Home Featured Stories October 2004 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by TheRaphi, October 31, 2004.
This was written by Dov Gilor, a retired systems engineer and active volunteer. He is a freelance writer and editor and lives in Hashmonaim, Israel.

By the time you read this article, Yasser Arafat may have died and many will say good riddance. I, for one, want Arafat to remain alive. Let him suffer in constant pain for all the lives of Jews and his own people that he destroyed, but let him remain in power.

Where would Israel be without Arafat? Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin (of blessed memory), began the giveaway to the Arabs of Egypt, Shimon Peres offered the Palestinian Arabs big chunks of Judea and Samaria, Yitzchak Rabin (of blessed memory) offered more, and even Binyamin Netanyahu offered parts of Israel; while Barak offered 95% of Judea and Samaria and Gaza. Now, Ariel Sharon is in charge of the big giveaway, but it is hard to give away land when there is no one to accept what the Israelis are giving away.

Without Arafat's intransigence and his unwillingness to compromise, there would be little left of Israel today. Arafat saved the land many times over by being intractable about what the Israelis were offering.

If Arafat, G-d forbid, dies, then Israel's liberal establishment will fall all over itself to offer more and more parts of Israel to any weak Arab leader that arises. Once the deal is sealed, it will be practically impossible to go back and re-conquer the land relinquished. Rabin was reported to have declared that if the Arabs were to use the rifles the Rabin administration gave them against Israel, then Israel would take the rifles away. What nonsense. Just like the rifles that were turned against the Jews, once land is given away, the anti-Israel, and even the pro-Israel, nations of the world will not let us go in to take it back.

The terrorists will murder those who compromise and then they will be that much closer to their goal of taking over all of "Palestine". As Arafat has publicly declared hundreds of times, "Tel Aviv is Palestine; Jerusalem is Palestine; Haifa is Palestine; Beersheva is Palestine."

As long as there is no partner, Israel, despite Sharon, will remain mostly intact. Once Arafat goes down, his successors may be bright enough to realize that if the Arabs feign peace, the Israelis will give away everything.

Most non-Zionist Israelis do not care. Jerusalem means little to them and they will feel comfortable anywhere in the world that they might be forced to flee. There are many Israelis who went to live in Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia. There are Israelis who feel at home in Australia, France, Scandinavia, England and, of course, America. They all claim to be coming back to Israel "soon", but who knows what will be left if Arafat dies and his successor is not as intransigent.

Not enough of those living in Israel really care, and I do not believe that a referendum will make any difference. Only Arafat's inflexibility saved us.

If he is still alive, pray that he suffers, but that he remains the Palestinian leader.

TheRaphi (http://www.theraphi.com/archives/oldindex.html) is a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site; it provides news articles and essays.

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 31, 2004.


"Al-Ahram" declares that "legitimate resistance," its euphemism for the terrorism at Taba, "should be confined to the conflict zone." Dr. Joseph Lerner notes that when terrorism is committed against Jews elsewhere, as in Turkey or France, the Muslims do not condemn it. Many Egyptians are angry at the Taba bombings for having killed non-Israelis, especially Egyptians, and disrupting their tourist industry and their sense of security (IMRA, 10/19).

Arabs "logic" is ad hoc. They make up conditions for a current argument, that terrorism shall be only in Israel. This is not Western logic, but an inconsistent, non-rational, deceptive, eastern logic.

The Egyptians express no sympathy for the Israeli tourist families. The Arabs lack a real sense of decency! No revulsion against terrorism, only dismay when it turns on them. Uncivilized!


The informal split in Likud has become so prominent, that Prof. Steven Plaut suggests the Party formally split. Party leaders are reluctant to jeopardize their Knesset seats that way, but Prof. Plaut thinks that the forced unity in the slate, with inconsistency and conflict in policy, drives away voters. Either half on its own might attract a majority, if it had a clear mission.

