jpg

Brenda H. Mitchell is the Executive Assistant to the Rabbis at Temple Sinai.


I received this post from a friend in NY. One of his friends is living in France and posted this to him with the request that he distribute it to his American friends. He prefaces with:

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently not being reported as it should. To give you an idea of what's going on in France where there are now between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews, here is an email that came from a Jew living in France. Will the world say nothing — again — as it did in Hitler's time?

He writes:

"I am a Jew — therefore I am forwarding this to everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back and do nothing. Nowhere have the flames of anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France: In Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set on fire. In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and Marseilles; so was a Jewish school in Creteil — all recently. A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred Dreyfus in Paris, the words 'Dirty Jew' were painted. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The bus that takes Jewish children to school in Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past 30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been defaced with slogans proclaiming 'Jews to the gas chambers' and 'Death to the Jews.' A gunman opened fire on a kosher butcher's shop (and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse, France; a Jewish couple in their 20′s were beaten up by five men in Villeurbanne, France The woman was pregnant; a Jewish school was broken into and vandalized in Sarcelles, France. This was just in the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a friend, or merely a person with the capacity and desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do, at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don't ever let yourself become deluded into thinking that this is not your fight. I remind you of what Pastor Neimoller said in World War II: 'First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.'

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and, unlike them, France exports more than just oil and hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes. Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and, whatever else we may know about the French, we most certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a hurricane in the face of well-directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends, and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of good conscience that you know and let them know that you and the people that you care about need their help.

The number one bestselling book in France is....'September 11: The Frightening Fraud,' which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon.

Please pass this on. Let's not let history repeat itself, thank-you for your time and consideration."

To Go To Top

Posted by Isi Leibler, November 10, 2011.

The Bible tells us that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah despite Abraham's intercession, after he was unable to identify even ten righteous people in these cities.

Alas, I believe that if one were to review the entire spectrum of Palestinian political, religious and intellectual leadership, one would be unable to identify even a single righteous or moderate Palestinian leader, committed towards achieving a genuine peace.

We are repeatedly being told that President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are our genuine peace partners and that we are unlikely to find more moderate Palestinians with whom to negotiate. Yet Abbas, who obtained his "PhD" justifying holocaust denial:

  • refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, insists that the "occupation" dates back to 1948 and even denies any Jewish link with the Holy Land.

  • sanctifies mass murderers of Israeli women and children by bestowing honor on the killers and granting state pensions to their families.

  • rules over an authority in which the controlled media, mosques and state educational system incite hatred against Jews and deny Israel's right to exist.

  • endorses the execution of any Palestinian who sold land to a Jew.

  • assures his people that any future Palestinian state will be entirely cleansed of Jews.

  • is committed to reuniting with the genocidal Islamic Hamas whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews and the elimination of Israel.

Besides refusing to negotiate with Israel, Abbas effectively rejected offers made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to cede 95% of the territories conquered in response to Jordan's offensive against Israel.

Indeed, the more Israelis concede, the more Abbas demands. Today he has escalated the issue of so-called Arab right of return of refugees to Palestine as a non-negotiable demand, despite realizing that this would bring an end to Jewish sovereignty which no Israeli government could contemplate.

On the surface, the PA appears moderate compared to Hamas. But their objectives are identical. Abbas speaks with a forked tongue and is vague about his long-term goals when he addresses non-Arab audiences, whereas Hamas is completely honest and boasts that it will never negotiate and will continue to fight until the Jewish state is destroyed.,

Some PA leaders are now becoming less inhibited. Only a few weeks ago, a prominent Fatah leader explicitly proclaimed that a Palestinian State would merely represent the first stepping stone towards the ultimate objective of eliminating the Jewish state. Unfortunately, all opinion polls demonstrate that the Palestinian masses have been brainwashed and endorse these views.

Professor Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, was hailed by many naive Israelis as a Palestinian model of moderation. Dr. Yossi Beilin referred to him as a living testimony to the fact that Oslo was not a failure.

Nearly 10 years ago I challenged the bona fides of Nusseibeh, pointing out that he was appointed by, reported to, and accepted instructions from Arafat. I observed that political dissidents under Arafat's authority had extraordinarily limited lifespans and suggested that Nusseibeh's role was to provide the PA with a moderate face to the Western world. His amiable and soothing approach was obviously designed to revive Israel's fond memories of the "irreversible peace process" and Arafat's cynical "peace of the brave".

Whereas Nusseibeh did in fact call for an end to violence and condemned boycotts, he was also recorded in a Palestinian television program expressing sympathy and praising a militant mother of a suicide bomber whom he referred to as "a soldier dying in battle". He always took care not to pass judgment on suicide bombers, merely questioning the benefits of the strategy rather than its morality.

He was often bracketed with Arafat's Jerusalem representative, the late Faisal Husseini, who was also considered a "moderate" throughout most of his life. Yet following his death, Husseini was quoted in an Egyptian newspaper interview, stating "we must distinguish our strategies and long-term goals from the political phased goals which we are compelled to accept due to international pressures". The "ultimate goal is the liberation of all historic Palestine... Oslo has to be viewed as a Trojan horse".

In a lengthy article recently published on the Al Jazeera website, Nusseibeh set aside his cloak of moderation and, like Faisal Hussein, demonstrated that despite the sophisticated chatter, he was no more moderate than any of his Palestinian counterparts.

His article is a passionate opposition towards recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. The arguments he employs, arguing that Jews should be the only people denied the right to statehood, testify to the fact that his moderation is a sham.

He warns that were Israel to be recognized as a Jewish state, it would become an "apartheid" entity. Not only would Israel's Arabs be stripped of their citizenship and other rights, but they would also be killed like the ancient Canaanites and Jebusites were by the Israelites according to the Bible.

He conveniently ignores that Israel as a Jewish state was the rationale for its creation by the United Nations in 1947. He also overlooks the inconsistency that the new Palestinian entity would be governed by sharia law and cleansed of any Jews and that there is no Arab country which remotely extends similar rights to minorities comparable to Israel.

Furthermore he has the gall to condemn Jewish intolerance towards other faiths in Jerusalem, disregarding the fact that it was only when Jerusalem came under Jewish sovereignty in 1967, that freedom of religious association and worship were extended for the first time to all religions — in dramatic contrast to the manner in which the Jordanians ruled the city.

Adopting the Abbas UN approach, Nusseibeh also reneged on his previous call to Palestinians to cease promoting the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel. He actually insisted — hold your breath — that 7 million diaspora Palestinians are entitled to repatriation or compensation.

Nusseibeh's turnaround reaffirms that there is not a single Palestinian leader of political, religious, or intellectual distinction who could be described as a moderate and would be willing to support a negotiated settlement to achieve genuine peace deal with the Jewish state.

And in this insane Alice in Wonderland global environment, we are being told to deal with these bigots as though they were genuine peace partners.

The reality is that appeasing these hypocrites, far from bringing us closer to peace, merely embolden the radicals who confront us with ever escalating demands which few of the original architects of Oslo — certainly not Yitzhak Rabin — would ever have conceded.

To the world and those calling on us to continue providing unilateral concessions — which without exception weakened our position and encouraged our adversaries — I make one challenge: Please identify one single Palestinian leader or intellectual who genuinely advocated moderation and was not assassinated.

Isi Leibler was involved in the struggle for Soviet Jewry. From Australia, he made aliya in 1999. He has held senior roles in the World Jewish Congress, including chairman of the governing board and senior vice president. He is a regular columnist for The Jerusalem Post and Yisrael Hayom. Contact him by email at and visit his website at This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, November 10, 2011.

By now, Israel, at the urging and bullying of the world, has tried pretty much every conceivable idea and option for achieving tranquility and reconciliation with the Hamas, except for one. Israel removed its army and civilian population from the Gaza Strip. In what amounted to the first ethnic self-cleansing in history, Israel evicted the entire Jewish presence in Gaza. The entire area was turned over to the Palestinians, lock, stock, barrel, and Jew-free.

The result is of course known. The Hamas immediately converted all of Gaza into a large rocket launch pad and a base for initiating terrorist attacks against Israel. It kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and held him incommunicado, refusing medical treatment to him, even though his arm was filled with shrapnel. Israel in response provided free electricity and water to the Gazans and sent civilian supplies into Gaza. Israel never made any serious efforts to stop the massive tunnel smuggling into Gaza from Egypt, even when it was clear that the main item being smuggled was weapons. These smuggled weapons include bomb materials and sophisticated rockets that can now reach Tel Aviv. Israel responded to the endless rocket attacks against its own civilians by turning the other cheek. Only after 8000 rocket strikes did it launch the half-hearted symbolic retaliation in the "Cast Lead" campaign, withdrawing quickly after it was launched.

There is only one strategy for dealing with the Hamas that Israel has never attempted. That untried strategy is victory. Israel has never seriously attempted to achieve peace and tranquility with the Gaza Palestinians by means of victory. This is somewhat strange, since it is hard to think of any other war that did not end in peace only after victory. Instead, the world keeps demanding that Israel respond to Hamas provocation with an endless series of one-sided "goodwill measures." Never mind that the only invariable effect of such Israeli "goodwill measures" has been to trigger more Hamas terrorism. The only "peace settlement" the Hamas is interested in is one in which Israelis volunteer to allow themselves to be placed in Hamas-run extermination camps for Jews.

Victory in the case of the war with the Gaza terrorists would mean annihilating the Hamas. Interestingly, there is an increasing chorus of voices inside Israel now calling for peace through victory. One of these is General Dan Halutz, the controversial erstwhile chief of staff of the Israeli army. A few days ago a Hamas rocket was fired into Israel and struck a school building. In response, Halutz called for a "mortal blow" to be dealt to the Hamas' civilian and "military" leadership. Then, in a radio interview, Halutz said, "We must bring back our deterrence vis-à-vis Gaza. It has not existed for even one moment since Operation Cast Lead and to this day." He has been joined by other Israeli leaders. The finance minister, Yuval Steinitz (who is a philosophy professor at my own university when he is not busy in public life), recently called on Israel to topple the Hamas "regime" in Gaza if the terror continues.

The terrorist aggression by the Hamas has been carried on nonstop ever since it seized power in Gaza. Most acts of Hamas barbarism do not even get reported in the world media, for which dogs biting and shooting rockets at postmen are passé. Hamas rockets land in Israeli civilian areas almost every day. Hamas leaders continue to call openly for Israel's obliteration and for the annihilation of Jews. All this is surprising only for those who have no understanding of what the Hamas really is. Anyone who has read the brochure on the Hamas being distributed by the David Horowitz Freedom Center will know otherwise.

It has become vogue in many circles to represent Middle East savagery as part of some sort of "War of Civilizations." It is not. In fact, the Middle East is simply a war by barbarism against all civilization. It is also considered chic to represent the Middle East conflict as a "cycle of violence," and as something fundamentally symmetrical between Arab terrorists and Israeli soldiers. It is not.

The entire world has convinced itself that violence and terrorism in the Middle East are the results of Israeli "occupation" over Arabs. They are wrong. If there is one thing that has become glaringly obvious in the past two decades it is that the main cause of terrorist violence in the Middle East is the removal of Israeli occupation over Arabs. The Gaza violence was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its removal. The Hezbollah violence and threats from Lebanon were not caused by Israeli "occupation" of Southern Lebanon but rather by its removal.

Part of the world's problem in understanding such things about the Middle East is that most people have no idea how small Israel really is. Without the West Bank, Israel is at its waist about as wide as the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. All of the West Bank is smaller than the Everglades. The Arab world insists territory controlled from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf is insufficient for its appetites, but promises that if only Israel agrees to place its neck in a strategic hangman's noose by turning over the West Bank to the PLO/Hamas, then peace will prevail. And if Israel refuses to place its neck in such an Arab noose voluntarily, then this shows that Israeli aggression is what is behind the violence.

The caterwauling against Israel's decision to shoot back occasionally at the terrorists is coming from those claiming that Israel was erected on "Palestinian lands." This is like claiming that Alaska sits on Russian lands. The Arabs briefly controlled Palestine militarily, as the Russians briefly owned Alaska. The Jews and not the Arabs are analogous to the native Eskimos. Israeli settlements are about as "illegal" as are Eskimo villages in Alaska. There has never ever in history been a Palestinian state, and there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, any more than there is a separate Rhode Islander people. The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands."

Even if anyone thinks the Palestinians might have had some legitimate claim to statehood or sovereignty, the Palestinians forfeited any such right they might have had due to the past century of Palestinian atrocities and terror. Just like the Sudeten Germans lost their claim to any sort of self-determination. True, Israeli governments have nevertheless naively and foolishly offered to allow the Palestinians to exercise control over these territories in exchange for peace. But Israel got war and mass murder of its civilians in exchange, not peace, so the foolhardy Oslo "peace process" deals are now off and should never have been implemented. Proposals to "liberate" the West Bank and end Israeli "occupation" there are nothing more than demands that Israel allow Gazan barbarism and terrorism to be replicated and cloned in the West Bank, with Israeli citizens subsequently bathed in countless thousands of rockets.

The only real way to suppress the carnage is for Israel to re-occupy Gaza and the West Bank in full, implement open-ended military control there and a long-term program of Denazification (based in part on the Allied programs at the end of World War II). Israel needs to expel the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. It needs to get serious about shooting terrorists. Everything else is wishful thinking and delusion.

Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli anti-terror policies, retaliations, checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis, or let them move to any of the 22 Arab states. As long as they persist in the violence, any "suffering" by Palestinians is, much like the suffering of Germans and Japanese during World War II, their own fault. The solution is certainly not for Israel to stop resisting the terror, to stop fighting back, nor for Israel to desist from trying to protect its citizens.

The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, afraid to resist, and ready to capitulate. It will end only when Israel returns to its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The same United States that has understood that there is only a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity.

There are no non-military solutions to the problems of terrorism.

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 His website address is

This article appeared in Front Page Magazine 11/10/peace-through-victory-%e2%80%93- give-victory-a-chance/

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 10, 2011.

"PA Accept Nothing Less than 100%" by Khaled Abu Toameh, palestinians-cannot-accept-less>

The (so-called) Palestinians are divided today into two camps — one that is radical and another that is less radical — or "moderate" in the words of the West.

The radical camp is headed by Hamas and other extremist groups such as the Islamic Jihad organization. This camp's message is: We want 100% of everything and we will not make any concessions to Israel. We want all the land, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. We want to replace Israel with an Islamic state where Jews who wish to could live as a minority.

There is no point in talking about the possibility of negotiating with this radical camp about peace, especially as its declared goal is to eliminate Israel — not make peace with it. The only thing Israel could talk to the radicals about is how and when to dismantle the Jewish state...

The less radical camp, headed by the PLO and a minority of secular Palestinians, is also saying that it wants 100%, but only of the pre-1967 lines — meaning the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Like the radicals, the "moderate" camp is also saying that it will not and cannot make any concessions to Israel on its territorial demands.

With such positions, it is hard to see how the peace process could lead to anything positive. The radicals do not want to negotiate with Israel because they do not recognise its right to exist and believe it should be wiped off the face of the earth. The so-called moderates say they are ready to return to the negotiating table, but only if Israel agrees in advance to give them 100% of their demands.

Yet the central problem is that even if Israel does accept all their demands, neither camp is willing to commit to ending the conflict. This is basically why the 2000 Camp David summit failed — because Yasser Arafat was not prepared to sign any document that called for end of conflict even after a peace deal were reached between Israel and the Palestinians.

Further, no "moderate" Palestinian leader would dare to sign such a document out of fear of being denounced by his people — and the rest of the Arab and Islamic countries — for having "sold out" to Israel by giving up the claim to all of the land.

Because the less-radical camp knows that Israel will not and cannot accept all their demands, they have decided to stay away from the peace talks. They have instead chosen to negotiate with the international community about the establishment of a Palestinian state...

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

UNESCO has never been interested in supporting the preservation of Jewish cultural and historic heritage, or Israel's scientific advance. But 107 state members have voted to except a culture of hate, murder and science of terror of a fake nation and its non-existent state. The organisation does not care about the cultural heritage of Tibetan, Basque and Kurdish people. They are real people under actual occupations, who are suffering cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing!*

"Saudi Prince Ups IDF Kidnap Ante to $1 Million" News.aspx/149220#.Tq5Jd8n8L-M

Prince Khaled bin Talal, a brother of a Saudi billionaire prince, told a private Saudi television station he is raising to $1million a cleric's paltry $100,000 offer to kidnap and IDF soldier. "Dr. Awad al-Qarni said he was offering $100,000 to only take a prisoner. I tell Dr. Awad al-Qarni, 'I will be in solidarity with you and pay the remaining $900,000 to take an Israeli soldier prisoner so that other prisoners can be freed.'"

IDF Given Green Light in Gaza

IDF commanders were given the green light by officials in Jerusalem to take all necessary steps to stop rocket fire from Gaza on Tuesday, including undertaking ground operations as need be.

Obama Wants 'Silent Freeze'

The Obama administration reportedly wants Israel to implement a "silent freeze" of Jewish homebuilding in eastern Jerusalem and the mountains of Samaria and Judea to coax the Palestinian Authority (PA) into agreeing to negotiate with Israel.

Snakes Israel Negotiates With

PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas went on record in Arabic saying he will never recognise a "Jewish state." He also said the kidnapping and five year ordeal of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was "a good thing." (Israel has never had an honest peace partner. This charade of peace process must end. Israel needs to start the process of reunification of Jewish land.)

Israel Freezes Funds to PA

Israeli officials decided on an initial round of sanctions against the Palestinian Authority following its ascension as a 'full-member state' to UNESCO. A meeting of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his eight senior ministers determined Israel would halt the transfer of funds under extant agreements to the PA, and accelerate housing construction in Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, and Maale Adumin. News/News.aspx/149265#.TrBAgvTDp_j

A Syrian Uranium Enrichment Plant 'Discovered'

The disclosure Tuesday, Nov. 1, by the International Atomic Energy Agency — that a spinning factor built in the northeastern Syrian town of Hasaka in 2003 was in fact designed for developing nuclear weapons from enriched uranium. The IAEA inspectors who visited the site two years ago found no traces of nuclear activity there.

No Need to Show Respect to Israel? stories/1011/67296.html

Former President George W. Bush waited until his eighth year in office to touch down in Israel. His father, George H.W. Bush, didn't go at all. Neither did Ronald Reagan. If Obama doesn't go next year, he would break with the precedent set by his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, both of whom made the trip during their first term. The White House gave "serious consideration" to a summer trip to Israel, said former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), a lead liaison for the Obama campaign with the Jewish community. (Obama was very eager to visit Israel during his election campaign, when he needed Jewish votes and money!)

Islamists do not Care for Jokes News/News.aspx/149345

The offices of a French newspaper were destroyed by a firebomb early Wednesday over its satirical invitation to the Islamic Prophet Muhammed. The newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, is a satirical weekly. A firebomb, or "Molotov cocktail" was lobbed into the offices of the paper at about 1:00 a.m., igniting a blaze. The attack came a day after the paper had announced it was naming Islam's founder, Prophet Muhammed, as its "editor-in-chief" for this week's issue. The back page of the paper was to feature a picture of Muhammed wearing a red nose, with the caption, "Yes, Islam is compatible with humour." The front page, renamed "Sharia Hebdo," was to likewise feature a picture of the Muslim prophet, captioned, "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

Kadima Party is still not Grasping Reality

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered on Thursday that Israel's $2 million-per-annum participation fee in the budget of UNESCO be frozen. The opposition Kadima party stated: "Netanyahu is forcibly isolating Israel in the international community." (Israel is always isolated and must rely on herself. UNESCO's decision to accept PA as a state member is just further proof of it!)

Quote of the Week:

"My 11 year old does this, but he is a child. He is so worried about having friends, he has yet to learn that it is better to have no friends than to sacrifice one's dignity by bowing and stooping to people who are obviously using and scamming him. When Israel goes back to their policy of ignoring criticisms and just doing what is right, they will recover their dignity from those who they let steal it."* — Remedy Hawke, subscriber of this editorial letter

PA Map Swallows Up Israel News/News.aspx/148414
by Maayana Miskin

When addressing the United Nations, Palestinian Authority (PA) representatives speak of the 1967 "borders" — a reference not to borders recognised internationally in 1967, but to their hope to build an Arab state on all land east of the indefensible 1949 armistice line between Israel and Jordan.

However, maps used within the PA tell a different story, one in which Israel does not exist at all, within any borders.

The PA's official state tourism map, revealed this week by journalist David Bedein, labels all of Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza as "Palestine." The 1949 armistice line is marked and labeled the "armistice line," but there is no mention of the country established to its west more than 62 years ago.

In addition, the names of several Israeli cities have been "Arabized," with Be'er Sheva labeled "Bir Assaba" and Tel Aviv also referred to as "Tell Ar-Rabee." Arab towns such as Tamra and Shfaram are marked on the map, while far larger majority-Jewish cities are not.

The Jewish connection to sites such as the Old City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs is not mentioned.

Earlier in the year a PA television program declared that the entire Land of Israel is "Palestine," while a children's program played songs referring to Israeli cities such as Tzfat, Haifa and Beit Shean as "Palestine." News/News.aspx/143611

"Palestine" was the name given the land designated by the British for the Jewish homeland. However, once part of that area became the state of Israel, local Arabs, who began calling themselves "Palestinians", designated the state they wish to establish as "Palestine".

The term was first used by the ancient Romans when they attempted to erase memory of Jewish connection to the land, after they destroyed the Second Jewish Temple over 1900 years ago.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 9, 2011.

How to solve the Seniors Retirement problem and the growing Prison Inmate problem with one change...


Here's the way it should be: Let's put the seniors in jail and the criminals in nursing homes.

This would correct two things in one motion: Seniors would have access to showers, hobbies and walks. They would receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs, etc. They would receive money instead of having to pay it out. They would have constant video monitoring, so they would be helped instantly, If they fell or needed assistance.

Bedding would be washed twice a week and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them.

A guard would check on them every 20 minutes.

Hot meals and snacks would be brought to them.

They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.

They would have access to a library, weight/fitness room, spiritual counseling, a pool and education...and free admission to in-house concerts by nationally recognized entertainment artists.

Simple clothing — i.e.. Shoes, slippers, pj's — and legal aid would be free, upon request.

There would be private, secure rooms provided for all with an outdoor exercise yard complete with gardens.

They would receive daily phone calls.

There would be a board of directors to hear any complaints and the ACLU would fight for their rights and protection.

The guards would have a code of conduct to be strictly adhered to, with attorneys available, at no charge to protect the seniors and their families from abuse or neglect.

As for the criminals:

They would receive food.

They would be left alone and unsupervised.

They would be allowed showers once a week.

They would live in tiny rooms, for which they would have to pay $800 per month.

They would have no hope of ever getting out.


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at Go to to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, November 9, 2011.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and was published in Daily Mail and is archived at 2011/11/blaming-the-victim.html


One of the most egregious signs of western irrationality and bigotry over the issue of Israel is the way in which its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is routinely scapegoated for causing the breakdown of the so-called peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

This charge is based on the widespread fallacy that the 'peace process' has stalled because Israel keeps building more Jewish 'settlements' on 'Palestinian land'. This reasoning is not only totally wrong but utterly perverse on the following grounds:

1) The actual reason for the collapse of the 'peace process' is that Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly maintains that he will never accept that Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state, hails Palestinian terrorists as heroes for murdering Israelis and does nothing to end the incitement to murder Jews disseminated in schools, mosques and media under his control. In other words, Abbas is not a legitimate interlocutor in any civilised 'peace process' since he remains committed to the eradication of Israel. Yet Netanyahu is blamed for the impasse.

2) It is only Israel that has made concessions in this 'peace process' (as noted here). The Palestinians not only failed to deliver what was expected of them under the Road Map but now, with their UN gambit, have unilaterally reneged on their previous treaty obligations. Yet Abbas is given a free pass while Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

3) The claim that the 'settlements' are the key to resolving the dispute is ridiculous. First, they take up no more than one or two per cent of West Bank territory. Second, even when Netanyahu froze such new building for ten months as a sign of good will, Abbas still refused to negotiate. Yet this is all ignored, and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

4) The claim that the establishment of a Palestine state would end the dispute is also ridiculous. Such a state was on offer in 1948; Israel offered to give up more than 90 per cent of the West Bank for such a state in 2000; and an even more generous offer was subsequently made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The Palestinian response was in every case war and terror. Yet all this is ignored, and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

5) Whatever land Israel may choose to give up in its own interests, under international law Jews are entitled to settle anywhere in the West Bank. There is no such thing as Palestinian land and never was. The West Bank and Gaza never belonged to any sovereign ruler after the British withdrew from Mandatory Palestine; before that it was part of the Ottoman empire. Israel's 'borders' are in fact merely the cease-fire lines from its victory in 1948 against the Arab armies that tried unsuccessfully to exterminate it at birth. It is therefore more correct to call the West Bank and Gaza disputed territory. Yet this history and law are denied and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

6) The Jews alone have the legal — as well as the moral and historical — right to settle within the West Bank and Gaza, a right given to them by the Great Powers after the First World War on account of the unique historical claim by the Jews to the land then called Palestine. This Jewish right to settle anywhere in that land was entrusted to Britain to deliver under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine — an obligation which it proceeded to break. Yet this history and law are denied, and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

It is therefore as absurd as it is malicious to blame Netanyahu for the breakdown of talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Yet this is precisely what many in the west do — principally because, unlike Israeli politicians on the left, Netanyahu (who certainly has his flaws) is less prepared to play fast and loose with truth, justice and history while offering up Israel's throat to be cut. For this inconvenient obduracy he is branded as 'right-wing' and therefore beyond the pale and impossible to deal with.

That is presumably what lay behind the now infamous overheard exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama — Sarkozy: 'I cannot bear Netanyahu, he is a liar'; Obama: 'You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!'

This exchange tells us many things, none of them good, about the attitude of the Presidents of France and the US towards the Prime Minister of the country that is in the front line of western defence. But in the UK, the Times showed this morning that it too has now drunk the Kool-Aid over the Middle East. For just whom did it blame for this horrible exchange between Sarkozy and Obama about Netanyahu? Why — Netanyahu. Its leading article (£) opined:

'In fact the man who should be most worried by the Cannes table talk is not either of the participants, but the object of their complaint. For what has been exposed is that the leaders of two of the most important allies that Israel has not only dislike Mr Netanyahu intensely, but distrust him too.

'... Though trust and good personal relationships are hugely important in diplomacy, they are not everything. Israel has existential worries, and understandably feels sometimes that it can rely only on itself. But this "ourselves alone" mentality has become distorted under Mr Netanyahu into what might be called "Millwall diplomacy", after the famously belligerent soccer fans whose slogan became "no-one likes us, we don't care".

'Israel needs to win friends, not lose them; to be sustained by its allies, not to alienate them. What the conversation in Cannes shows is that, in Mr Netanyahu, Israel seems to have the wrong leader at the wrong time. This newspaper hopes that either he can change, or if not, that he can be changed.'

So the spite displayed by the Presidents of France and the US towards Netanyahu, whom they have thus kicked in the back despite the fact that he has made concession after concession to Abbas who has never resiled from his own genocidal aims, is actually all the fault of ...Netanyahu, whom the Times wishes to punish further for thus being the victim of such malice by chucking him out of office unless he too starts playing the appeasement game.

One expects to read this kind of disgusting 'blame the victim' approach to Israel in newspapers of the left. The Times, however, used to be a staunch friend of Israel and was thus on the right side of history. No longer, it seems. Thus the terrifying confusions of our era deepen still further as the skies darken.

Contact HandsFiasco at

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael M. Rosen, November 9, 2011.

In Every Generation...

A review of A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism
by Michael M. Rosen
for The Claremont Institute

A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism
by Giulio Meotti
ISBN-13: 9781594034770
Publisher: Encounter Books
Publication date: 10/12/2010

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist and author. His columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary. He graduated with a degree in philosophy at the University of Florence. He lives in Italy with his family.


"We answered the call," a young man and his wife told me in 2004, two years after the man's sister, her husband, and their child were brutally murdered on an Israeli road, leaving nine other children orphaned. I visited with the couple, who had adopted all nine of their nieces and nephews, as part of my San Diego synagogue's Israeli terror victim relief program, and learned first-hand of the horrific tragedy that befell their family — and the heroism it inspired.

Giulio Meotti re-tells this story from the perspective of one of the survivors in A New Shoah, his detailed exploration of the human toll exacted by terrorism in Israel over the past 15 years, a book that encapsulates small narratives of brutality yielding to loving kindness.

The cultural editor of Italy's Il Foglio and a Wall Street Journal contributor, Meotti spent four years in Israel meeting with the families of the fallen, absorbing their stories, and marinating in their sorrow. The book lovingly and unsparingly describes the victims and survivors of Palestinian terror attacks, making flesh the abstract newspaper headlines that antiseptically summarize (and minimize) the brutal carnage. As Meotti explains, recounting these tales is nothing less than "an act of solidarity against the abandonment and dereliction of these thousands of victims, young and old, children and infants, women and men."

Both the Nazis during World War II and the Islamists today aim to eradicate not only the Jewish people, but also the Jewish name, and hope to stamp out any sense of Jewish personhood. As the author puts it, "the silence of Chelmno and the silence after a suicide bombing, the Zyklon B of the Nazis and the suicide belts of Hamas have this in common: the total destruction of the victim." And so Meotti set about "giving a voice to Israeli families destroyed by terrorism, letting them speak as the memories are beginning to fade" as "a form of incarnation like those stark walls of names at [Yad Vashem, Israel's] Holocaust memorial," which itself means "hand and name."

A sincere non-Jewish admirer of the Jewish state, Meotti enshrines the memory of the fallen in probably the most effective way possible: by gently turning over his pen to the families themselves. Seemingly half of the book consists of direct quotations by grieving parents, siblings, and children gleaned from interviews, eulogies, and other memorial speeches. These stories are organized haphazardly, and they're often graphic and difficult to stomach — both tendencies appear to be intentional.

Now, eight years later, insulated by the remarkably successful West Bank security fence, we easily forget the extreme anguish and mortal fear in which Israelis wallowed during the Second Intifada. In the 15 years since Oslo, 1,723 Israelis — equivalent in percentage terms to 74,000 Americans, or roughly 25 9/11's — have perished in some 150 suicide attacks, while another 10,000 have suffered injuries.

* * *

This inhuman slaughter transcends stereotypes. From leftist kibbutzniks protesting the security fence to immigrant security guards protecting open-air markets and coffee shops to Jerusalem doctors treating and working alongside Palestinians, the victims hail from every ethnic, political, denominational, and generational demographic in the Jewish state. As Meotti observes, Islamist terror knows no bounds; it sees, and attacks, anything that "represent[s] Jewish civilization." In particular, Meotti's heart-wrenching depiction of the ghastly 2002 Passover Night bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya shimmers with an almost literary brilliance. The theme of blood-painted by the Israelites on their doorposts the night of their exodus from Egypt; commemorated by four cups of wine at the Seder; accused for centuries by gentiles as the key ingredient in matzah; and, in 2002, now splattered across the devastated hotel dining room — mingled hauntingly in Meotti's telling, like the admixture of Jewish persecution during Passovers past and present.

Meotti also catalogues the hundreds of Israeli victims of terrorism whose lives were tied in some way to the Holocaust: children of survivors and even survivors themselves, dwelling tranquilly in their homeland thousands of miles from the crematoria, until fanatical Jew-hatred returned to claim their lives, only at a different latitude. He tells of a funeral of five victims of the unnerving Sbarro pizza shop bombing in central Jerusalem, where the children and grandchildren of a Dutch Bergen-Belsen survivor were mercilessly slain. At the service, a woman lamented "this isn't a funeral, it's a Holocaust," while the Chief Rabbi of Israel, himself interned at Buchenwald, also cried out, "How long will it last, O my God, how long? It's been three generations."

Although such echoes of the Holocaust indeed reverberate throughout Israel's contemporary struggle with Palestinian terror, Meotti neither defines the term "Shoah" or marches through the key similarities in an organized fashion. In this sense, his study isn't so much an argument that Jewry today finds itself plunged into another Holocaust as an evocation of its horrors. And though this tendency allows for beautifully told stories, it also, at times, shields the author from fully appreciating just how well Jewry nowadays is surviving and thriving because of Israel.

* * *

The book contains hints of the marvel of Israel as a safe haven, including Meotti's description of the 2003 flyover by Israeli fighter jets above Auschwitz, when the air force general leading the squadron noted that he "felt the courage of the millions who faced infinite suffering" and "understood the enormity of our responsibility, in guaranteeing the immortality of our people and bearing their greatness upon our wings." Likewise, he characterizes a charitable fund that has raised and furnished hundreds of thousands of dollars in assistance to Israel's terror victims as "a major sign of Israel's triumph over Islamist destruction." Still, for the most part, Meotti seems content to focus on the disturbing continuities between the Jew-killing fever of the Holocaust and the related virus that has spread to the Arab-Muslim world, while downplaying the signal discontinuity represented by a vigorous and unapologetic Jewish state.

At the same time, however, another powerful discontinuity looms just 800 miles away in Tehran, and it is Meotti's near-obliviousness to the Iranian threat that constitutes the book's most significant flaw. The mullahs quite literally are plotting a new Shoah, even while Ahmadinejad denies the occurrence of the original. And as Daniel Gordis observed in Commentary, Iran need only develop, not detonate, a single nuclear device to sow precisely the kind of existential angst Israel was created to dispel; the potentially paralyzing fear of a second Holocaust is nearly as valuable to the Jewish people's enemies as its implementation.

Admittedly, Meotti's focus is deliberately limited to actual terrorist atrocities carried out against Jews in Israel (and abroad), which is an enormous and significant topic in its own right. But to write a book entitled A New Shoah without devoting so much as a chapter on a potential Shoah-in-the-making is, however unintentionally, to minimize its grave danger.

* * *

Toward the end of his book, Meotti quotes author Naomi Ragen, who survived the Passover Netanya attack, citing the immortal passage from the Haggadah: "not only in one generation have they sought our annihilation, but rather in every generation do they seek our destruction." Tragically true, and poignantly illustrated throughout this important book.

Yet equally significant is the passage's conclusion: "But the Holy One, Blessed Be He, rescues us from their clutches." Even though its existence hasn't curbed (and may even have whetted) the genocidal impulse, the Jewish state — a homeland for God's "chosen people" — stands as a firm bulwark against future Jewish annihilation. In this sense, as Meotti recognizes in his conclusion, Israel itself has answered the call for a battered, bruised people.

Michael M. Rosen is an attorney and writer in San Diego

This review appeared in publications/crb/id.1866/article_detail.asp

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, November 9, 2011.

It never ceases to amaze me and frighten me how wrong Israel behaves. How much it has lost its national unity, its core and resolve and I am just waiting for the bubble to burst, right in its face. Does Israel know what is her Jewish infrastructure is all about?


Terrorism, lies, deception, corruption, hatred, incitement and illegal activities cannot end if you keep on nourishing it and adulating it.

A world where the killers and perpetrators of crime — the Arabs — have made themselves the victims and the world, including their victims — Israel — have accepted this upside equation is an upside down world.

If the state of Israel is to exist, it will not be in the upside-down world that surrounds her and her own upside down behavior. She must turn it upright.

Much had been said about the Oslo debacle. In 1993, some notorious Israeli leaders, without the approval of the nation, have agreed and signed her life away to a group of genocidal terrorists. They imported them into the Jewish heartland and opened, wide, the Jewish State's doors to them and told them, voila, come kill us, come destroy our land, come delegitimize our existence and destroy our stance in the world, come to uphold us your captives and we will cooperate with you with glee. The Arabs are a diabolic dark cloud that hides the light the Jewish Nation needs to shine unto he world. With all the obvious darkness hovering over Israel she still dancing the Oslo Hora(Hora is a type of circle dance originating in the Balkans but also found in other countries. It became a national dance in Israel) around the Arabs and the Arabs are laughing. The Arabs are laughing because they are winning the battle that started in 1993 without shooting one bullet, with much killing of Jews and demoralizing the entire Jewish Nation. The goal, destroy the state of Israel.

As of recent, the Arabs, calling themselves Palestinians, abrogated the Oslo Accords and no one blinks an eye lid. They decided they will take away a chunk of the Jewish State and make it their own without the permission of the owner. They amassed world support and appealed to the United Nations to help them, the poor terrorists Jew haters-Jews killers, to have a state to call their own. What has Israel done? Set to watch the charade with trepidation. Instead of retaliating and taking the bull by its horns, adding the entire Judea and Samaria to Israel's sovereignty, and declare: the delusion of 1993 is over, we no longer deal with a terrorist entity, we were given a country by the Nations of the world and we intend to keep all of it to ourselves, Israel did nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And the Arabs, with the world behind them, are relentlessly pursuing any avenue to harm Israel. And so, with world's approval, they applied for a membership in UNESCO and received it, no matter that it was an illegal action on UNESCO part and against its charter. And the world kept silent as it always does when Jews are harmed. For a blink of a moment, the United States froze its massive financial aid to the Palestinians Authority. A tender spank on their hand. And so did Israel. Israel stopped its flow of tax money to her archenemy, the Arabs in Ramallah. For how long? For a second. As soon as the USA reopened the flow of dollars' aid to the PA so did Israel. Neither the US or Israel could stomach the idea that their baby, the PA, is crying for being punished. They let the crying kid out of his room, and told him, do not worry you can continue your lies, your deception, your illegal actions against Israel and the world arena; you can go on delegitimizing Israel and trash her among the nations. You are permitted to hate Jews, plot to kill them and destroy their homeland and we, the world, as well as Israel, will do nothing to end it, really end it. On the contrary, we will treat you with kid's gloves, and we, the charlatans of the world will continue paying for it.

Our Jewish sages instructed us that the next kill you, kill him first. This has a moral meaning that a person may defend himself and save his life at the life of a man risking it, as self defense. There is a cliché that says that if Jews do not stand for themselves, no one — for sure no one — will stand for them. Yet, neither Israel and Jews listen.

The Jewish nation is void of leadership. When a star rises, such as Fiamma Nirenstein — a real Jew, with heart and soul that is hard to find — she is isolated for speaking and fighting for the truth and for defending her nation's state Israel.

Israel knows she has only two choices — do what is right for her and with it anger the entire world, or do what is wrong, as she has been doing since 1993, and destroy itself in the process, as she is doing right now. At present, for Israel there is no other choices for survival. By now Israel should have known that if she plays the game with the Muslim-Arab and the Muslin world, she is going to end up being choked at the noose, yet she keeps on playing the game. History repeats itself only on the fool, in this case Israel. It acts is if she can plant a feather and a chicken will grow. As if she can make the same mistakes and expect different results. The game of repeating the same mistakes is dangerous. Israel knows that Islam is an entity that will never make peace with her, yet, she is dressed as a bride seeking the hand of the groom Arabs.