Splitting off the nationalist portion would give Israel a democratic alternative. (The assumption here is that only a major party offers a democratic alternative, because most voters would be afraid of wasting their ballots on a minor party, even if that were the party they prefer.) When the electorate switches to Likud in order to end Labor Party appeasement, the Likud, divided in its ideology, nevertheless adopts much of that appeasement and, except recently in exchange for Netanyahu's support, retains much of Labor's socialist form of economy (Plaut, 10/19).

Are the leftist surprises by Likud leaders independent or bought by foreign interests?


The US does not admit to be in an international clash of civilizations. We fight as if the Iraq war were disjointed from the Afghanistan war and from everywhere else jihad is active by force, propaganda, recruitment, and fundraising. Our war aims are not clear. The American people think they have a choice of not going to war. They do not realize the gravity of the peril.

We have not mobilized for international war. Our military technology affords great advantages, but are insufficient to overcome insurgencies, occupy populous countries, protect our country now fund to be vulnerable, manage terrorism, and defend us from China's burgeoning military.

We focus more on what we have done than what we should do next. We should threaten Mideastern regimes with overthrow, unless they eradicate their terrorists. The difficulty in pacifying the one Arab country, Iraq, should dampen our enthusiasm for the stated mission of democratizing the whole region. (The goal is worthy, but would have to be approached incrementally and not become the major effort.) Our war aim must be a "disciplined, justifiable, and attainable objective of self-defense."

We should strike here and there, as needed. Shift from our present mode of "conquer, occupy, fail, and withdraw --- to strike, return, and re-energize. In occupying Iraq, we let Iraq occupy us. That is, we let ourselves be tied down and kept from defeating other foes main forces.

We hardly have devoted the resources to block our borders, safeguard our airports, and stockpile antidotes to biological warfare. Our lack of preparedness for a small pox epidemic may induce terrorists to foist the epidemic.

Our war is criticized as "unilateral." It isn't. We did seek and do have allies, but their number is limited by having small armies or opposing our aims. (We should seek out allies but not be paralyzed in protecting ourselves if few allies step forward.) We admired Britain's unilateral stand against the Axis, and detest the multilateral Axis invasion of Greece. Critics would urge unilateral US action against genocide in Africa. (What about the Sudan?) The notion of unilateral vs. multilateral is all mixed up and irrelevant. It should not be a criticism of US policy.

The commission on terrorism let us down. It could have warned about the clash of civilizations, and devised a strategy against it. Instead, it concluded that we merely should revise our intelligence agencies. Moreover, its recommendations are questionable. The enemy works with small groups that intelligence cannot penetrate fast enough. The commission neglected the need for competent airport screeners, proper border control, and reinforced cockpit doors.

Three years after 9/11, "our strategy shiftless, reactive irrelevantly grandiose; our war aims undefined; our preparations insufficient; our civil defense neglected; our policy divided into support for either a hapless and incompetent administration that in a parliamentary system would have been turned out long ago, or an opposition so used to appeasement of America's rivals, critics, and enemies that they cannot even do a credible job of pretending to be resolute (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2004, p.13 from Mark Helprin, Wall St. J., 9/10).

That is an admirable analysis. It is non-partisan, thoughtful, imaginative, and frank.


China is offering its own UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) to Egypt at half the price of Western ones. China is seeking other clients for them. Egypt is co-producing planes for China, so it will get some, as a result (IMRA, 10/21). Egypt wouldn't have acquired advanced weapons with which to challenge the West, but for Western aid!

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 31, 2004.

Of course it does not matter what happens to Arafat. The casino must be built no matter what. The only change is that there will be one less partner for Sharon to have to share the profits.

This is an item from today's Arutz-7 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=71298).

(IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon continues to make clear that he intends to go ahead with his "Disengagement Plan" - which calls for the eviction of nearly 10,000 Jews from their homes - no matter what. Many Knesset Members, including those from the Left, made repeated statements several days ago that the primary reason for abandoning Gaza would be null and void with Arafat out of the picture. As reported by the PM himself, the main reason that the Disengagement Plan was deemed necessary was the lack of any "political partner."

With reports rampant in the last few days of the impending death of Arafat, many felt this would no longer be the case, and that moderates within the PA would have a chance to come to the fore, creating a new "political partner" with whom to dialogue. PM Sharon said today that, "as long as there will be no partner, we will push forward with the disengagement plan that was approved by the government and the Knesset."

Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz proposed that Israel not allow Arafat to return to Ramallah should his health improve, however Sharon stated that, "Israel has made a commitment to allow Arafat to return to the territories." Sharon added, however that "so long as I am prime minister, Arafat will not be buried in Jerusalem."

Though Sharon refused to change his plans to destroy 25 Jewish towns in Gaza and the Northern Shomron, he did state to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Thursday that if a new and moderate leadership were to take over the PA that Israel would coordinate its implementation of the Disengagement Plan with the PA.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, October 31, 2004.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to revere Osama Bin Laden, and even suggests that he has the power to dictate America's future. In response to Bin Laden's taunting and vaguely threatening message to the US, released Saturday by Al-Jazeera, cartoons in two PA dailies today show a gloating Bin Laden determining the outcome of Tuesday's US presidential election.

The first cartoon shows a rifle-toting Bin Laden, triumphantly astride the conquered ballot box, while George Bush and John Kerry - depicted as much smaller and weaker than Bin Laden -- cower below him.

The second shows a smirking Bin Laden casting what is obviously meant to be the deciding vote in the US election.

Besides mocking the two presidential candidates, the tone of the cartoons reflects the PA's continued admiration of Bin Laden's power. Palestinians danced in the streets after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The PA-controlled media has continued to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 with mocking cartoons, such as a fearful Uncle Sam running in terror from an image that depicts both the Twin Towers and the date, 9/11.

Today's cartoons suggest that should he choose, Bin Laden has real power to determine the future of the US -- just as the train bombings in Madrid are believed to have changed the outcome of the Spanish elections.


VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES ON PA INCITEMENT TO GENICIDE http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html


Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, October 31, 2004.
This was written by Hehezkel Bin-Num.

Quick! Who said the following sentence?

"Those who espouse unilateral disengagement under fire - to this line or that - only invite more terror." (Jerusalem Post, January 9, 2003)

As amazing as it sounds, if you answered Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, you would be correct. In fact, it was on this platform that Ariel Sharon ran in the last Israeli general elections and on this platform his Likud party won almost a third of the seats in the Israeli Knesset. The party that supported unilateral disengagement, the Labor party, lost half its seats in parliament. So people naturally became upset when Sharon gave democracy the boot and did the exact opposite of what he promised.

Sharon's words against his own plan, unfortunately, have proven prophetic. Since he announced his scheme to forcefully expel the Jews of Gush Katif, the number of Arab terror attacks in the region has risen exponentially. In the past year, dozens of civilians and soldiers have been slaughtered. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Sharon's capitulation in Gaza and the victory handed to Arab terrorists has emboldened them for the first time to attack Israeli civilian targets within the 1967 borders with artillery. In the past few months, Arabs shooting Kassam rockets on the development town of S'derot have murdered three children and one woman. And the death from the skies continues to pour down daily. Attacks of this type were unheard of prior to Sharon's show of weakness. Large population centers such as Ashdod and Ashkelon are also within range of the terrorist rockets.

Of course, we didn't need Sharon to tell us that surrender to terror only leads to more terror. We already learned that from "Oslo". After 10 years of territorial compromise in exchange for promises of peace, Arab terrorists have murdered 1,500 Israeli citizens, a 700% increase in the number of terror victims over the 10 years prior to Oslo. The current plan has many asking how can we continue to go forward with such a discredited policy? Has Sharon learned nothing from the failure of Oslo?

But worse than compromising Israel's security is the immoral nature of the plan. The ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs was roundly condemned by the world, and former US President Clinton even sent in the US military to forcefully stop the practice. But the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gush Katif is not only ignored by the world, but encouraged. Most hard to believe is the Jewish leftist support for the racist policy. They have been at the forefront of the civil rights movement in the US. In the sixties, they forced segregated schools and universities in the American South to accept Black students. In Israel, the Left has forced Jewish communities to accept Arab families; whereas, many Arab towns are legally off limits to Jews, such as Shechem and Bethlehem.