History proved that Israel must not sign a treaty with any Islamic entity. Yet, Benjamin Netanyahu, to ad nauseam, calls to sit negotiate with the Arabs, when negotiations need to culminate in an agreement, a peace treaty that will end a soon as the ink dries up on the agreement paper .

As the story goes, after its destruction four sages sojourned to Jerusalem. When they saw the destroyed temple and the Holy city, they tore their clothes and wept. Only Rabbi Akiva laughed. He told them that the prophecy of destruction was linked to the prophecy of redemption. And now that he had witnessed the realization of the prophecy of destruction, he knew that the prophecy of redemption would be fulfilled, and he quoted the prophet Zachariah's prophecy:"Old men and women shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem ... And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing. Indeed Rabbi Akiva's laughter reached the ears and heart of Theodore Herzl and his formation of Zionism brought about the redemption of the Holy Land. The desert bloomed and the Jewish people founded their third sovereignty in their ancient homeland, a shelter from a hating world that has been persecuting them for millennium.

But the safeguard Israel is to provide its people is weak from within, as Israel does not stand for her legal rights and is acting as a worthless charlatan.

For the Jews, there was no magic in surviving evil. When they stood up they won and when they sided with the enemy they lost. The Jewish nation has overcome Pharaoh and rose from the ashes of the Holocaust, but if it does not turn its upside down mentality on its head, gather strength and overcome its formidable behavior its needs to ask itself, will I survive?

Israel cannot afford to group itself among the worthless, treacherous charlatans' club of the US, EU UN and their enablers. Israel can only trust herself. After all if she is to be the light unto the nations, a leader and an example, she needs to act this way. As Israel behaves now she is the rug under the feet of the world that is getting dirtier by the moment.

How many times we clamored telling Israel enough is enough and she had replied, enough is not enough. When will the abused Jewish Nation leave the house of abuse and take control of her destiny? When?

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, November 9, 2011.

Once the common belief was that Arabs are stupid. But they are not. For over a century they have tried to eliminate any Jewish presence from the Holy Land. They butchered the local Jewish population, let some time pass and always returned to their old habits. Much like the Pogroms in Europe, the massacres by the Arabs were consistent and brutal.

When the global community officially recognized the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancient land, the Arabs were outraged. They engaged in numerous wars, were driven, thus relentless, to achieve their mission at all costs.

In 1973 they almost succeeded, and when success — so close in sight — did not materialize, they unleashed their anger on the world at large. The oil embargo that followed, and the world's continued reliance on black gold for daily life, resulted in a fatal discovery.

The Arabs held the world by their pockets, literally. Every barrel of oil generated revenue, all of which was invested into spreading Wahhabism, supporting terrorism and building an infrastructure of evil. A small echelon flew gold-plated planes, occupied buildings not seen anywhere else in the world erected especially for them but their wealth did not benefit the multitudes.

The Arab world today is composed of young, mostly uneducated and unemployed, a fertile ground for discontent. The young became a breeding ground for hatred and the spread of new and more fanatic interpretations of Islam. Reaching a boiling point beneath the surface, steam had to be released.

This happened first in Tunisia then Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria. The old dictators of four decades were forced out. Middle Eastern tradition dictated it happen with much blood and fanfare. Butchering Jews or one's own, the Arabs care not: The bloodier the scene, the stronger the stench, how better the result.

Add to the mix a pretty, blond American reporter raped repeatedly, as a crowd of men and women watched and chanted while some performed the sacred ritual. It was an act that proved their superiority against a defenseless woman, beating, molesting, sodomizing and raping her, and an endless lust for more. Much like the massacres of the Jews.

In the beginning the voices that blamed the Jews for all ill will were more subdued, the throngs were so overwhelmed with joy for their new activities. But soon the currents of blame were too strong to ignore: Israel is at fault.

Centuries of blood libels added to the mix while broadcasting 24/7 against Israel and the Jews drenched the psyche of every young man, woman, boy and girl. "Pigs and Apes," "Occupiers," "Evil-doers who must go." It was madness fueled by modern telecommunication and a most sophisticated propaganda machine.

The world that stood amazed at the developments in 2011 (so-called "Arab Spring" or "Youth Revolution") mistook the revolt for craving democracy, for an Obama-like-"CHANGE." Except the only Change Obama ushered in was moving an even more dangerous form of Islam to the forefront. The only Hope now is for minimum casualties in the West.

Another US President, also a Democrat, similarly managed to promote radical Islam, and is solely responsible for the ascent of Ayatollah Khomeini to power in 1979. Now 32 years later, Obama has singlehandedly sacrificed President Mubarak on the altar of insanity, as Carter did the Shah, paving the way for the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another power has ideas of grandeur. Turkey wants to return to its former glory, an Islamic Empire.

Turkey, Iran and Egypt, each representing the gateway to a different continent, all intersect at a singular point: Israel.

Damn the Jews, had it not been for their determination to retain this tiny piece of land, we could witness the most glorious spectacle the world has seen since World War One. Iran, Turkey and Egypt, each once again an Islamic empire on its own right, striving for world domination.

And that is exactly the point. We are either witnessing the very formation of World War Three or are already immersed in it. It will eventually be viewed as the "Great Reformation of Islam," the only question will be what the world will look like in its aftermath.

There is no doubt all these ideas of grandeur will be quashed, along with many millions, (tens? hundreds? a billion?) as well. This is a necessary condition for humanity to reemerge and continue to survive.

My worry is for the over six million Jews now living in Israel, this volatile point of intersection, and a like number living outside the Holy Land. They are the most despised species on earth (other than cockroaches perhaps), and the world is literally dying to rid itself of their presence. They are like a disease, in a world eager to cleanse itself of this menace once and for all.

Arabs are not stupid. They have been successfully brainwashed and immersed in such vile hatred they cannot comprehend sanity. The only prism via which they can see or hear anything is the one that blames the Jews for all the world's ills.

Imagine how all those trillions in oil revenue could have been used for the betterment of the Arabs. All that was needed is inspiration and determination. The Jews succeeded, without any billions, in making the desert bloom, drying swamps and defeating malaria. They also absorbed a number of immigrants greater than their own, not to mention healing the ashes that remained after the Holocaust.

The Arabs chose instead the "easy" way. Why bother when it is easier to conquer and take over the providence of others?

Thus, like parasites they spread through Europe and America, from south to north, and in Israel they call themselves "Palestinians" and join hands with the Israeli left. Swelling to the point where they will completely choke the host, then — boom — both they and the host will die.

While Arabs have the patience to commit retaliatory measures years, decades and at times centuries after the fact, they refuse to understand what is good for them. Do they not see that eventually they will die? They do not aspire good (not for others, only for themselves), but for destruction.

If Arabs were not stupid, they would turn away from hatred into construction, education and research. If Arabs were smart, they would channel their immense resources and energies into bettering the world, not spreading lies and blood libels, hatred and death.

But apparently they do not seek these goals, and so we will all pay the price. They may not exist at the end, but we are bound to go down with them.

Maybe it is our fault also, for allowing them to spread and not stopping them sooner. Perhaps we are not as smart as we believe for if we were, then we undoubtedly would have already been retaliating rather than encouraging, fighting rather than cooperating and enabling.

In Judaism one is to spread love and glorify the Lord. What exactly is Islam doing for its believers? Digging a mass grave. Clearly, not the same God, nor any similarities. Nothing in common. One ideology believes in the sanctity of life, the other is a death cult.

The world needs to awaken, else when it does, it will be smeared in blood and the cries of the raped and wounded. Can we afford another world war that each day seems more inevitable?

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, November 9, 2011.
BACKGROUND by Maurice Ostroff

About the Russell Tribunal on Palestine

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine was formed In March 2009 with the object of supporting the Palestinian people. It is composed of well known human right activists, all of whom have made strong anti-Israel statements.

The third international session that took place in Cape Town from November 5 to 7, 2011 followed the first session in Barcelona in March 2010 and a second session in London in November 2010.

The session was opened by Archbishop Desmond Tutu one of the strongest advocates of sanctions against Israel. A while back he convinced the University of Johannesburg to end its relationship with Ben-Gurion University in Israel as part of a boycott against Israeli academic institutions,

Because no opportunity was allowed for questions from the audience and because the "jury" and "witnesses" comprised only anti-Israel personalities, the hearings were seen by some as as a 'kangaroo court'

Benjamin Pogrund, who was deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail in the dark days of South African apartheid wrote about the Tribunal In the Johannesburg Sunday Times of October 30, "It's theatre: the actors know their parts and the result is known before they start. Israel is to be dragged into the mud.

The letter below was written by Janis Just, a political science student at the University of Cape Town. It appeared on the 2nd-Thoughts website


Confuse us with inconvenient facts?
Out you go!

Simply for asking an uncomfortable question, which apparently did not fit with the agenda of the Tribunal, I was forcibly removed from the Russell Tribunal's official press conference. Not only was I not allowed to ask any questions, but in attempting to raise issues of concern, I was thrown to the floor, dragged out of the conference and threatened with more violence

Polite Student dragged out of Conference (photo: Ilan Ossendrywer)


Open Letter to the Russell Tribunal
2011-11-08 12:24
From Janis Just

My name is Janis Just, and I am a political science student at the University of Cape Town. I attended the full proceedings of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine as I am covering it on behalf of a German newspaper. I attended in my individual capacity and am not part of any specific lobby group.

On Monday November 7, I attended the post Tribunal press conference. Organisers of the Russell Tribunal recognised me from a different press conference last week where I asked a question about Hamas' violations of human rights. When attempting to ask a question this time, the organisers called me a "serious heckler" and a "Zionist activist".

The first accusation is patently untrue, as I did not engage in any heckling whatsoever. As to the second accusation, I have no problem wearing this title. However, their labelling of me as a "Zionist activist" was their attempt to delegitimise my argument and me as a person. This is not only against any democratic convention, it is contrary to the stated intention of the Russell Tribunal itself — which is hears all evidence and seek the truth.

Simply for asking an uncomfortable question, which apparently did not fit with the agenda of the Tribunal, I was forcibly removed from the Russell Tribunal's official press conference. Not only was I not allowed to ask any questions, but in attempting to raise issues of concern, I was thrown to the floor, dragged out of the conference and threatened with more violence.

It would seem that my mere presence there constituted a threat so serious that I had to be removed by any means. What they were afraid of was not that I would disturb their session, but that I would expose their biased agenda.

I have laid a charge of assault against the Tribunal organisers. However, what concerns me more than the physical abuse to which I was subjected, is that a gathering of such eminent persons for a process that has the stated aim of attempting to examine testimony and uncover the truth, in the spirit of judicial enquiry, not only were not capable of hearing differing opinions, but that such opinions were forcibly silenced. That is far more reminiscent of the apartheid regime than any of the allegations levelled against the State of Israel at the Tribunal itself.

The question I wanted to ask and still need answered is the following: Hamas is not only responsible for murder, torture and human rights violations among their own people, but also for terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. What official position does the Russell Tribunal jury take towards the Islamist regime of Hamas ruling the people of Gaza?

To the jurists of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine: I demand an answer to my question and an apology from the organisers of the Tribunal for physically attacking me.

Janis Just

Editor's Addendum: After Newt Gingrich said that the "Palestinians were an invented people," the pro-Palestinians went to different sorts of damage control. One popular way was to claim that so what, maybe they weren't a people, but they were living on the land. But since the Palestinian Arabs mostly migrated into Palestinian from the neighboring Arab countries after 1900 and didn't own the Land, then Israel isn't occupying their land. The converse is true. Israel has legal right to of Mandated Palestine, including what the Jordanians call the West Bank. The local Arabs by taking over portions of Jewish land are occupying Jewish land. If more politicians acknowledged what they all know, the pro-Arab Russell Tribunal would be seen to be as absurd as it is inappropriate.

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at
and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 9, 2011.


Formerly, Israel refused to bargain with terrorists. Bargaining with terrorists would appear to confer legitimacy upon them. It also would reward their violence. Better force them into desired concessions, or give them no incentives to commit terrorism, it was thought.

The U.S. once espoused the same policy. However, behind the scenes, the U.S. did negotiate with terrorists, such as Iran's regime and the PLO. Results: Iran deceived the U.s.. The PLO gave the U.S. crumbs of intelligence, while working in a broader way against official U.S. policy.

For years, now, Israel has negotiated with terrorists. Negotiations with the PLO cost thousands of Israelis their lives, helped keep the Arab-Israel conflict active, and enabled the Palestinian Authority unfairly to put Israel into disrepute.

Recent negotiations by the U.S. with Iran and North Korea and by Israel with the Palestinian Authority remind us that totalitarians use negotiations to stay the hand of retribution while they continue to attempt aggression or develop weapons of mass-destruction. Although constantly deceived, Western leaders keep favoring negotiation.

So now the question Israeli leaders set for themselves is how to negotiate with terrorists. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA relates to that challenge the prisoner exchange negotiation between Hamas and Israel.


The family of kidnapped Corporal Shalit campaigned for his release to be obtained by surrender to Hamas' demands. Their theory was that Hamas would not release the hostage unless their demands were met.

Turns out, Hamas officials now admit that they did compromise on their demands. They made an agreement, because they thought Israel would offer nothing further.

The family campaign was supported by former intelligence and security chiefs Ami Ayalon, Karmi Gilon, Yaakov Perry, Danny Yatom, Alik Ron, Amnon Lipkin-Shakah, and Brig. Gen. (res.) Avigdor Kahalani. Those former senior Israeli officials failed to understand Hamas. Let Israelis beware of their policy recommendations in the future!

How come those professionals misunderstood? After all, they implement government security policies well. That is their job. Their job is not to make policy. When they intrude in policy-making, they go beyond their expertise. They even appear foolish, as did the Council for Peace and Security, known familiarly as "ex-brass for withdrawals."

Six of the ex-officials named above insisted in Haaretz that the government make "progress" in negotiating for Shalit. They demanded "bold" and "difficult" decisions, i.e., freeing convicts "with blood on their hands." Not to worry, the ex-officials reassured Israelis, their forces know how to handle misbehaving terrorists who might be tempted to abuse the deal, and Israelis would support a difficult decision.

The security men further contended that Israel has accepted worse deals before, that the military could not be used to force a satisfactory solution, and that Hamas will never reduce its demands. One argued that the risk from such a deal is "a calculated one," the conclusion being to save Cpl. Gilad's life. By "calculated" risk, he may mean that terrorists released earlier had perpetrated additional terrorist attacks.

Another one argued that he sees no difference between terrorists who harmed Israelis a lot — terrorists the government refused to release — and terrorists who tried but failed to harm Israelis.

As a means of pressuring the kidnappers, he suggested hampering visits to Arab prisoners by the Red Cross, whose visit to Cpl. Shalit were barred by Hamas (Dr. Aaron Lerner, 10/22/11 . The Haaretz article was by Ilan Lior, 08/03/11 edition/news/former-security- chiefs-urge-government-to-ramp- up-shalit-talks-1.355431).

The ex-officials were shrewd in observing that terrorists who attacked and even wounded Israelis but did not kill them are no less a public menace when on the loose than are those convicted of actually murdering Israelis. The distinction that the Israeli government made was a fig leave behind which they pretended to retain some virtue in behalf of national security. In the Shalit deal, PM Netanyahu removed that fig leaf.

But the ex-officials were fooling themselves when they contended that their urging a lopsided prisoner exchange of a thousand convicted and fanatical criminals for an innocent kidnap victim is a calculated risk and that the military knows how to handle them. "Calculated?" Many freed prisoners have returned to the attack, and many other Muslims feel they can get away with their crimes. That means more Israelis killed than the one saved by the deal.

And, since more Israelis will get killed from this deal, the ex-officials were mistaken in asserting that the military will protect the people from the released jihadists. It will protect some but will lose some.

As if that were not bad enough, the government has rules of engagement that often favor the lives of terrorists over the lives of its own soldiers and civilians. By pulling its punches against terrorism, the government doesn't get criticized quite as much by anti-Zionists, though it does get criticized no matter what it does. Such is the prejudice of Israel's critics. But more Israelis get killed as a result of such deals. And to that, Israel's critics do not object.

Israel does not owe terrorists visits by the Red Cross, because terrorists are not prisoners of war. They forfeit that status by deliberately violating the rules of war. Worse, of course, is Israel's pampering the prisoners with education, making them more skilled terrorists.

To contend that because Israel made worse deals is no justification for making another bad deal, at least not for adults.

Have you noticed how many incentives and advantages Israel gives its fanatical enemies, and yet how virtuous the government thinks it is? Repeatedly striking bad deals does not say much for the sagacity of the government and the ex-security official who favor such deals.

Yes, the people of Israel probably support the deal. What does that say about them?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, November 9, 2011.

This was written by Boaz Bizmuth.


Excuse us for being right

Even if the IAEA has finally woken up to reality, it did not tell those of us in Israel anything we didn't know. The world may have experienced a "revelation" in Vienna, as it found out that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, but Jerusalem has been raising the alarm about Iran for nearly 20 years. For a long time the international community has been calling Israel paranoid. What do they have to say now?

Iran managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, including American intelligence. Remember the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed there was no evidence Iran had renewed its nuclear program?

The same enlightened world that failed to lift a finger 70 years ago once again chose to bury its head in the sand regarding the new threat gripping the Jewish people. Since its founding, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made no secret of its desire to exterminate the "Zionist entity." But for the world's intellectuals, this was merely rhetoric. In a 2001 sermon, then Iranian President Ali Rafsanjani said that "all we need to annihilate Israel is a single nuclear bomb." The speech did not ruffle anyone's Christmas preparations. Only after the Natanz reactor came to light in 2002 did Europe send its troika (the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany) to Tehran. It's a good thing they didn't arrive by boat.

Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!

On November 15, 2004, the world breathed a sigh of relief. The European troika had signed a "historic" agreement with Iran in which the Islamic Republic agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. This was European diplomacy at its finest. Israel was unable to muster the proper level of enthusiasm, and excuse us for being right. In August 2005, Iran resumed uranium enrichment. A year before that, Iran's spiritual leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa saying that developing nuclear weapons is forbidden by Islam. It's unclear whether he made this statement before or after prayers.

By the way, the Times of London was already reporting by December 14, 2009 that Iranian documents from 2007 suggested Iran was building detonators for nuclear weapons. But it took the IAEA a while longer. Between 2006 and 2008, the U.N. Security Council passed four rounds of "lite" sanctions against Iran. The next round of sanctions are expected to be "crippling." In the meantime, they are crippling China and Russia more than anyone else.

The IAEA report has opened the world's eyes. It has driven home the point that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev can accuse Israel of "dangerous rhetoric" till the cows come home. The presidents of France and the U.S. can call Netanyahu a "liar" until they're blue in the face. That same "liar" had already warned in 1996 that Iran poses the greatest existential threat to Israel since 1948.

The ball is no longer in Iran's court. It is in the court of the international community, which is supposed to prevent another "never again." It is supposed to obviate the need for another "I stand here with Six Million Accusers," speech, in the words of Attorney General Gideon Hausner at the opening Eichmann trial. Yes, that is the level of danger we are facing.

Contact YogiRUs by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Richard Swier, November 8, 2011.

Sadly, there is a growing antisemitism being exhibited by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Please read, comment on and share this column. It was written by Alan Caruba and it appeared on blog_post.cfm?BlogID=321



In bad times, anti-Semitism seems to crawl out of the sewers like a repugnant odor. It is not subject to a rational response. It is pure emotion and a very nasty one at that. Lately we got a whiff of it at some of the Occupy protests.

On November 3rd, the Anti-Defamation League released a nationwide study that found that "anti-Semitic attitudes have risen slightly in America, demonstrating once again that 'anti-Semitic beliefs continue to hold a vice-grip' on a small but not insubstantial segment of America."

"The ADL survey found that 15 percent of Americans — nearly 35 million adults — hold deeply anti-Semitic views, an increase of 3 percent from a similar poll conducted in 2009, and matching the levels of anti-Semitic propensities recorded in the U.S. in 2005 and 2007." Even so, what passes for anti-Semitism today is not remotely comparable to earlier, pre-World War Two generations.

One of the lesser reported aspects of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been a strong element of anti-Semitism. Little wonder that it has been endorsed by the American Nazi Party and other extreme groups, both Left and Right.

As Abraham H. Foxman, the ADL National Director, noted, "The fact that anti-Semitic attitudes have increased significantly over the past two years is troubling and raises questions about the impact of broader trends in America — financial insecurity, social uncertainty, the decline in civility and the growth of polarization — on attitudes toward Jews."

For example, 19 percent of those polled answered "probably true" to the statement that "Jews have too much control/influence on Wall Street", an increase from 14 percent in 2009. This indicates that Jewish stereotypes remain strong; particularly claims that Jews control Wall Street and the media.

This reflects events and attitudes in Europe as well. In an article published in the UK newspaper, The Guardian, on November 6, Emine Bozkurt, a Dutch MEP who heads the anti-racism lobby at the European Parliament, was quoted saying that "We are at a crossroads in European history. In five year's time we will either see an increase in the forces of hatred and division in society, including ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism, or we will be able to fight this horrific tendency."

Thomas Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations, referring to the study, said, "As anti-Semitism was a unifying factor for far-right parties in the 1910s, 20s and 30s, Islamaphobia has become the unifying factor in the early decades of the 21st century."

The difference worth noting is that the Jews of Europe never had any intention of taking over those nations while Muslims have made it clear they want to impose Sharia law.

Kristallnacht 1938

November 9-10 is the anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1938 (the Night of Broken Glass) in which Jews and their synagogues suffered violent attacks throughout Germany, the recently annexed Sudetanland, in Hanover, and the free city of Danzig. It was the beginning of what would evolve into the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of Europe's Jews.

Some Jews, in response to Europe's entrenched anti-Semitism, joined the Zionist movement, beginning in the 1890s to create a Jewish homeland in Israel, moving there before the cataclysm of the Holocaust. At the time it was a protectorate of the British. Post-World War Two Holocaust survivors moved there and, in 1948 Israel declared its sovereignty. Thereafter, many Jews fled Middle Eastern nations for the sanctuary Israel provided and were later joined by Russian Jews fleeing the Soviet Union.

These days, the Holocaust-deniers in Iran openly boast of their intent to destroy Israel (and America) with the nuclear weapons they are developing.

The ADL report's findings are unpleasant, but hardly surprising. Anti-Semitism in America is a phenomenon of the fringes of political movements of the Far Right (neo-Nazis) and Far Left (Communists). In these times, however, Israel has no greater support than among American conservatives and evangelicals; Jews have no better friends. The American historian and scholar, Thomas Cahill, said, "The Jew gave us the Outside and the Inside — our outlook and our inner life. We can hardly get up in the morning or cross the street without being Jewish. We dream Jewish dreams and hope Jewish hopes. Most of our best words, in fact — new, adventure, surprise, unique, individual, person, vocation, time, history, future, freedom, progress, spirit, faith, hope, justice — are the gifts of the Jews."

Contact Richard Swier by email at and visit his website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Reuven Erlich, November 8, 2011.

The United States foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington using Quds Force, a Revolutionary Guards elite unit, the main instrument for subversion and terrorism outside of Iran. The plot indicates a growing readiness by the Iranian regime to take risks in its fight against the U.S.


Overview of the current state of affairs

1. On October 11, 2011, the U.S. Attorney General announced that a plot to murder Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, was foiled. Involved in the murder plot were a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen and a commander in Iran's Quds Force.[1]

2. According to documents filed to the New York federal court, the two suspects in planning the murder are Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri, both natives of Iran. Manssor Arbabsiar, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, was detained in New York's JFK International Airport on September 29. Gholam Shakuri, a top Quds Force operative who was Arbabsiar's handler, was apparently able to flee to Iran. The two were charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism and conspiracy to murder a foreign official.

3. According to a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives, the American administration has proof that Al-Jubeir's attempted murder was organized by high-ranking members of the Revolutionary Guards. American administration officials said that these members were "directed by elements of the Iranian government", but did not reveal any additional information. One of the members is Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, who was added to the list of specially designated global terrorists on October 11, 2011, when the administration exposed the affair. The reason given for his designation as a terrorist was that, as commander of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani "oversees the IRGC-QF officers who were involved in this plot".[2]

Major General Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force since 1998, in uniform. Left: Qassem Suleimani in a rare TV interview telling the story of a comrade who died in the Iran-Iraq War (Iran1 TV, March 18, 2007)

4. The indictment describes a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. After the plot was exposed, the media reported that the Iranians were subsequently planning to hit the Israeli embassy in Washington and the embassies of Israel and Saudi Arabia in Argentina. In response to the reports, Department of State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that there were no other targets other than that specified in the report, i.e., the assassination of the Saudi ambassador to the United States (Department of State website, October 13, 2011).

5. Since the press conference, the American administration has provided a wealth of details about the plot. U.S. President Barack Obama demanded answers from the government of Iran, saying that the facts of the plan were not in dispute. He said that the scheme involved the highest levels of the Iranian regime, ascribing it to a pattern of "reckless and dangerous" behavior by the government of Iran. The U.S. president promised effective American measures in response (AFP, October 13, 2011). The United States did take a series of diplomatic and practical measures following the incident (see below).


6. Subversion and terrorism led by the Quds Force are important instruments traditionally employed by Iran's policy since the Islamic regime came to power. The Quds Force is involved in a wide variety of covert activities outside the borders of Iran, including subversion, intelligence collection, and terrorism. The hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives offered examples of a number of terrorist activities and attacks carried out by Iranian agents against various targets, particularly in the Middle East, Europe, and South America.[3] According to the hearing, as of the 1980s, Iranian agents have been engaged in operations also in the United States. Such covert activities included assassinations of opponents and intelligence collection, so that the present incident is not the first of its kind.[4]

7. Past experience shows that the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Quds Force across the globe have been authorized by top officials in the Iranian regime. In this context, the most revealing "case study" was the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires (AMIA) in 1994, orchestrated by the top echelon of the Iranian regime, including its former president Ali Rafsanjani. Consequently, the Argentinean judge Rodolfo Canicoba issued international arrest warrants for seven Iranian senior officials and senior Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyeh. These officials included the president of Iran, the ministers of intelligence and defense, the foreign minister, the Revolutionary Guards chief, and the commander of the Quds Force. Obviously, such a decision could not have been made without the approval of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, but Argentina's judicial system preferred not to ask for an international arrest warrant for him.[5]

8. Saudi Arabia, the target of the current terrorist attack, has traditionally been a target of subversion and terrorism from Iran. In the past, this was exemplified by Iranian subversion in Saudi territory and in Saudi-oriented Persian Gulf states (such as Bahrain), and even attempts to assassinate Saudi officials abroad. It appears that Saudi Arabia's major role in the entry of a Gulf Cooperation Council force into Bahrain, viewed by Iran as its "backyard", served as a catalyst for the launch of the recent terrorist operations against Saudi Arabia. In this context, it should be mentioned that several months before the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Iran eliminated a Saudi diplomat in Pakistan (see below).

9. Targeting a Saudi diplomat in United States territory while risking the possibility of killing innocent Americans shows a great deal of daring on the part of the Quds Force and top officials in the Iranian regime. In our assessment, it is a good indication that they are willing to take substantial risks of complicating Iran's relations with the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the entire international community. The goal is to advance and expand the campaign waged by Iran against the United States and its allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, in which the Quds Force is the main executive instrument.

End Notes

1. Quds Force is one of the five wings of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. It is an elite unit established to create a well-organized environment for implementing the Iranian doctrine of "exporting the revolution" to the rest of the world. The Quds Force is involved in a wide variety of covert activities outside of Iran's borders, from the establishment of education systems and indoctrination to spread the ideology of the Islamic revolution in Iran, to conducting subversive activities against Iran's opponents in the Middle East and elsewhere, "dealing" with the regime's opponents, and directing terrorist and guerilla infrastructures. For further details, see our April 2, 2007 Information Bulletin: "Using the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards as the main tool to export the revolution beyond the borders of Iran".

2. Joint Hearing; U.S House of Representatives; Committee on Homeland Security; Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence; Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management; "Iranian Terror Operations on American Soil"; Testimony by Matthew Levitt, director, Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence; The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, October 26, 2011 (hereinafter: hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives).

3. Hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives, "Past Plots", pp. 2-8.

4. The hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives provides examples of Iranian intelligence and assassination operations in the United States ("Past Plots", pp. 2-8).

5. For details, see our November 14, 2006 Information Bulletin: "Argentina accuses Iran of responsibility for the Hezbollah terrorist attack which destroyed Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, 1994. The Argentinean Attorney General's office announced it had found Iran responsible for the terrorist attack and an Argentinean judge issued arrest warrants for seven senior Iranians and one senior Hezbollah member".

Dr. Reuven Erlich is Head of the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel. Its website address is This article is archived at malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ iran_e138.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, November 8, 2011.


Writer Tom Tugend in the November 2, 2011 edition of The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles relates the amazing story of a Warsaw Ghetto Uprising fighter
( los_angeles/article/tracking_a_ warsaw_ghetto_fighter_20111102/) said the following:

"One early revelation (to me) was that there were two main, separate Jewish organizations — and a couple of minor ones — fighting the Nazis in the (Warsaw) ghetto, based on the left- and right-wing loyalties of the Zionist youth organizations of the time. Apparently, to this day, adherents of these ideologies are loath to credit the "other" side with its contributions to the battle."

The day before Tugend's words appeared a book with the title Stern: The Man and His Gang by Zev Golan was published by Yair Publications in Israel.
(See his-Gang-Golan/dp/9659172400.) Tugend's words apply just as appropriately to the history of the Hagana, Palmach, Irgun and LEHI in their fight against the British in the Land of Israel.

For decades Israel's left-leaning academic establishment in Israel, as well as Jewish educators in the U.S., have tried to minimize the impact the Irgun and LEHI had on London's decision to end the British Mandate. The LEHI's story is finally getting the fair treatment it was denied for far too long.

Yair (Avraham) Stern was the founder and leader of the Stern Group (Gang) which is remembered in Israel as the LEHI (Fighters For the Freedom of Israel.) The LEHI Museum's publishing arm released the new English book by historian Zev Golan.

Golan is well-known as the author of the 2003 book Free Jerusalem: Heroes, Heroines and Rogues Who Created the State of Israel (Devora Publishing), which is available in English and should not be missed by those who want to know more about the Zionist Underground before Israel was a modern state.

Golan's The Shofars of the Revolt (publisher only in Hebrew) is about the men who from 1930 to 1947 bravely ignored British regulations against sounding the shofar at the Western Wall at the conclusion of Yom Kippur services. Golan's also produced a Hebrew book about the first hero to sound the shofar titled Awake O' Israel: the Life and Thought of the Late Rabbi Moshe Segal. Awake was also only published in Hebrew.

An English edition of The First Tithe (Ma'aser Rishon) translated by Zev Golan was published in 2008. It is Dr. Israel Eldad's memoirs of Israel's battle for freedom from Britain. Eldad was one of the three commanders of the LEHI that shared the leadership of the LEHI after the assassination of Yair Stern by the British army in 1942.

Golan is American-born Zionist historian and Stern: The Man and His Gang is full of important lessons from Zionism's untold history. It seems like a culmination of sorts of all of his previous output.

Some of the features that make this six chapter softbound book so engaging are:

-- The story of Stern's life is presented as it has never appeared in English; with anecdotes, translated Stern poems and a full portrait of the leader, his ideas and his motivations.

-- There is a full chapter of biographical sketches of over a dozen famous and not so famous LEHI soldiers. This exceptionally inspiring portion of the book is over 60 pages. These histories are organized in a very readable way. There are large amounts of information in this chapter that has never been available before to English readers.

-- Golan includes a comprehensive timeline of LEHI's operations. Again this is something that was never published in English before.

-- The author has produced a well-thought out questions and answers section that teachers will find especially useful for classroom use.

The book is a compelling narrative and even readers with a limited knowledge of the larger subject of Israeli / Zionist history will both enjoy it and find it accessible.

With this addition to his prior body of work, Golan has done more to safeguard the history and ideas of the heroic soldiers who fought to create a modern, independent Jewish commonwealth than any other writer of this generation.

Golan's work over the last eight years has had the intensity of a man on a mission. And his readers are the true beneficiaries of the fruits of this mission.

The soldiers of the LEHI were passionate Zionists who understood the higher ideals for which they fought. Their words and deeds of long ago are continuing to inspire many young people in Israel today. These young Israelis understand that knowledge and appreciation of LEHI's history and philosophy are critical to the future of the Jewish State. With Golan's book, American readers can be inspired as well. Moshe Phillips is the president of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's website is at: Moshe's blog can be found at and he Tweets at

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 8, 2011.

This was written by Hagit Riterman and it appeared in Hebrew on November 4, 2011 in Makor Rishon


600,000 Israelis live in the Beersheba metropolitan area. Last Monday evening I was driving into Beersheba, listening to a song on the radio. Through the window I noticed a young girl running fast and looking scared, not sure where she was going. Suddenly I saw that all the cars ahead of me had stopped in the middle of the street. Their occupants were getting out and running. I understood — the air raid sirens.

I ran with the others to take shelter between two buildings. There were women there hugging the concrete walls. Some were crouched down, and one was shaking. Other sat on the ground. Then someone shouted, "Look up!" and I saw them in the sky. Two bright lights, like balls of fire with tails, almost white, flying in an arch in the sky, coming from afar. I thought they were about to land next to us, but the Grad rockets continued to fly and passed over our heads.

We heard explosions and later learned that the Iron Dome missile defense system succeeded in shooting down the two rockets that were aimed at the center of the city. When I saw the two rockets flying in the air, heading towards us, seconds before they passed overhead, I understood so well the fear that people here are now living with. We're not soldiers in wartime, we're the civilian population. And in the middle of an ordinary day, during a routine drive down the street, suddenly you see a rocket flying in your direction.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Laura, November 8, 2011.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield and it is archived on his website at utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&


It's still quite a while till Valentine's Day in the United States, but in Pakistan the day of love came early as a Romeo named Ahmed Yusuf threw acid in the face of his 9 year old Juliet, his wife/cousin causing extensive burns over her body.

Ahmed Yusuf couldn't have known any better. Throwing acid at a woman in Pakistan is their culture's version of roses and chocolate. And since he was only 10 years old, his father and brothers were happy to help out.

After the father who had married off a 9 year old girl to her 10 year old cousin noticed the acid burns, which the family tried to pass off as a skin condition, he earned a "Father of the Year" trophy by taking her back home, but that didn't dissuade his brother and nephews who showed up and thew acid on her again.

Now the acid burned girl and father are on the run with the Pakistani police in hot pursuit because the local law favors turning the girl back to her husband. The whole thing might end in an honor-killing or charges of adultery, a term that in the Muslim world covers everything from marrying without a father's permission to being gang raped in an alley.

What could a 9 year old girl possibly have done that would result in multiple acid attacks from her own uncle/father-in-law and her child husband? The answer is simple. She was a 9 year old girl in a culture where weakness only inspires cruelty, where animals are routinely tortured and people are treated like animals.

This whole lovely scene took place in Faisalbad, one of Pakistan's largest cities built up by the British as Lyallpur after Sir James Lyall that was later renamed Faisalbad, after King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The new name is far more fitting than the old, Lyall for all his faults was not known to rape and torture nine year old girls.

Quite a lot of Pakistan is named after that old Saudi prune, who was a backer of its Islamist ruling thug, General Haq and his Hudood laws which made any woman bringing a rape complaint guilty of adultery. 9 out of 10 female prisoners in Pakistani jails are there under the Hoodud laws.

When Faisal was finally put down by one of his own nephews who had gone to Berkeley, dropped acid and decided that maybe modernization was the way to go, he left behind a legacy of Saudi power used to leverage Islamism around the world.

When the defenders of the Tunisian and Libyan regimes who are rushing to eliminate all family laws that contradict Sharia explain that "Political Islam is a necessary gateway for Middle East democracy", what they really mean is that you have to break a lot of 9 year old girls to make a democratic omelet.

Don't fear the Islamists in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Turkey and Libya. They're well intentioned folks who want democracy. A democracy under which 9 year old girls are property to be bought and sold by the acclamation of the voters, who just happen to be doing the buying and selling.

Saddam may have had his rape rooms and Mubarak's thugs may have assaulted women, but under the Islamists every house has its rape room and every marriage is an assault.

Men like Austria's Josef Fritzl or America's Phillip Garrido are not an aberration under Islam. They are the norm, as mainstream as a white picket fence and chapel. And as Islam becomes mainstream in the West, the end of the protection extended to children is also coming to an end. It was a long battle to raise the age of consent in the UK with the Criminal Law Amendment Act in the 19th century, but as London turns to Londonistan, it will go the way of female rulers, cartoons and ham sandwiches.

There are plenty of love stories like these coming out of Faisalbad. A 12 year old girl was sold off in marriage to an 82 year old man, whose third wife he had murdered by the girl's father. The father got out of jail and got five acres of land, and a girl who in America would be going trick or treating ended up in a nightmare that her American counterparts could not even begin to imagine.

As the 82 year old landlord put it, he was "owed a wife" and it doesn't much matter where you get the wife from. Since his murdered third wife had been a cousin of her murderer, it was all kept in the family. The only good news here is that he might be too arthritic to throw acid in her face.

According to the police no laws were broken, "because the girl is an adult as per Islamic Law and Shariah. She is 12-years-old and that is not too young for marriage" Being an adult doesn't mean that she can get married on her own, or drive a car or vote– it just means she's eligible to be raped every night by an 82 year old man. That's the only adult status allotted to Muslim women.

Don't get the idea that Pakistani law enforcement is completely useless. When a 5 year old was married off, they did intervene to the bafflement of the fellow who was sanctifying the love match. "This marriage is allowed in Islam and it is not against the law." And he does have a point. The prophet of Islam married a 7 year old, though he may have waited as long as two years before sexually assaulting her.

The difference between a 5 year old, a 7 year, a 9 year old and a 12 year old is one of those things that you have to be an Imam to properly understand. What did it matter that, "the child had no idea what was happening. She didn't know she had gotten married or that her father was also getting married to her new sister-in-law." Aisha was playing with dolls until her father traded her for a top spot in Mo's brand new religion. The nameless 5 year old girl's father traded her for a marriage to her husband's sister.

Why does all this matter to us? Pakistan isn't just over there, it's over here. Jessie Bender, a 13 year old girl from California, ran away before she was set to be taken to Pakistan and married off by her mother's Pakistani boyfriend. How many other girls like her never got the chance to run away? How many of them weren't 13 but 9 or 7 or 5?