Unfortunately, these same activists who fight against racial discrimination against Blacks and Arabs favor racial discrimination against their own Jewish brothers. They are willing to kick these people out of their homes only because they are Jewish. Jews today can live in New York, Paris, London and throughout the free world. Only in the Land of Israel, and due to a Jewish government, are there rules forbidding them from living where they will.

Throughout their history, Jews have been expelled from the majority of the lands in which they lived. The English forbid Jews to live in England for centuries. It took Oliver Cromwell to overturn that decree. France had a similar policy. Of course, they were the good guys. What the rest of Europe did to the Jews was a lot more efficient - they simply burned them in ovens. After all, these expulsions and ethnic cleansing of Jews, it is particularly painful to see Jews doing the same thing to other Jews. Its sad to say, but after two thousand years of anti-Semitism, it seems that the message of Jew-hatred has finally been internalized.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes."

To Go To Top
Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, October 31, 2004.
This is from today's Arutz-7.

More than one out of every five Israeli Jews has experienced the loss of a relative or friend through terror or war in the past four years of the Oslo and Road Map Wars. This is the picture that emerges from a phone survey conducted by the University of Haifa's Center for National Security Studies.

The poll shows that 21.8% of Israel's Jewish population suffered the terror-related loss of a friend or relative since September 2000, and over a quarter of the Israeli public (28.1%) makes sure to stay away from events, persons, or situations that remind them of a terrorist incident. The terrorism of the past four years has, according to the respondents answering the phone pollers, deteriorated to the extent that some 2/3 of the public report a drop in their confidence in the government's ability to protect them. Just over half the Israeli public - 51.8% - says it feels "less in control" of factors affecting their lives.

The poll was conducted by Center director Prof. Gabriel Ben-Dor and research associate Dr. Daphna Canetti-Nisim, who arranged telephone interviews in late September with 1,613 respondents. The researchers found that Israel's Arab population is even more despondent - despite the fact that they have been less exposed to terrorism-related suffering than Jews.

Another study carried out of late shows that the residents of Gush Katif are dealing with stress better than residents in other parts of the country. The results were surprising, said Dr. Hagit Cohen, who supervised the study on behalf of the Mental Health Center in Be'er Sheva, considering the proximity of Gush Katif to centers of violence and the constant mortar shellings and rocket attacks. Dr. Cohen, a researcher in the Center's Trauma and Post-Trauma Clinic, said that the results show that the people of Gush Katif show less stress and display fewer fears than others.

"For instance," Dr. Cohen told Arutz-7 today, "we asked them to rate their sense of security on a scale from 1-10. Most of the people in Gush Katif gave very high ratings - adding, 'with G-d's help,' of course - while in the greater Tel Aviv area we saw mostly ratings of 1-3." She said that preliminary results from Kiryat Arba, in southern Judea, indicate a similar trend. The researchers' evaluation is that these residents are aided by their ideology, support for each other, and group-cohesiveness. The entire survey will be released later this week.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@acm.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Arlene Peck, October 31, 2004.

Lord, what happens to Israel's leaders, in just ten minutes after taking office? They all turn into "Barak" and want to give away the store. Is it because they want to be loved so much? Well dear Israel it's not working. No matter matter how much you give in, newspapers like the Los Angeles times, and many more, are going to insist that it's not enough. We'll get to that in a minute.

I used to think that it was only Arafat, the EU and United Nations who were determined to chop up Israel into little pieces, like slicing salami. However, that was before I watched with dismay how Ariel Sharon turned into a dictator, against his own people, no different from the ones who surround him in the third world Arab countries.

In addition, I will be frank with you. I live in a state, California, where we are flooded with referendums to vote on every issue from three strikes for criminals and the key is thrown away, for life! to making ferrets legal. The absolute power a few tired, retired, retreaded or retarded politicans are able to wield amazes me. Hey, even our Governor, Arnold Schwartznegger,was brought into power by a dissatisfied constituency. Therefore, knowing that, it is obvious why I have been conditioned to thinking that a vote by the people is the only way to go.