We're not discussing the quaint customs of some distant country anymore, as Islam grows the tribal savagery of a land where little girls are bought and sold right here in our backyard by people whose religion tells them that women are chattel.

What does a 13 year old American girl go for in Pakistan? Three thousand dollars. You might want to remember that number the next time another episode of Mosque on the Prairie airs or an expert says that we shouldn't fear the rise of political Islam in Libya or Tunisia or London. The next time you see a cheerful news report on a local Muslim community celebrating Eid, remember the number.

Three thousand dollars or three thousand lives, it doesn't matter much. Once we agree to let Islam in then all the talk about moderates and standards is a matter of setting the price. The question is do we want to bargain for the lives and rights of our children?

Contact Laura at

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, November 7, 2011.

Last week, Jordan's new prime minister Awn Khasawneh boldly announced that Jordan's 1999 decision to deport leaders of the Palestinian jihadist group Hamas was a political mistake and a violation of the constitution. With U.S. regional influence in decline and Jordanian stability on the line, the London-based Arabic daily al-Quds al-Arabi now reports that Abdullah's new government is set to welcome Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal for an official visit in the near future.

The Khasawneh government has been reaching out to other Hamas leaders, too, including Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza. Some reports even indicate that Hamas would like to transfer its headquarters back to Amman, particularly since the unrest in Syria has made it harder for the group to operate there.

Khasawneh's rapprochement with the Palestinian terrorist group is an attempt to woo the Islamic Action Front (IAF), Jordan's arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, into a government coalition. The IAF is a powerful force in Jordan. Khasawneh understands that appeasing the Islamist group may help preserve the Hashemite Kingdom.

Protestors have filed into Jordan's streets — just as they have in much of the rest of the Arab world — demanding reform. And while these protests pale in comparison to those of Libya or Tunisia or Egypt, the chants are growing louder.

When the Arab spring began earlier this year, King Abdullah understood that his prognosis was poor. He quickly tried to shuffle his cabinet by appointing a new prime minister, Maroud al-Bakhit, a political insider with little credibility as a reformer.

But Abdullah's small and symbolic changes failed to appease the IAF. The Islamist group's populist appeal — characterized by anti-Western, anti-Israeli rhetoric — has only grown in recent months.

After only nine months of presiding over his new regime, Abdullah abruptly dismissed Bakhit and his cabinet last month, created a new government, and is promising reforms leading to new election laws and government accountability.

Abdullah named Khasawneh, a former advisor to his late father, as the new head of the Jordanian government. Khasawneh, a veteran of Jordan's foreign service and a jurist at the International Court of Justice, is certainly not uniquely qualified to deliver the representative government that Jordanians demand. Thus, despite the shake-up, and despite the king's additional promises of reform, the IAF refused to join the new government.

The IAF is demanding nothing less than reforms that would unleash Islamist undercurrents Amman has repressed since at least 1989, when the IAF won 22 out of 80 seats in the legislative elections, making it the biggest winner in the Jordanian parliament's lower house.

The late King Hussein, Abdullah's father, successfully contain the IAF's power until the next election in 1993, when he altered the laws to limit the number of seats it could win. But while the laws held IAF in check, they never diminished the appeal of the Brotherhood's ideology. Hussein died in February 1999, leaving his young son to contend with the challenges he had deferred.

In November 1999, just months after his father died, Abdullah deported Meshal, along with other Hamas leaders. The move was a confirmation that Jordan was committed to weakening the Islamists and strengthening the country's peace agreement with Israel, signed in 1994, in exchange for economic and security guarantees from the United States.

Last week's announcement of the Jordanian outreach to Hamas was a jarring change in tone and policy. The regime is now yielding on ideology because it cannot deliver on real political change, which would weaken its ability to maintain control of this fragile country.

But these populist appeasements will only last so long. Last month, Abdullah promised his people (yet again) that Jordan would move toward a more representative parliament. If and when Jordan becomes truly representative, the rise of Islamist forces is a foregone conclusion.

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 This article is archived at 10660/jordan-tries-rapprochement- with-hamas

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 6, 2011.

In the next several days, and so I let my readers know that there will be a break in my posting. I regret the fact that this break might coincide with matters of some significance, but sometimes family matters must take precedence.

Please, do not write and ask me if everything is OK. I appreciate your concern, but tell you now that it is.

In fact, I ask all of you who are in the habit of writing to me/sending me material on a frequent basis to send me no e-mails until I've started posting again and it is obvious the hiatus is ended. Thank you!


A thank you as well to those who caught the typo in my last posting: Iran did NOT send out warships to accompany the flotilla.

That flotilla of two boats was boarded after the boats refused to alter their path towards Gaza. Navy ships escorted the flotilla to the Ashdod port and "activists" on board are being deported to their home countries. The Navy will examine the contents of the boats and any humanitarian goods will be sent on to Gaza.

It should all be so easy.


The double focus in the news right now is on the PA and Iran.

Mahmoud Abbas reminds me a bit of a cornered animal (I'm using that analogy here because it's so apt, although I don't like to compare terrorists to animals, as the terrorists are worse). The more things fail to go his way, the more he strikes out: the harsher the condemnation of Israel, the greater his efforts to do Israel damage, and the more strident the declarations of what he will accomplish.

The PA — at the bidding of Ban Ki-Moon — decided not to apply to other UN agencies following its victory at UNESCO, but its member in UNESCO will be utilized to the hilt.

What Abbas intends here is directly in line with his original intention with regard to involving the UN — make no mistake about it. He had made it clear from the start that this was not just about declaring a state, but, rather, "internationalizing" the issues in order to better delegitimize Israel.

So now, as a member of UNESCO, the PA wants to take Israel to court for "systematically destroying...Arab and Islamic culture in Jerusalem," and for "stealing Arab and Islamic antiquities and assaulting Islamic and Christian holy sites."

Sigh... more trouble. Of course this is precisely the reverse of what actually transpires in the Old City of Jerusalem. While Israel is respectful of all religions in its archeological work, the Wakf, on the Temple Mount, did extensive excavations that dug up ancient Hebrew artifacts, and threw them in a garbage dump.


Yesterday, on the first day of the Islamic feast of Id al-Adha, Abbas told reporters that:

"The fierce Israeli onslaught against our people and leadership intensified...after we went to the UN. But we will continue and we don't care about anyone."

"We don't care about anyone." Is President Obama listening?

Abbas expressed the hope that by the next Id al-Adha, the "whole Palestinian territories" — which, I quite assure you, does NOT mean just the land beyond the Green Line — and Jerusalem will have been "liberated."


As to the UN, the betting from this corner now is that ultimately Israel will have to move militarily.

Yesterday, Defense Minister Barak gave an interview for BBC, in which he said that:

"We strongly believe that sanctions...could be effective if they are paralyzing enough, that diplomacy would work if there is enough unity." (Emphasis added)

But he added:

"No option should be removed from the table. The Iranian challenge is serious. This is something that should be prevented from happening." (Emphasis added)


But now the Obama administration seems to be backpedaling with regard to sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, even though experts say sanctions there have the best chance of actually stopping Iran.

The problem is that, when push comes to shove, there is — contrary to reports I saw last week — scant support for sanctions against Iran's bank in the European community. The EU does 25 billion euros in trade with Iran and some of this involves the CBI. There is fear that clamping down will "jolt" fragile markets. (Emphasis added)

Well, by all means, put the price of oil and other markets ahead of the risk of a nuclear Iran. They have no idea, or prefer not to consider, what will happen to "markets" if Iran does achieve nuclear capability.

And when we go in and do what has to be done, we are the ones who will be condemned.

What breathtaking fools these mortals be!!


Let me end this subject with an upbeat Dry Bones:

Fits right in here, does it not?


The challenge to the US government with regard to listing Jerusalem, Israel on US passports of citizens born in Jerusalem will be heard by the Supreme Court today. It will be some days until the Court rules.

See a discussion on the issue here: 2011/11/04/jerusalem-israel-obama- supreme-court/

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Serio HaDaR Tezza, November 6, 2011.
Shavu'a Tov! Gute Woch!

The lack of faithfulness to the symbols of Israel is servilism towards the goyim as its consequence: today it brings the government to renounce, without having any right to do so, to our Israel's HERITAGE, that is Torah and the land of Israel [see Parashath Va`erà e Parashath VeZoth HaBberakhàh and article.php3?id=5019>], and to remove the Stars of David from our ambulances — which might seem something minor but it is of an unheard gravity!...

No so strange, considering that a certain Israeli left and its Arab allies do not want a Jewish State, they want to eliminate HaTikvàh, our National Anthem, they want to eliminate the Star of DAvid from our flag...

It is however an old problem, dating at least since when the representatives of what traitor Josephus Flavius called "the philosophy of peace" (see: an incredible resource book with references to and quotes from most of our sources) refused to unite in front of the foreigners (refusal that the Torah calls "baseless hatred", the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and of the destruction of our Beth HaMiqdash about 100 years later) and called for, instead, the "peace-making" intervention of Pompei's Roman Legions in 66 B.C.E., Romans who became their allies in repressing the Jewish patriots, the so-called "zealots", who had the support of the greatest Chakhamim and of the majority of the People, and about whom the same representative of the "philosophy of peace" did not miss any opportunity to report the worse lies.

This was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared in Arutz-7
( News/News.aspx/149472). It is entitled 'Star of David will Not Bow before the Cross'.

Grassroots Judea and Samaria groups are fighting Magen David Adom over removal of the Jewish Star from ambulances.


Sticker on MDA truck (Samaria Residents' Council)

Magen David Adom (MDA) emergency services volunteers are going on partial strike to protest the removal of the Star of David from MDA vehicles in Judea and Samaria. The grassroots Samaria Residents' Council accuses MDA of systematically removing the Jewish symbol from vehicles in preparation for an upcoming inspection by the International Red Cross.

The Residents' Councils in Samaria and Binyamin have supplied volunteers with stickers that are placed on the vehicles and which recreate the Star of David insignia as it appeared before its removal. Volunteers have been placing the stickers on vehicles in MDA stations at South Har Hevron, Kiryat Arba, Hevron, Efrat, Binyamin and Shomron.

In addition, Samaria volunteers have decided to stop showing up at the Yarkon Station for volunteer shifts, to stop volunteering for "alert shifts" and to no longer evacuate patients to hospitals in non life-threatening cases.

The Chairman of the Samaria Residents' Council, Benny Katzover, said: "The demand to remove the Star of David is tantamount to removing the flag of the state of Israel. It is unthinkable that we in Samaria will lend a hand to a move, the meaning of which is that the Israeli flag is bowing down before the cross. I call upon all Zionists to rebel in every way against MDA's surrender to the International Red Cross."

Sergio Tessa can be reached at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 5, 2011.

FROM: "Column One: Delegitimizing the delegitimizers" by Caroline B.
The Jerusalem Post
November 4, 2011

"The only way to defeat those who deny our rights to our land, our > > nationhood and our history is to expose their corruption, and their > > hateful intentions towards the Jewish people ..... UNESCO's acceptance of "Palestine" demonstrates that Netanyahu's chosen policy is misguided."

Fat Nettie's policies are not misguided, they're stupid. He behaves like a beaten dog with his tail between his legs because he IS a beaten dog and you must quickly understand that dogs must be muzzled and leashed and kicked in the right direction which is where the Patriots of Israel must lead him. The only acceptable destination is the forthright restoration to Israel of all the Jewish Homelands stolen from the Jews by the dirty Britz and the bribed State Dept. flunkies and the soiled ghetto Jews who, like the Clintons and Shimon Peres, love money more than the land that nourished them. in short, it is our considered opinion that Fat Nettie would be grateful to the Patriots if they forced him to behave like a man instead of a dog. Nettie does not like "taking charge" ... he blows hard and predictably crumbles.

As for the Bow-down man, being the muslim that he is, Bow-down respects only superior will and superior force ... and pots full of money and pleasure.

Delegitimizing the delegitimizers is a noble task. Go for it!

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, November 5, 2011.

On that date in 1917 the Balfour Declaration was signed. This significant event set in motion the legal process that declared Israel as the National Home of the Jewish People.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

In these days of delegitimisation against Israel, I can understand why the Palestinians kept quiet about this date, but why didn't Jewish and pro-Israel organisations worldwide celebrate this milestone event?

Aren't they the ones who should be promoting Israel's legitimacy?

What does that tell you about the current state of international advocacy for Israel?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lemkin Realty, November 5, 2011.

This was written by the Jerusalem Post Staff and it is archived at


Former Shin Bet director says Israel should take control of Strip for several years to dismantle terror organizations.

Former Shin Bet Director Avi Dichter said Saturday that Israel should recapture the Gaza Strip, Army Radio reported.

According to Dichter, Israel needs to retake control of the strip for a period of several years in order to vanquish terror organizations.

An operation on the order of 2008's cast lead would not be sufficient, Dichter said.

Last week, terrorist organizations in the Gaza strip launched over 40 rockets onto Israeli towns in the South, killing one civilian.

Contact Lemkin Realty by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, November 4, 2011.

This was written by Robin Shepherd and it appeared in Mail and Guardian Online. It is archived at the-russell-tribunal-on-palestine- dishonours-victims-of-apartheid

Maurice Ostroff wrote to Robin Shepherd "Kudos for your cogent and forceful article. It is a welcome change, addressing as it does, reason, as opposed to the many emotional and misinformed arguments one encounters daily from people who should know better."

Robin Shepherd is the author of A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel. He is director of international affairs at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think-tank.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this weekend's Russell Tribunal on Palestine, which will designate Israel an "apartheid" state as sure as night follows day, is precisely that it is taking place in South Africa.


Let's face it, the form and the content — it will have "witnesses" to "Israeli apartheid" and at the end of it the "jury" will "set out its conclusions" — are a joke, though one made in decidedly poor taste.

It's a kangaroo court. It's run by the usual suspects. And the whole affair would be unremarkable to the point of being boring if it wasn't for that one tiny, yet depressing, little detail — its location, Cape Town.

For, make no mistake about it, the attempt to smear the world's only Jewish state (and only the world's only Jewish state) with a label designed to leverage hatred and disdain is not merely to put oneself in the company of some of the most bigoted campaigners in the world. It is simultaneously to insult the memory of apartheid South Africa's victims by adopting a strategy that inevitably sanitises the word "apartheid" itself.

The point is simple, though it is worrying, bizarre even, that tribunal participants such as Desmond Tutu apparently need it explained to them. But anti-Israeli hysteria is what it is. So, here goes.

The animating idea behind apartheid was white supremacy. Apartheid could not have been invented as a concept unless it had been underpinned by the notion that white people were superior to black people. That is what made it so abhorrent. No amount of dissembling from apartheid's apologists that it was merely about separate development could disguise the fact that the system was racist to the core.

To attack Israel by using the word "apartheid" is therefore to deracialise a racist concept, and it runs the risk of inviting anyone who visits, or truly understands, Israel to say that if this is apartheid, apartheid must have been a perfectly reasonable system. Hendrik Verwoerd will laugh from the depths of hell.

To be fair, some of the more cunning operators inside the Israeli-apartheid brigade are aware of this.

Changing tack

They know that no Israeli leader has ever believed that Jews are racially superior to Arabs. They know that Arabs vote just like Jews do, and that Arabs sit in the Israeli Parliament. They know that Arabs and Jews can ride in the same buses, lie on the same beaches, and eat at the same restaurants.

So they have to change tack. Apartheid does not exist in Israel proper, they concede, but, in the literal sense of the word's meaning, it does exist between Jews and Arabs in the West Bank in the form of "separateness" in dwellings and transport.

It's a desperate last stand. The only reason for separate roads and dwelling is security, and everyone knows it regardless of what one may think about the settlements. To put it bluntly, Palestinian terrorists will kill Jews in the West Bank if they can. Israel has simply responded by erecting obstacles in the terrorists' way.

But enough already. It's time to stop participating in a fiction. The fact is that nobody believes Israel is an "apartheid" state. I'm certain that Tutu doesn't believe it. Not even Hamas believes it.

The truth is that word and meaning are not meant to go together in this instance. And, when you think about it, in politics, the general phenomenon is not unusual.

Many leftwingers in Britain in the 1980s, for example, habitually called Margaret Thatcher a "fascist". But none of them, not one, truly thought she was taking the country in the direction of Benito Mussolini's Italy. They were simply throwing mud.

In Israel itself, the very word "apartheid" has occasionally been used by prominent politicians against the policies of their opponents. But they don't mean it literally. It's just a dig, a cheap shot. Politics, in other words.

To be sure, when anti-Israel campaigners use it, the term "apartheid" is much more than that. The word in this case is a weapon designed to isolate the Jewish state and inspire a global campaign similar to the one that helped to bring down the previous regime in South Africa.

In so far as one is looking for meaning, that's all there is to it.

Not Jewish myself, I have been studying this seemingly unending hate campaign against one small Middle Eastern country for years. The ranting and the raving are the same more or less everywhere, and the charade in Cape Town won't be any different.

But, as I have indicated, all it does is add an extra layer of depravity that a bunch of South Africans are prepared to dishonour the memory of apartheid's victims while prosecuting what is already a thoroughly dishonourable campaign.

Contact GWY at

To Go To Top

Posted by Billy Mills, November 4, 2011.

What died at Auschwitz? Received from a friend and had to read it twice. I find the Spanish author sees much more of where this World 'was' and is going than 'most'. This is 'thought provoking' to say the least. What's your feelings?

This is worth serious thought. I know this does not fit all Muslims, most of whom are peaceful and law-abiding citizens, but I do believe that all too many Muslims would cheer at the thought of another 9/11. When I see these people on TV, parading in the streets of Britain and France with their placards of hate, blocking the streets and kneeling to pray with no regard for others, or for the law, I feel that they would have no qualms about forcing their insane religion and Sharia Law on others, if they had the power. The fact that Britain even considered taking the Holocaust out of their school curriculum, so as not to offend the Muslims, is enough to make me wonder what will happen in North America if Islamists become a significant percentage of the population here. I'm glad I will not be around to see the day.

The following is a translation of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe — and possibly to the rest of the world.


"I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth — Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world.

These are the people we burned. And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe ."

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated.' Now, more than ever, with Iran among others claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States?

Connect Billy Mills by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, November 4, 2011.

This was written by Bradley Burston, and it appeared in Haaretz a-special-place-in-hell/what-does- death-to-israel-mean-to-you-1.393497

Burston writes: "If progressives cannot see Israelis as people, if they — we — cannot summon up the same compassion and concern for unarmed combatants on both sides of a battle front, it's time they checked their ideology for holes."


My daughter went to school this morning worried about her civics exam. She came home worried about explosive warheads.

As of this week, she's in range.

Pro-Palestinian activists hold anti-Israel banners during a protest in New York, September 15, 2011 (Tracy Levy).

Her school is now within reach of rockets that travel farther and with far more deadly payloads than the weapons we knew just a short time ago. With blasts strong enough to shatter apartment windows seven stories in the air.

My daughter is an unarmed noncombatant. That should matter. It should matter, in particular, to progressives who believe, and justly so, that the inalienable rights of human beings, children in particular, take clear precedence over the strategic designs of nation-states and the appetites of nationalism.

It should matter, as well, when progressives turn a blind eye to war crimes committed against Israel — or, for that matter, to war crimes committed by Syria against Syrians. The assumption is that Israel's crimes are of such Third Reich magnitude, that anti-civilian violence committed by its enemies is either negligible or justified.

I'll grant that it may be easier to see things this way from a distance. Say, the greater Akron, Ohio area, where last week Kent State history professor Julio Pino stormed out of a lecture given by Israeli diplomat Ishmail Khaldi — the first Bedouin Arab to serve in Israel's foreign service — shouting "Death to Israel."

Prof. Pino did not explain what he meant by death to Israel. Nor did Utah attorney Robert Breeze, when Salt Lake City granted him a municipal permit to stage a 14-hour "Death to Israel" rally in Salt Lake City in 2006.

Closer to home, though, where the Islamic Jihad's calls of "Death to Israel" come wrapped in Iranian steel and 40 pounds of explosives, the message is sharp as shrapnel: a call for genocide.

"Death to Israel" means death to Israelis. It means death to the members of my family. Like many in Israel, a family which has long worked hard and consistently and intensively for the rights of Palestinians, Muslims and Christians alike, to live in safety and sovereignty in a country of their own. What we want for ourselves is no less just. It is, in fact, the very same: freedom to live in safety and sovereignty.

I'll grant also that for some progressives, it may all come down to a question of numbers. I wonder how — or if — Pino relates to the death last weekend of Moshe Ami, the father and grandfather killed by an Islamic Jihad rocket, put to death on the streets of Ashkelon for the crime of Driving While Israeli.

Pino may see disproportionality and injustice in the fact that only one Israeli died in the rocket attacks, while army air strikes in Gaza killed at least 10 members of the Islamic Jihad and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, several of them while in the act of firing rockets at southern and now central Israel.

It should matter that Israel took pains to spare Palestinian civilians in these raids. It should matter, just as the wrongheaded, ultimately self-destructive excess and civilian casualties of past operations have mattered to those who justly condemned them.

It should matter that the Islamic Jihad, Iran's direct foothold in Palestine, knows precisely what Death to Israel means. As does Iran.

What is this country that Julio Pino and Robert Breeze believe deserves to die? They may think they know Israel. They may think this is one huge, Arab-loathing, mass-murdering, land-thieving plague of an illegitimate entity.

It is certainly easier on the political conscience to see us this way.

But if progressives cannot see Israelis as people, if they — we — cannot summon up the same compassion and concern for unarmed combatants on both sides of a battle front, it's time they checked their ideology for holes.

The country that Pino and Breeze want to see eradicated is far more complex and worthwhile than they want to consider. It is a country in which a clear majority of the population, battered by wars and terrorism and heartbreak and frustration, still wants to see negotiations leading to a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and an end to occupation.

My daughter's civics teacher, who teaches her class about the natural rights of all peoples to liberty and security, gives extra credit to students for going to demonstrations and protests.

You can be sure that each one of those pupils, left, right or center, knows exactly what "Death to Israel" means. Not one of them, left, right or center, will stand for it. Not one of them should.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, November 4, 2011.

UNESCO has a long history of Jew-hatred. It will only get worse. They have long range plans and Israel must make them irrelevant.


After halting its annual fees to the UN's cultural agency, the State of Israel should suspend any cooperation with UNESCO.

The United Nations' body just simply decided to give the Palestinians full membership and that's quite enough.

Jerusalem will not risk any isolation, since it's already a pariah in the UN and the word "Jew" has become, once again, an accepted insult in the global square.

UNESCO's next steps are under Israel's nose: very soon the Temple Mount, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Joseph's Tomb, Rachel's Tomb, the Shalom al Israel synagogue and the Cave of the Patriarchs will be designated as "mosques" by the UN's agency.

Israel's passive policy helped the Palestinians win the UNESCO race and allowed the "rewriting the history of Palestine", as Hamdan Taha, director of the Palestinian Antiquities Department, explained last summer.

If Israel will continue to ignore this horrible blood libel, there are no chances to stop the Islamic revisionism supported by the West (France just voted for the Palestinians at UNESCO). All Islamic nations will soon band together again to work against the Jewish people at the UN.

After leaving UNESCO, the State of Israel should also set up a campaign of public diplomacy to explain how the United Nations became a corrupted and anti-Semitic forum and a tool of the Islamic bloc against the Jewish people.

The precedent of a similar boycott of Israel is the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The very idea of Israeli hopes of UNESCO's good faith was inane, especially given the organization's long record of anti-Jewish hatred. UNESCO's intifada goes back to November 20, 1974, when under Arab pressure, UNESCO voted to exclude Israel from any regional group.

During the 90's, then-UNESCO director-general Frederico Mayor boycotted all the international conferences in Jerusalem and UNESCO's officials always refused to meet with Israeli officials.

In 2005, when the United Nations celebrated its 50th anniversary, UNESCO refused to include the Holocaust in its World War II resolution, intentionally ignoring Israel's request to include a reference to the destruction of European Jewry.

In July 2000, Yasser Arafat insisted to Bill Clinton at Camp David that "no Jewish temple ever existed". This blood libel will become UNESCO's next mantra. Just think about what PA cleric Sheikh Taissir Tamimi said about the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron: "It's a pure mosque, which Jewish presence defiles".

Slapping history squarely in the face, last year UNESCO adopted Tamimi's propaganda and declared that Rachel's Tomb and Hebron's Cave are "Muslim mosques".

In 2009 UNESCO designated Jerusalem as the "capital of Arab culture", a false claim now finding fertile ground even outside the Islamic world. The Dutch government, through UNESCO, just donated 300,000 euros to the Palestinian Authority, meant to finance excavations near Joseph's Tomb, fourth on thelist of Judaism's holiest sites.

Last year, the UNESCO report on science forcibly converted to Islam the Jewish physician Maimonides, calling him "Moussa ben Maimoun".

Through the UNESCO membership, the Palestinians are trying to put together a case to take Israel to the International Court of Justice to condemn the Israeli excavations in Jerusalem as "war crimes and crimes against humanity". This is the most severe calumny that was directly connected to the deaths of dozens of Israelis and Palestinians during the so-called "Western Wall Tunnel riots" of 1995.

In recent years, UNESCO increased its collaboration with ISESCO, the cultural body of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Ever since the Wakf accelerated its wholesale destruction of artifacts on the Temple Mount back in 1996, when it surreptitiously built a new mosque in Solomon's Stables, UNESCO has remained remarkably silent, not once condemning the Palestinian Authority for its desecration of the site.

Indeed, UNESCO does not even recognize Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. The organization has called for financial sanctions against Israel, passed hundreds of resolutions demonizing Israel's activities in Judea and Samaria and denounced Israel's efforts to restore holy sites in Jerusalem. By gratifying UNESCO, Israel will only boost the Palestinian cultural Intifada.This is an historical battle that Israel can win with the support of Westerners who still care about the fate of their civilization.

But the Jews have to stop playing according their enemies' guillotine.

Giulio Meotti is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at This appeared in Arutz-Sheva Articles/Article.aspx/10792

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, November 4, 2011.

Hamas footage of missiles being fired from Gaza towards Israel

No, the terror will continue so long as Israel and the IDF merely retaliates against each and every separate Muslim Arab crime against the Jewish state's civilian population. As one person, commenting on a blog, stated: "Israel's taking out a few rocket launchers is like giving aspirin for cancer. It's only a band aid — not a cure."

These last few days, Israeli cities and villages have been bombarded with dozens of Grad and other missiles from Gaza; lethal weapons, many brought in from Libya. Last Wednesday, October 26, 2011, a Grad rocket brought into Gaza from one of Gaddafi's looted weapons stockpiles, was fired into an Israeli town.This began a relentless daily barrage.

There was no Israeli response until the following Saturday when a gang of Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists were spotted preparing to launch several more Grad missiles at Israeli civilian targets. They were killed and the Grads and their multi-barreled launchers destroyed before they could be fired.

Predictably, the mainstream media attacked the victim, Israel. The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times all blamed Israel during this latest unprovoked Palestinian attack, giving the usual pass to the terrorists. This twisting of the truth must give great joy and comfort to the ghost of Josef Goebbels; Nazi Germany's Minister of Propaganda.

But if the Israeli government does not inflict far, far more intensely painful responses to the terror bosses of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the human cockroaches who infest the Gaza Strip, then the missiles will continue to strike at southern and central Israel with increasing lethality and horror.

The Israel Defense Force (IDF) produces charts and graphs showing the ever increasing capabilities and destructiveness of the terrorists' weapons caches. The deadly flow of Grad missiles entering Gaza — with Egyptian complicity — from the looted arms stores of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya exposes the real meaning of the Arab Spring.

The so-called rebels, who were aided by NATO, are not the democratic loving folks who Hillary Clinton and her boss, Barack Hussein Obama, claimed them to be.

Along with all the European heads of state who gleefully joined in the lust for Libyan oil that masked their hollow claims of bringing democracy to Libya, Clinton and Obama have unleashed a Muslim Pandora's Box, which will create in the Maghreb (North Africa) an Islamist, Jihadist and Sharia compliant wave that will eventually engulf Morocco and Algeria. It will extend west to Mauritania and its loathsome tentacles will then reach south beyond the Sahel and into equatorial Africa.

Like Hillary's and Bill's destruction of the Serbs, which allowed the ancient Serbian heartland of Kosovo to become a Muslim beach-head in the Balkans, so too Hillary's and Obama's misguided policies — under the guise of an Arab Spring — have plunged the world into an endless and perilous cycle of violence in which untold horrors will plague the entire globe.

The Islamic tide is rising. With every foreign policy misstep by the Obama Administration and the grotesque mishandling of her term as Secretary of State at the State Department, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are emboldening the Islamists in their aim of a creating a worldwide Caliphate.

Nowhere has their ideological foolishness and political ineptitude been more glaring than in their relentless obsession with what they call Israeli "settlements." They even go as far as to denounce the construction of homes within Jerusalem's city limits as "impediments to the peace process." Again Palestinian Arab terror, the real impediment to peace, is cynically ignored.

Grad rocket exploded in Ashdod car parking.

Jerusalem, north, south, east and west is Israel's capital. It was her capital city 3,000 years ago — millennia before the United States was created and Clinton and Obama came to power.

Judea and Samaria is the biblical, ancestral and aboriginal heartland of the Jewish patrimony going back to the time of Joshua's entry into the Promised Land. Before that, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Jewish patriarchs, lived in the land some 4,000 years ago and are buried in Hebron, Judea; one of Judaism's four holy cities.

Jews have always lived in this tiny sliver of land in whatever numbers they could maintain and the hills and valleys of Judea and Samaria are dotted with Judaism's shrines, holy places, villages and ancient cities from time immemorial. The very ground embraces its Jewish heritage and patrimony. Ask the archaeologists.

Yet here come Obama and Clinton, et al, parroting the mendacious and deceitful lies of the Arabs, those who call themselves Palestinians, that Judea and Samaria is Palestinian territory and that Jewish villages are "settlements." Even Judaism's holy shrines, such as the biblical Joseph's tomb in Shechem — the city now known by its Arabic name, Nablus — are Islamized by the Palestinian Authority and attempts by Muslim Arabs to desecrate it and turn it into a mosque are all too frequent.

Clinton and Obama employ today, as so much of the world sadly does, the Jordanian Arab name of "West Bank" for the territory instead of biblical Jewish Judea and Samaria. This is the territory the Arabs want to take as a Palestinian state — a first stage before taking what is left of Israel. But it must be repeated again and again that there has never in all of recorded history existed a sovereign, independent nation called Palestine; and certainly not an Arab one.

This "West Bank" was seized by the British officered Jordanian Arab Legion when it invaded and occupied the territory in the 1948 Arab-Israel War. The Jordanians drove out the Jewish population, including from the Old City in Jerusalem, and the subsequent illegal Jordanian occupation was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan.

Yet the thousands of years that the land was known as Judea and Samaria are forgotten and sublimated to the name, "West Bank," which refers to the term given to the mere 19 years of Arab occupation that lasted from 1948 to June, 1967. How strange!

So many times have such slanders and falsehoods about this Jewish heartland been spewed by Arabs and their supporters that now the world cannot comprehend the immoral, unspiritual and unhistorical fabrication that they have perpetrated.

That the morally bankrupt United Nations vomits such lies endlessly is one thing, but that Hillary Clinton and United States President, Barack Obama, repeat it and hurl it at Israel is shameful. But we know by now that neither of them are true friends of the Jewish state.

Anything but.

So, in the face of the villainous campaign to delegitimize and demonize the embattled Jewish state by the Arab League, the Muslim world, the Left and the execrable international and national media — with few honorable exceptions — Israel must realize that it is time to weather the storm by responding both to Hamas and terrorist crimes and aggression with a terminally painful and crushing rejoinder.

It must also decide that, if needs be, it is better to be hung for a wolf than a sheep. After all, whatever restraint Israel shows in the face of Muslim Arab terrorism and barbarism, she will still be vilified, slandered and pilloried by a hostile and unsympathetic world. And whatever concessions she makes, one truism will always remain: Palestinian Arab aggression will never end.

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volumes One & Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state. Volume 3 has recently been issued. This article appeared in October 31, 2011 iin Family Security Matters (FSM) publications/id.10706/pub_detail.asp 

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 4, 2011.

A major piece I have written on the situation in Gaza and the role of Islamic Jihad has just gone up on Front Page Magazine. Please see it, as it provides background and analysis of a very complex situation: 04/islamic-jihad-irans-new-favored-proxy/


A mini flotilla is sailing in the Mediterranean, headed towards Gaza as I write. This venture consists of two yachts — one under the Irish flag and one Canadian. In all there are 27 passengers aboard, from Canada, the United States, Australia, the Palestinian Authority, and Ireland, plus one Israeli Arab; the organizers appear to be Irish.

This flotilla left from a port in Turkey; Israel was pleased that Turkey — apparently heeding Israeli and US warnings — did send out warships to accompany it, as had been threatened. The Turkish government has also been at pains to let it be known that there are no Turkish passengers involved

The US has warned American citizens not to cooperate, as they would be liable under the law.

Israel has made it clear that the yachts will not be permitted to breach the blockade on Gaza. More an annoyance, I think, than a crisis, but yet a signal that these guys don't give up.

The yachts are carrying medical equipment, which Israel has offered to off-load and deliver to Gaza. /font>

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard A. Shulman, November 3, 2011.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) held a ceremony welcoming the prisoners released by Israel. Remarks were made in behalf of P.A. head Abbas and his Fatah party, chief component of the PLO, by Jibril Rajoub. Rajoub was himself released in an earlier deal, while serving several life sentences for murder, as an organizer of terrorist actions.

Rajoub said that words cannot express the courage and heroism of the currently released prisoners, many convicted for attacking Jews. He praised those who helped kidnap IDF trooper Shalit for ransom and guard him (IMRA, 11/3/11).

Does anybody still think Abbas is a moderate and for peace? How many terrorists must he honor, how many P.A. peace agreements must he violate, and how many threats of war must he make, before western officials and journalists stop pretending that he is a man of peace and that his society wants peace and not to fulfill their religious duty to make war on non-Muslims?


Kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was exchanged for more than 1,000 convicted Arab terrorists. All sides emerged with dirty hands. Consider how the Arabs treated Cpl. Shalit, and how the world reacted.

During the five years that terrorists held the man captive, they violated his human rights more than any civilized country does. Human rights organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), Gisha, and the International Red Cross showed little interest in him. That is to say, they gave Hamas a free pass. They are morally bankrupt, said NGO Monitor head Gerald Steinberg.

The same goes for Judge Goldstone's UN Fact-Finding Commission on the Gaza War. His report said little about Shalit's captivity and its violation of international law.

For its part, Israel released hundreds of terrorists, convicted with due process, many of them responsible for terrible crimes. In doing so, Israel eroded international legal principles. Murderers should have served their sentences. They were released under duress. In addition to that moral lapse, releasing them reinforces an incentive to kidnap more, in order to get more releases. [Hamas already declared intent to kidnap more.]

Adding to the moral stench over this deal, the so-called human rights organizations failed to condemn Hamas' extortion
(NGO Monitor, 10/12/11, shalit_agreement_shows_moral_failure_of _international_human_rights_frameworks in IMRA,

Although Goldstone's report falsely accused Israel of violating international law, his report hardly mentioned Hamas' inhumane treatment of Shalit. Goldstone's report also minimized Hamas' double-barreled violations in attacking Israeli civilians and using its own civilians as human shields. Jihadists are not civilized.

Such organizations are not shy about castigating Israel for human rights organizations, except that the accusations are false. But in the case of Cpl. Shalit, where the violations are real and egregious, they fall silent. That hypocrisy cancels their reason for existence.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Matthew RJ Brodsky, November 3, 2011.

In late October, JPC's Director of Policy, Matthew RJ Brodsky, was asked to write for Sh'ma ("A Journal of Jewish Ideas") in their issue on, "Jews & The United Nations." There were three articles on the Obama administration's record at the UN. The first, "Netanyahu's Policies Do Not Help Israel," by Stephen Zunes was followed by, "President Obama and the United Nations," by Steve Sheffey. Brodsky was asked to respond to Sheffey's article.


Steve Sheffey's article, "President Obama and the United Nations," is full of praise for the current administration's approach to the United Nations and, more broadly, Obama's pro-Israel stance. The well-cited quotes Sheffey offers may be part of the written record, but his article employs a selective focus on some facts to the exclusion of others. American diplomatic activity at Turtle Bay is not the correct metric for measuring the extent to which an American administration is pro-Israel. Moreover, apart from presidential rhetoric, what matters more is what is done — rather than what is said. The only metric for gauging success or failure is the results.

President Obama's first move on the checkerboard of peacemaking was to call for a complete freeze of Israeli settlements, including natural growth. No previous U.S. president had made this demand — nor had the Palestinians ever demanded a complete freeze as a precondition to negotiate — yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to an unprecedented ten-month moratorium on the settlements. Instead of engaging in negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table. Aside from this being poor policy, it was a bad strategy, and it strained U.S. relations with all sides.

Sheffey's comparisons between the Obama presidency and previous administrations are also problematic. While it is true, as Sheffey asserts, that President George W. Bush eschewed the 2006 newly created U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC), he did so because it was no better than the previous body, the ideologically slanted and anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Commission. And President Obama's engagement with the UNHRC gave a U.S. stamp of approval to the committee with negligible results.

Sheffey comments that "the Bush administration neglected to veto a 2004 U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to stop demolishing Palestinian homes," and he describes the Reagan administration's support for a resolution condemning Israel for its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor — an attack that no doubt earned Israel plenty of private handshakes. Yet Sheffey fails to mention that President Bush vetoed a total of nine anti-Israel resolutions during his presidency, while President Ronald Reagan vetoed 18 anti-Israel resolutions. In fact, Bush created what is known as "The Negroponte Doctrine," the formula where any Israel-related resolution must also condemn Palestinian terrorism and call for dismantling Hamas et al.

Presidential support for Israel is far from automatic in the Obama administration. The President's fundamental misreading of the Middle East has resulted in missteps region-wide and he still believes that Palestinian-Israeli peace is linked to all other issues in the region despite the so-called "Arab Spring." One result was the Palestinian Authority's (P.A.) decision to form a unity government with Hamas, the purpose of which was to avoid negotiating with Israel and to bring the issue of Palestinian statehood to a vote before the U.N. last month. The U.S. could have adopted a clear position from the start and immediately worked to prevent the vote.

As Sheffey points out, "The Obama administration worked feverishly in September 2011 to prevent or defeat a vote on Palestinian statehood in the U.N. Security Council..." If Obama's belated effort was "feverish" then it was the result of waiting until the final weeks to prevent the Palestinian push at the U.N. Obama was late in applying pressure; instead, he opted for another strategy. He believed that he could bring the Palestinians to the table if he extracted more Israeli concessions in advance — namely, by changing four decades of American policy on May 19, 2011 in his "Winds of Change" speech. In it, Obama abandoned U.S. policy that was based on U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw to "secure and recognized" borders, and instead adopted "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." With that, President Obama formalized the U.S. view that a territorial resolution to the conflict could be achieved only if Israel agreed to trade away land it held before 1967.

The timing of Obama's speech was stunning. Just three days earlier, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had penned an op-ed piece in The New York Times, in which he explained the reason behind the U.N. gambit in September: "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice."

Given the estimated $600 million a year that the P.A. receives from the United States, it is remarkable how little influence this White House wields over Abbas. American leadership is not defined by how it fares in the U.N., but rather by how it succeeds in affecting the behavior of friends and foes alike. Obama's decision to create daylight between the U.S. and Israel — America's only loyal ally in the region — has led Middle Eastern states to distance themselves from both Israel and the U.S. The vacuum that will be created by America's faltering influence in the region is a recipe for more violence and bloodshed in the future, not the desert-mirage panacea of Palestinian-Israeli peace.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and editor of the JPC's journal, inFOCUS Quarterly. This article was published in Sh'ma, A Jou8rnal of Jewish ideas
( reviewing-obama%E2%80%99s-u-n-record/) and is archived at the Jewish Policy Center website at 2589/reviewing-obama-un-record

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, November 3, 2011.

This was written by Diana West and it appeared yesterday on the Big Peace website. It is archived at 02/molotov-cocktails-replace-letters-to- the-editor-french-satire-magazine- bombed-to-enforce-shariah/


French Satire Magazine Bombed to Enforce Shariah

The Daily Mail reports here:
"Offices of French magazine torched after latest edition mocked Prophet [sic] Mohammed"

First, notice the religiously correct references to Mohammed. My old AP Stylebook recommends "Mohammed," plain and simple, to denote "the founder of the of Islamic religion" — not "the Prophet Mohammed," as the Daily Mail story calls him. This title is inflected with the obeisance of acceptance. (I note also that my old AP Stylebook recommends "Jesus," not "the Son of God Jesus.") The magazine, by the way, was commenting on the rising power and fortunes of sharia and its Islamic — not Islamist — proponents in Libya and Tunisia.

Here's the "offending" cover via Vlad Tepes:

The story:

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed [sic]. Arsonists struck shortly after 1am at the Paris offices of Charlie Hedbo, a Gallic version of Private Eye which prides itself on its mix of cutting satire and investigative journalism.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed — something which is blasphemous under Islamic law — and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

It is accompanied by the slogan '100 lashes if you don't die of laughter', and the magazine is renamed 'Sharia Hebdo', after Sharia law.

Here is a short video clip ( click here ) that displays the "offending" magazine (the Daily Mail doesn't dare, which means it is sharia-compliant).

A source at the magazine, based in Boulevard Davout in the city's 20th arrondissement, said: 'Molotov cocktail petrol bombs were used to attack the offices first thing this morning.

'The attackers concentrated on the computer system, literally melting it. The offices were empty so nobody was injured, but thousands of euros worth of damage were caused.'

Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief, a cartoonist known only as Charb, said: 'We no longer have a newspaper. All our equipment has been destroyed or has melted.

'We could not put a paper together today, but we will do everything possible to produce one next week.

'Whatever happens, we'll do it. There is no question of giving up.'The magazine's website was also hacked, with messages appearing in English and Turkish denouncing its journalists for causing widespread offence.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Many regularly complain about discrimination in a country where racial and religious tensions often boil to the surface in riots.

Six years ago, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard provoked anger across the Islamic world when he published 12 satirical images of the Prophet in a Danish newspaper.

The then editor of Charlie Hebdo was prosecuted in France for 'insulting Muslims' after he reproduced those images, but he was acquitted in 2007.

Despite this morning's attack, the special edition of Charlie Hebdo was still on newsstands this morning, complete with an editorial 'by the Prophet' on Hallal drinks.

There were also features on 'soft Sharia', concentrating on the emergence of Islamic parties in Tunisia and Libya following the Arab Spring revolutions.

It also has a women's section called 'Sharia Madame', which concentrates on Islamic veils, which were recently banned in France.

There are around six million Muslims living in France — the largest Muslim population in western Europe.

A Paris spokesman said there had been no arrests, but witnesses had seen the petrol bombs being thrown and two men fleeing the scene.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, November 3, 2011.

As part of its mission to "win the hearts and minds" of people who despise the United States of America, including those who live in the U.S., the Pentagon released a new military manual that's sure to please groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization some allege is a Fifth-Column for radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

According to the blog on the web site of a non-profit watchdog group that investigates government corruption and misconduct, in this new era of rampant political correctness, the U.S. Army has published a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify Islamic jihad by describing it as the "communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack."

Because radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under moral, spiritual, economic, political and military attack by the "secular west" they consider military jihad a "constant necessity" and use it as a "rallying cry to resist and attack all this is un-Islamic," according to the new Army manual.

As part of its mission to "win the hearts and minds" of people who despise the United States of America, including those who live in the U.S., the Pentagon released a new military manual that's sure to please groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization some allege is a Fifth-Column for radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

According to the blog on the web site of a non-profit watchdog group that investigates government corruption and misconduct, in this new era of rampant political correctness, the U.S. Army has published a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify Islamic jihad by describing it as the "communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack."

Because radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under moral, spiritual, economic, political and military attack by the "secular west" they consider military jihad a "constant necessity" and use it as a "rallying cry to resist and attack all this is un-Islamic," according to the new Army manual.

According to Judicial Watch's blogger, the handbook was created to help soldiers become "culturally literate" ambassadors with sensitivity and understanding of Islamic civilization. The goal is to help them understand how vital culture is in accomplishing military missions. Military personnel who have a distorted picture of a host culture make enemies for the United States.

At least that's what the publication ("Culture Cards: Afghanistan & Islamic Culture") says. An organization of scientists dedicated to national and international security issues discovered the new Army tool and published it on its web site a few days ago.

However, the Army manual on Islamic culture fails to address some issues that may not appeal to the progressives in Washington or the members of CAIR.

As reported earlier this year by the Law Enforcement Examiner, one issue that's avoided is the widespread sexual intercourse between Afghan Taliban men and young boys. In non-diplomatic terms, Afghanistan is a haven for child rape.

While Muslims in Iraq have on several occasions stoned homosexuals for their sexual activities, not all Muslims believe pedophilia is a violation of Shariah law. Those who believe in the sacredness and infallibility of the Koran adhere to the teaching that women are sub-human and quasi-slaves, and therefore Muslim men will look for relationships — even sexual relationships — with others of their own gender.

According to Reuters, there is a lot of homosexuality going on in Afghanistan, but those engaging in it don't think of themselves as gay, so that makes it okay since Islam officially disapproves of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

"They regard themselves as non-gay because they don't "love" the sex object so Allah is happy. These are the men who avoid their wives as unclean. Apparently there is very little love of any kind in Afghanistan, which explains a lot," according to Reuters.

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from a perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghans cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle, according to columnist Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times.


The manual has nearly three dozen informative chapters dedicated to subjects such as Muslim taboos, the five pillars if Islam, Jihad, the Quran and Muslim festivals. There are also sections on ethnocentrism, cultural relativism and social norms and mores. The lengthy introduction defines cultural competency — awareness and sensitivity of another group — and social norms and mores in Arab countries.

The portion on jihad is especially interesting because it's described as a wide-ranging term that includes the everyday spiritual and moral struggle to live a life submitted to God, the attempt to spread Islam by education and example, and the communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack, according to the Judicial Watch blog.

Today radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under attack by the "secular West" — morally, spiritually, economically, politically and militarily, the Army handbook says. They thus consider military jihad as a constant necessity, and use jihad as a rallying cry to resist and attack all that is un-Islamic.

At the end of each section there is a question that's supposed to stimulate "critical thinking." At the end of the jihad section the question is: "How can the concept of jihad add legitimacy to the claims and aims of Al Qaeda and others?

"It would certainly be interesting to see how most enlisted men and women, or American civilians for that matter, would answer that particular question," states Judicial Watch's blogger.

The new Army manual concludes by revealing all the things that make soldiers "culturally literate." Among them are appreciating and accepting diverse beliefs, appearances and lifestyles, understanding the dangers of stereotyping and ethnocentrism and understanding Islamic and jihadist cultures.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (
This article is archived at enforcement-in-national/pentagon- indoctrinating-u-s-soldiers-with- islamic-propaganda

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 3, 2011.

Binyamin Netanyahu deserves credit for having sounded the alarm at an early date on the dangers of Iran, and sounding it often since. This is not political opportunism for him. It's real, and it's a pity that he hasn't been heeded more seriously. The situation, which has been permitted to deteriorate so dangerously, is just one mark of how obtuse and down right stupid world "leaders" are — how narrow in their scope and how self-absorbed.

Very soon a major report will be released by the IAEA on Iran's nuclear development, which is expected to be damning in a way that no previous report has been. The window of opportunity for stopping Iran is closing. This is both because of the rate of nuclear development, and with regard to Iran moves to place everything far underground.

And so now the media is focused on this issue, and in recent days the question being asked is this: Has Prime Minister Netanyahu, in consultation with his military advisors, decided that Israel should attack Iran imminently?

The only certainty I have is that I am not in possession of — could not possibly be in possession of — the answer here. No one has chosen to whisper in my ear, nor should anyone, considering the enormity of this issue.


In the last several days, there has been a spate of media reports about this.

Last week Yediot Ahronot and then Haaretz ran stories regarding claims that the prime minister and the defense minister were trying to convince the cabinet to approve an attack.

Two days ago, Moshe Ya'alon, Minister of Strategic Affairs and former IDF Chief of Staff came out with a statement on Army Radio in which he declared that Israel cannot depend on outside help in dealing with Iran: "We must aspire to a situation in which the righteous work will be done by others, but act as if, 'if not me, who?'"

Ya'alon is no light-weight in these matters and runs a ministry for which I have the greatest respect. What was he saying?

At the same time, the JPost ran an analytic article, "What may be involved in an Israeli strike on Iran." May be. This, of course, is not authoritative, in spite of the picture of jets refueling in air credited to the IDF:

Mission to bomb Iran would likely re-fuel in air

This piece indicated that Israel is capable of pulling off a hit. I, with my own limited information, have understood this for some time. The hit would not destroy Iran's nuclear development program, but rather set it back some years. But here we had some startlingly specific information, regarding drones, paths that planes might take, that capability to refuel in the air, use of bunker busters, the need to first neutralize Iran's defense capabilities, and more.

What to make of this?

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said yesterday that while media reports had "no relation to the truth" with 99% of them false, they had caused "tremendous damage."

Minister Benny Begin declared with anger that, "There has never been a breakdown of responsibility and a campaign of recklessness like there is today."


Yesterday, Israel tested a missile. News reports had it that it was "probably" a long range Jericho missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching Iran. All a defense official said at the time was that a "rocket propulsion system" had undergone a test that had been scheduled a long time ago.

Barak expressed satisfaction:

"This is an impressive technological achievement and an important step in Israel's rocket and space progress. The successful experiment proves again that the engineers, technicians and staff of the Israeli defense industries are of the highest level."

Today a senior IDF officer insisted that there was no connection between the test of the missile and media speculation regarding an attack on Iran. And, indeed, just because a system may be capable of being utilized for an attack does not mean the attack is being planned. In all events, it's good to know that this missile with its alleged capacity exists, and good, as well, that Iran knows it exists.


One theory making the rounds is that individuals here opposed to an attack on Iran by Israel are deliberately leaking information to interfere with the possibility of carrying it out — because too much is known and the surprise element has been eliminated. Could be. Except for statements by Ya'alon and Lieberman (which I'll come back to in a minute).

There is yet another possibility — one that has occurred to me and to others: These leaks, this spate of publicity, may be in part geared to spurring the international community to act so that Israel does not.

Remember that Ya'alon said that, "We must aspire to a situation in which the righteous work will be done by others..."

And Lieberman, for his part, while expressing horror at the media attention to the situation, also said, "the international community has much more to do on the Iranian issue. We expect that the international community [will] impose sanctions..."


And there we may have it: What is supposed to be sought next by the international community, after the release of the IAEA report, are stringent sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank and the Iranian oil import and export industry, with an eye to strangling Iran's capability to function and bringing down the regime.

Now, for the very first time, there is a real possibility of putting into place sanctions tough enough to make a difference. This is because the anticipated severity of the IAEA report has brought on board not only the Europeans, but the previously uncooperative (obstructionist) Russia and China.

Then this would not be the best time for Israel to act militarily. For if Iran can be stopped without such action, so much the better. But this does not necessarily mean that Israel will never act. A military operation remains on the table.

My best guess, then, would be that Israel is sending a message to the world: Time is short. We're watching closely. And if it comes to it that you have failed to act, or have unsuccessfully exercised all of your options short of a military operation, and the window of opportunity is almost closed, then it will be time for us to act. And, rest assured, we have trained and prepared and have our plan in place, and are equipped to do so when necessary.

And if that time does come, I am confident that it will not be announced by the JPost and Haaretz and all the rest.


One last comment here:

The Guardian in Britain yesterday ran a story indicating that the British military was gearing up to lend assistance to the US in an attack on Iran. Allegedly, specific preparations to that end were being made in Britain, because Obama was fed up and had decided he was ready to act. This report, too, was full of details, such as planned use by the US of British warships for launching some missile attacks.

Well... I've learned never to say never. But, with the possibility of new sanctions to be put in place — actively promoted by the US, and in light of Obama's very distinct preference for "engagement," it is difficult for me to believe that right now he is seriously entertaining thoughts of an attack. This would be his very last resort option, if an option at all.

To be hoped for, quite candidly, is that if military action is finally unavoidable, that the US would undertake it. US capabilities and logistical advantages make it better equipped to carry out such an attack on a large scale.


You might want to see a YNet opinion piece on this subject: 0,7340,L-4143755,00.html


With the maneuvering of Egypt, a "cease fire" of sorts (a temporary period of calm?) has been established in Gaza, but Islamic Jihad is saying they don't expect it to last. They are being supported by Iran, they boast, and they have 8,000 "operatives" ready to go to war.


Israel has now frozen its $2 million in annual dues to UNESCO, following its acceptance of "Palestine" as a member.

And — guess what? — PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki has announced that the PA would not be seeking admission into any other UN agencies now after all. This was after UN Secretary-General said this move was "not beneficial for Palestine and not beneficial for anybody." That is because "millions and millions" of people could be affected if funds are cut to multiple agencies.


Hooray! It's raining here in Jerusalem. A steady downpour, not a shower. The first of the season and a real blessing. ~

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 2, 2011.

When long-standing conflicts ignite and break into the news media, Western reporters usually focus on the immediate clash. What fueled the outburst may be overlooked. Few Westerners know that Arab Muslims persecuted Christians for centuries, and now are even less restrained in Egypt since President Mubarak's ouster.

Raymond Ibrahim, analyst of the Mideast Forum, discusses whether anti-Christian sentiment contributed to the Maspero massacre, in which the Egyptian military mowed down Christian Copts protesting continued destruction of their churches. Was the military acting to maintain order or to repress Christians demanding equality?

[Westerners who may be realizing that Palestinian Muslim Arab grievances are contrived for propaganda may assume that Christian grievances are equally dubious. However, the facts are clear that Churches are being burned, shops of Christians are being looted, Christians are being attacked and murdered, raped, or forced to convert, laws are discriminatory, and police usually side with Muslim mobs.]

Weeks before the massacre, Egypt's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the country's second most important Islamic authority circulated a video on Muslim-Christian relations. He permits Muslims to coexist with Christians, but limits the Christians' rights, because they are "infidels," by which he means enemies of Islam and evil-doers.

Remember, Islamic teachings include not only who is an "infidel," but also how to confront them. The Sheikh is too diplomatic to tell Westerners that he expects non-Muslims in his country submit to Islam and pay a special tax signifying their being humbled by Islam.

Unaware of the Sheikh's position on Christians, which position derives from Islamic doctrine, many Westerners consider him moderate. U.S. News hailed him for moderation. He gains Western approval by assuring Westerners there is no conflict between Islam and democracy, no need for theocracy, and no reason for female inequality. Westerners are happy to accept such sentiments without inquiring about the same persons' extreme positions. Few Westerners know about Islamic double-speak.

For example, the day after a report about the tolerance of the Sheikh of Al Alzhar, head of the country's most authoritative Islamic institution, he insisted that the U.S. Ambassador meet him in a hijab. How different is that from Muslim radicals compelling Christian girls to wear the hijab?

Point is, although the Abrahamic religions have common roots, their relationship is determined by their differences. [Islam considers itself entitled to dominate the others.] When Western ecumenists water down their doctrines to reassure Muslims that they all believe in the same basics, Muslims conclude that the Westerners believe in nothing.

So it was no wonder that when Egyptian soldiers fired upon, ran over, and tortured Christian Copts, they used the same epithet, "infidel," as Muslim civilians used when Christians attended the funerals of relatives slain by the troops (Raymond Ibrahim, Pajamas Media, 10/28/11, muslim-declares-christians-infidels).

Egypt's state-run media is complicit with the military in covering up the massacre. Western coverage copied the government-run media propaganda. From Arabic sources, the brutality and deceit in the massacre have been complied, but hardly penetrated the Western media.

A clear video shows a high-speed armored vehicle running over Christian demonstrators, another armored vehicle chasing protesters, a soldier firing into the fleeing crowds, and soldiers beating protestors. Many eyewitnesses, including Muslims, affirm governmental brutality.

Magdi Khalil reports that the day before the planned march, snipers shot at protestors and armored vehicles chased and ran down protestors. It was a pre-massacre massacre.

After the incident and the evidence, Egypt's Military Council told a news conference that the military never would run over civilians and tried to shame those who accuse it of such. Witnesses saw soldiers throwing bodies of those run over into the Nile River. But the military claimed that a military vehicle driving into the crowd was hijacked by a protester — it all is the Christian protesters fault, they were the aggressors, attacking and killing soldiers. He showed a photograph of a protestor throwing a rock down at a soldier inside a stalled armored vehicle. That armored vehicle had the same ID number as the one he claimed was jihacked. Apparently it was running over civilians, stalled, and then was attacked by protestors.

Muslim witnesses report that the usual anti-protestor thugs came with State Security troops. A video clip shows a soldier exposed dressed as a civilian and thugs cooperating with the military. The thugs act violently to give the military an excuse for opening fire.

Another video shows about 20 Egyptian soldiers beating a Christian protester days earlier, while calling him an "infidel." Amidst the military was a man in civilian dress, who stabbed the protestor several times. Apparently he was a government agent, or the troops would not have let him be in their midst. During the massacre, soldiers made the Islamic war cry, "Allahu Akbar!" The same cry greeted a soldier on TV boasting that he had shot a Christian.

What role did the state-run media play? While armored vehicles were running over Christian protestors, Egyptian TV broadcast reporters yelled, "Help, the Copts are killing our heroic, patriotic soldiers and burning Qurans!" This cry brought Muslims into the streets to attack Christians. TV officials later confessed to having made up a claim that the Copts killed three soldiers. Nevertheless, op-eds continued blaming Christians.

Some Egyptian reporters expressed disgust with Egyptian TV, subordinate to the rulers and, in effect, calling for civil war.

After the massacre, Dr. Hind Hanafi, president of Cairo University, recommended separating wounded Christians from wounded Muslims in hospitals. Hosi Mubarak never allowed a massacre this great during his thirty years as President, but is charged with "crimes against Egyptians." Then what should the Military Council be charged with for the greater crimes in less than a year? Why don't supposed human rights groups demand punishment of the military?

If this is how Egypt tries to deceive its own people, why believe what it tells non-Muslims Abroad? (Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, 10/31/11, egypt-massacre-christians-media).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, November 2, 2011.

I wasn't surprised a while back to see a list of the hundred greatest Synagogue Garbage Committee Chairmen of the millennium. Around the turn of the last century, there were millennium lists of everyone, so why not Synagogue Garbagmen.. But seriously, The Rochester Jewish Ledger, as well as other Jewish papers, ran a list of one hundred acclaimed Jews picked by the readers of the Jerusalem Report. Among significant notables like Einstein, Salk, and the Baal Shem Tov, there were minor leaguers like Danny Kaye, Sid Caesar, Abbie Hoffman, and Marilyn Monroe (remember, she converted when she married Arthur Miller?). Small potatoes among the giants of Judaism, I say. But amazing nowhere on the list was Dr. Joseph Goldberger.

Who was Joseph Goldberger, do I hear you ask?

Oh, only the medical researcher who cured Pellagra in the South. Today, when we preach that less is better, gastronomically, it's hard to remember that just over our shoulder in time — two generations ago — our parents and grandparents suffered from under consumption. Victims of poverty, they were harvested prematurely due to under consumption. Diet deficiencies like Scurvy and Pellagra were death's weapons, especially in the rural South.

But Goldberger's fame was a victim of his victory. Like a wound that heals without a scar — who remembers Pellagra? It is yesterday's banished assassin — thanks to the good doctor.

So, don't feel bad that you recognize Sid Caesar, but not Joseph Goldberger. Nobody else, outside of medical historians, has any idea of his gift to undernourished, poor people everywhere — but especially the rural South. He did most of his work in the 20's — not a great economic decade for maintaining a balanced diet if you were a maid or sharecropper in Mississippi or laid around your room all day and thumbed through the classified ads because you were unemployed.

Paul DeKruif, the famous historian and popularizer of medical science, tells of Goldberger in his 1926 book, "The Hunger Fighters".

Goldberger was born in Austria, Hungary and came to New York with his family in 1881. After his medical education at Bellevue Hospital Medical College, he joined the Public Health Service — basically a band of "microbe hunters" as they were called. It was an exhilarating era in public health history. Syphilis, Typhoid Fever, and Tuberculosis were under siege. "Identify the bug and kill it" was their modus operandi.

In 1912, the Surgeon General took note of soldier Goldberger who was battling infectious diseases around the U.S. and the Caribbean. He assigned him to Pellagra, the "Scourge of the South", which flourished like the Boll Weevil in Dixie's cotton fields. It was a killer of the poor. Gout was for rich folks, Pellagra fed on poor folks. And it fed well in those years. In 1915 thousands died in Mississippi alone.

The good doctor took a long look around the South before he unpacked his laboratory test tubes. Pellagra stalked the land hand-in-hand with poverty. It's host was poor folks whose diet had three major elements; cornbread, cornmeal, and corn on the cob. Maybe sweetened up with molasses for Sunday dinner — or an entree of white lard. So, contrary to his "microbe hunter" philosophy, the Jewish researcher decided that there was no bug — no infectious side to this malady. You didn't catch it by sharing a bologna sandwich with Betty Lou McElhaney. It was a failure of nutrition. He noted that eating cornbread, molasses, and pork fat practically invited the disease into your ill-nourished frame. And, with a keen Talmudic eye he registered that institutionalized orphans fell victim, but the staff who had a separate dining room, was as healthy as a show hog at the County Fair.

In 1915, with the permission of the governor of Mississippi, he conducted a landmark experiment at Rankin Prison Farm down in Mississippi. The control group were fed the typical diet of the Southern poor, while the experimental group lapped up meat, fresh vegetables, and milk. As he suspected, the malnourished inmates came down with Pellagra.

More experiments followed at orphanages, prisons, and mental institutions; facilities where large numbers of people were fed under controlled conditions. It was always the same. No milk and meat resulted in first, sore mouth and red rash. Then the rash crusted and reddened into flaming sores. And stomach pain wracked the victims. The Red Death, they called it. Of those afflicted, 40% laid down their cares and woes.

Another observation. In a Mississippi orphanage, informal research revealed a puzzling statistic. Only the kids between 6 and l1 sickened. Younger kids were as healthy as the normal Mississippi youngster: and the children over l2 did OK too. In his own easy way, the doctor poked around the institution, talked to staff members and orphans. Little kids, he discovered, were blessed with milk. They needed it more than their seniors reasoned the supervisors who tried to feed hungry mouths out of a limited budget. Older orphans, over 12, worked on the farm and accessed "informal" surces of food beside the orphanage cafeteria. Often they milked cows. Who wouldn't take a swig now and then. Hmmm, where there was milk ther was no Pellagra.

Goldberger announced his discovery — the linkage of diet and disease. The skeptical medical community, obsessed with infectious diseases, snickered. He didn't spend much time debating the issue. Instead, he injected himself, his wife, and assistants with Pellagra-tainted blood. To drive his point home, he played Russian roulette seven times with self-induced Pellagra. But it never took. He and his staff thrived on a balanced diet. Finally, Goldberger discovered that a daily yeast tablet — cheap enough for the poorest of the poor — would defeat Pellagra. After his death in 1929, it was found that the missing nutritional element was Niacin; both a prevention and cure. A nice gift to the Southland from a Jewish doctor.

If I made up a Jewish millennium list, after placing my wife around 20th, I'd put Dr. Joseph Goldberger somewhere after Einstein, but stratospherically above Abbie Hoffman, Marilyn Monroe, and that crowd.

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His 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 and

To Go To Top

Posted by US4Israel, November 2, 2011.

Dear Mr. Prosor,

In your recent address to the UN Security Council, you lavishly praised the Palestinian state notion, as though the UN Security Council were a body in dire need of pro-Palestinian encouragement. You said: "Let there be no doubt: Israel wants ... a Palestinian state. Let me repeat that. Israel wants ... a Palestinian state.

[W]e seek two states for two peoples... The question is not whether we can accept a Palestinian state — we can." statements-at-the-united-nations/ security-council/391-security-council- situation-in-the-middle-east- including-the-palestinian-question-

In solemn contrast, Yitzhak Rabin's firmly stated legacy was: No to the notion of a Palestinian state. The tragic assassination of Rabin, one of Israel's most revered Prime Ministers and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, will be commemorated this Friday.

To the Israeli Knesset, Rabin spoke of: "a Palestinian entity ... which is less than a state". MFAArchive/1990_1999/1995/10/ PM+Rabin+in+Knesset-+ Ratification+of+Interim+Agree.htm

To Time Magazine, Rabin said: I oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. magazine/article/0,9171,979266,00.html

It is not your job, Mr. Prosor, to advocate for establishment of another Palestinian state. As Tony Blair, fomer British Premier, has put it, "Israel cannot live with a Gaza-type mess on the West Bank. It cannot live with Hamas and their rockets a few miles from Ben Gurion airport." speeches/entry/building-foundations- on-the-ground-key-to-successful- middle-east-negotiatio/

Here is a lovely example, by Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, a former ambassador, of how to conduct excellent hasbara —

without resorting to endorsement of Palestinian state: SB10001424052748704103104574623662 661962226.html

Mr. Prosor, I would be most appreciative if on the eve of Rabin's tragic assassination, you follow Prime Minister Rabin's lead and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon's good example in the article above, and resolve to conduct hasbara without gushing about Palestinian state.

Sincerely, (your name)

Add your voice to the voices of others: send this letter to Ambassador Prosor. You can simply forward this email to the email addresses of Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and/or of Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon: These elected officials will be pleased to convey the email to Ambassador Prosor.

Or, click the following link contact-us and copy in the letter above (or a letter of your own!). That would then go directly to Mr. Prosor.

Thanks for helping Israel.


Write us at about any aspect of supporting Israel's rights and overcoming anti-Semitism toward Israel and Israelis

Contact US 4israel by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, November 2, 2011.

Israeli Professors of Hate From the 1970s, Israel's universities had become home to a new generation of leftist intellectuals who demonize Israel and the undermine the struggle for survival of the Jewish people


When in 2007 Professor Hillel Weiss of Bar Ilan University was captured on film cursing the IDF regional commander during the expulsion of Hebron's Jewish residents, the well-known scholar, a leading expert on the works of Nobel Laureate author Shai Agnon, was pulverized in the Israeli media.

The public opinion later discovered that Weiss' anger was the reasonable reaction of a father protesting against the (twice) eviction of his children and grandchildren from their homes.

Weiss didn't call on anyone to act upon his words. He called upon G-d. But Professor Weiss is a patriarch of the right wing movement.

Somehow, the Israeli media doesn't pay the same attention to the legion of Israeli professors and lecturers from the Jewish Left who daily take the side of Israel's existential enemies.

From the 1970s, Israel's universities had become home to a new generation of leftist intellectuals who demonize Israel and the undermine the struggle for survival of the Jewish people.

A study by Im Tirtzu claimed that more than 90% of the allegations of "Israeli war crimes" cited in the shameful Goldstone Report were provided by 16 NGOs who received close to $8 million from the New Israel Fund between 2006 and 2008, an organization headed by former Meretz MK Professor Naomi Chazan.

A few days ago, a criminal investigation was opened against Dr. Ayal Nir, a lecturer at Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, over a status on his Facebook page in which he called to "break the necks of right-wing activists".
 It's an open call for murder of those who reject his far-leftist opinions.

Today there is a predominance of Israeli academics within the NGOs that discredit Israel, such as Gush Shalom, B'Tselem, Yesh Gvul, the Committee to Stop Demolition of Houses in Palestine and the Committee to Stop Torture.

Steve Plaut has just drawn up a thorough list of them for the Middle East Quarterly.

The phenomenon goes back to Karl Marx, whose anti-Semitic diatribes were reflected in outbursts like "money is the jealous god of Israel, by the side of which no other god may exist... The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism".

Whether it is Professor Shlomo Sand, who achieved celebrity status in Europe by publishing a book denying the existence of the Jewish people, or Professor Oren Yiftachel, who called Israel "a white... pure settlement colonial society", these Israeli celebrities gained fame and fortune by trashing their own country and people.

The same phenomenon happened in czarist Russia, when some Jewish social agitators endorsed pogroms against their own kinsmen, hoping that by venting their frustrations on Jews, the masses would ultimately turn on the czar.

At the Ben-Gurion University, Neve Gordon accused the IDF of being "war criminals" and promoted the boycott of Israel in a Los Angeles Times editorial. Gordon's articles have also been published on the web site of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and in Iran's state media.

Ze'ev Sternhell, in the midst of the Second Intifada, when his own students were being butchered on buses and restaurants, declared that Palestinians should "concentrate their struggle against the settlements".

In May 2001, after Arabs sadistically bashed the skulls of two "settler kids" in Tekoa, Israeli psychiatrist Ruchama Marton declared that "the settlers raise little monsters".

Anat Matar of Tel Aviv University openly supported boycotts of her own university. You find professors such as Moshe Zimmermann and other members of the progressive community who compared the Israelis to the Nazis. Also professors such as Idith Zertal, who thinks that the Zionist absorption of Holocaust refugees was a form of rape.Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, whose anti-Semithic book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" has become a bible for Israel-bashers in the West,, in 2008 were allowed to deliver a lecture at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

University of Haifa political science professor Ilan Pappe brackets Israelis with Nazis and urges academics to delegitimize Israel. Ran Hacohen from Tel Aviv University described "Israel as fulfilling Hitler's dream" and referred to the assassination of Hamas leader and inciter to murder, Ahmed Yassin, as "a milestone in the process of the barbarization of mankind".

Lev Grinberg, director of the Humphries Institute for Social Research at Ben-Gurion University, accused the Israeli government, in a Belgian media, of "state terrorism".

These Israeli academics abuse academic freedom by utilizing their universities as launching pads to delegitimize their own country and people. The extreme damage to Israel's reputation and Jewish identity inflicted by these and other Jewish intellectuals has been greatly underestimated.

Indeed, with their words and actions, they are boosting pernicious and deadly Judeophobic propaganda.

Giulio Meotti is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, November 2, 2011.

A version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. This is an improved version. I own the rights and prefer
that you read and link to this article: 11/why-obama-believes-he-can-tame.html


What does theocracy look like? This is what theocracy looks like! [*]*

Many people find it hard to comprehend what the Obama Administration thinks it's doing in the Middle East. But it's really very simple if you know the history of the arguments, read carefully administration speeches and documents, watch their actions, and talk to some of those involved.

Leaving aside a number of points I've made in a previous article ( Click here.), which would be good to read in conjunction with this one, I want to focus here on one concept: the idea that the U.S. government has outsmarted the Islamists.

After all, it has "lured" them into elections and a share of power, thus supposedly locking them into democracy and compromise, a permanent adherence to the rules of the electoral and democratic game.

And if the Islamists' can't deliver the goods — more jobs, housing, and cheaper prices — they'll just lose the next election. Supposedly, they'll just hand power over with good sportsmanship. The threat has been tamed!

Western officials and experts generally believe Islam cannot produce material results, the Islamists will have to water down their "impractical" beliefs. In order to do well in the next election, they must gradually abandon ideology. In short, the administration believes, it's got the Islamists where it wants them! Mu-ha-ha-ha!

There are many holes in this argument but you won't find them in the mainstream media or the talking head "experts."

Here are some of the problems with the administration view that Islamist victories are good things.

1. The staying power of a dictatorial-minded regime is impressive even when it appears to play by democratic rules.

No Arab nationalist regime or monarchy in the Middle East has ever let itself be voted out of office. There are ways of persuading the masses that they should keep a regime even if in Western eyes that government has "failed." There are also ways to win elections by manipulating them, selective repression, control over the media, using patronage to buy votes, etc.

Instead of "one man, one vote, one time," you can get "one man, one vote, one result."

Consider Turkey, where the regime has steadily increased its base of support among voters; or Egypt and Jordan, where the regime always wins the election. Once in office, the Islamists can last as long as the Arab nationalists in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, and Syria, that is for many decades.

And as a last resort elections can — as happened in Algeria — always be cancelled or the result repressed if the incumbents think they'll lose.

Look at how the Islamist regime in Iran, which finally lost popularity after three decades of mismanagement, remained in power. They put down internal challenge and faced no external costs despite having obviously stolen the election. What would happen if an Islamist regime in, say, Egypt or Turkey stole an election to stay in power? Nothing.

2. Don't underestimate the power of ideology and demagoguery, which can be more powerful than material pay-offs.

The history of the modern Arab world is full of such examples. Look at the history of the PLO and of Yasir Arafat's leadership. (Yes, I know Hamas won, but Fatah still runs the more important West Bank to this day.

And let's not forget the use of foreign scapegoats, which will be as important for the Islamists as it was for the nationalists. Consider how the Turkish Islamist regime has made Israel and the West into an enemy in order to mobilize both nationalist and religious fervor at home. This can also lead to foreign adventures — wars and terrorism — that are popular at home, even if they are lost.

3. Taking over institutions

The regime can use the educational system and media to indoctrinate and ensure support; use jobs and the economy to control patronage and votes; create or control women's, trade union, and professional associations. By controlling the religious institutions, Islamists can get rid of traditionalist Islam and entrench their own interpretations on the hearts of the believers.

And let's not forget the greatest prize of all: control over the military, a plan that might include creating separate elite units (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, Republican Guards in Syria, etc.)

4. The Intrinsically Radical Nature of the Islamists Themselves

If you are taking your orders directly from the Supreme Being and in accord with the most sacred religion, you're less likely to change your viewpoint. Western materialist cynicism goes too far in thinking Islamists will sell out for luxury and power. Besides, they can enjoy luxury and power (see Iran) without having to throw away their principles.

Moreover, we are not dealing with Communism in the era of Leonid Brezhnev here. The Islamists are a relatively young movement, unbowed by failure and not jaded by long possession of power. They genuinely believe the future belongs to them. .Maybe they will become tired and lose their confidence in 30 or 40 years but not now.

5. Knowing that they confront such ignorance and credulity in the West, the Islamists can use the credulity of their enemies to play moderate when necessary and get lots of benefits and concessions. How about the idea of massive U.S. aid to Islamist regimes! That's about to happen, isn't it?

6. The Caliphate — like Rome — wasn't built in a day.

The new Islamist strategy, in sharp contrast to that of al-Qaida, is very oriented toward patience. Thus, for example, the external, Western-influenced, and unelected Libyan opposition leadership has chosen the respected academic and businessman Abdel Rahim al-Keib as the leader of the interim government. We are quickly told that this proves there's nothing to worry about. Yet al-Keib is a temporary choice and not that of either the gunmen or the voters. His successor will be different.

One can understand people with no real understanding of the Middle East, having a prefabricated worldview of their own, having little sense of how history works, played on by Middle Eastern ideological con-men, and eager to avoid confrontation they make the mistake of believing that they can tame revolutionary Islamism.

Yet they will surely fail in this endeavor. Those who are wise will avoid paying the price for this foolishness.

* NOTE: My satire us on the popular chant: What does democracy look like? This is what democracy looks like! (If you use my phrase please credit.) This was written by Barry Rubin, who 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 Contact him at The website of the GLORIA Center is at and his blog, Rubin Reports,

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, November 2, 2011.
  In the Fast Company website article
( pics/painting-clean-water?partner= homepage_newsletter#6), the UC and Berkeley-based arab operatives aligned with Hanan Ashwari and the PLO have a new gambit focusing on the purported water needs of the arab denizens occupying Israel's former lands known as Gaza. Israel will continue to face aggravation and insurrections fashioned by clever US-based arabs if Israel doesn't drive all the fool-Jews, who gave Israel's lands to its enemies, out of office. Until then, get private groups in Israel to proceed as follows:

Here's how to solve the propaganda problem currently developing at the hands of Estria: Do a quick study of Estria and the Rafah foundation and immediately note how the arabs plan to blame Israel for their self-inflicted water woes. Study how the arabs intend to blame Israel for its self-inflicted water woes. Solution: Israel must create an exact replica of the arab scheme and use murals to blame the arab cupidity for its water woes. Don't be afraid to blame arab smugglers for stealing Israel's water. Don't be afraid to portray arab smugglers in your murals. Give them ugly faces and extravagant amounts of gold jewelry. Proudly proclaim how Israel has saved its water from arab invaders, and glorify how Israeli Muslims enjoy the same clean-water benefits as Israeli Jews and Israeli foreign workers. Launch murals throughout Jerusalem praising Israel's water programs despite the despicable attacks on Christians and Jews by Muslim traitors. O, by the way, stop using the distinctions between the West Bank and the East Bank invented by the arabs in the US State Dept. This is nonsense because every sane person knows that Jerusalem belongs in its entirety to Israel. Only crazy Jews want to give Israel's lands to Israel's enemies based on their insane premise that shmearing islamics with their Jewish Wonderfulness will cure muslims of their hatred of non-muslims. Thievery and lying to non-muslims is an article of faith for muslims and this dogma should and must be openly despised.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z. Not Left. Not Right. Just 4 Justice for Israel.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 2, 2011.

Shouldn't be quite this way. We should be doing what we have a right to do, just because we have we have a right. But hey! I say Baruch Hashem for what is:

Netanyahu's Inner Cabinet held a lengthy meeti