For one man to decide to turn over a chunk of his country to a foreign power would be the same as George Bush one day waking up and deciding to turn over the State of Texas to his good friend President Fox of Mexico. Because, he believed it historically belonged to them and was the "right" thing to do. Furthermore, it actually might not be such a great loss?

However, we could not just do things like that in this country. An action such as a state giveaway would cause riots and chaos in our streets and there are people who would even miss Texas.

So, that brings me back to the "love issue." Hey, as a journalist, I've traveled to Gaza a few times and saw for myself what a disgusting, filthy, nest of hate it is. There are hordes of barbarian, savage terrorists living there as a result of largesses of their Arab brothers. All they have to do with their time is to burn tires, smoke that 'laughing water ', and plan how they can get into Israel for their homicide bombings of innocent civilians. Personally, to my way of thinking, it is a cancer in the middle of the country and needs to be cut out by transferring the Arab population. However, I never envisioned the transfer to be that of the Jews from the Jewish State. But, it is a problem. If the Arabs can't be expelled, and they can't be controlled, let them stew in their own filth.

So, let me tell you guys outside of the United States how this issue is playing out with the editors in my city. The Los Angeles Times reported Sharon's and the Knesset's actions as "A step toward a lasting peace between the Jewish state and the Palestinians. BUT much more is required: the actual evacuation of those settlers and many more in the West Bank."

Get that guys? No matter what Israel offers, too much is never enough. The PLO supporting Los Angeles Times also wrote in this searing editorial, "Several hundred other settlers will be removed from the West Bank under the plan, but more than 200,000 Israelis will remain---a major stumbling block to the peace process."

Personally, knowing their anti-Semitic leanings, they would not be happy until the entire state of Israel was given over to the PLO and I am not sure even that would be enough. Folks, they do not love Israel.

All the Arabists who are on the payrolls of the Arab states from our State Department would probably agree with them when the Times wrote, "The government (Israel) should work with the Palestinians, to let them cross into Israel for the jobs they need: Gaza is heavily dependent on foreign aid, with more then half the population living on $2 a day or less."

Why, in heaven's name is it Israel's responsibility to put these terrorists to work in the Jewish state and they don't feel the burden should go to any of the surrounding Arab states who have put them in their deplorable situation with their "refuge camps" for fifty years instead of absorbing them into the population.

A follow-up editorial in the Los Angeles Times continued in this vein with "If Arafat is replaced with a transitional interim government, Israel can offer support by negotiating with it and letting ...

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, October 31, 2004.

Sometimes, as bad as things may seem, one must also remember to count one's blessings because things can always be worse. Indeed, elsewhere, they often are worse. For example: for the last month my columns have focused on what was happening at Duke University. In my view, when universities refuse to teach students the difference between what is true and what is false this constitutes an abdication of intellectual and moral responsibility which renders democracy utterly vulnerable to barbarism. I fear that Duke's hosting of the PSM conference without "taking sides," may indeed border on such abdication.

But, as the immediate Jewish world and our supporters were covering the Palestine Solidarity Conference at Duke, something decidedly worse was happening at the University of Pisa in Italy. At Duke, both the pro-Israel and the pro-Palestine speakers, activists, protestors, and infiltrators were physically non-violent. Jew-hatred is far more physically violent in Europe, not only on their mean streets but at their universities.

According to my informant, the prominent Roman journalist, Anselma Dell'Olio, last week, Shai Cohen, an Israeli diplomat, was invited to give a talk to students at the University of Pisa, a venerable institution which was founded in 1343. Cohen was to speak on "Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. " Professor Maurizio Vernassa invited students from the History Department and from the Afro-Asian institutes. The invitation was no secret. Cohen entered through the main entrance of the Aula Magna of the Political Science Department.

According to Dell'Olio, "Cohen was greeted by a group of about 20 students wearing the Palestinian keffiah around their necks, shouting "Sharon assassino! Israel is a death dealer! Zionism is a crime against humanity!" Cohen was called a fascist murderer and other personal and far worse insults. The left-wing group then proceeded to shout him out of the University, literally and loudly threatened to pass from verbal to physical violence if he did not leave. Other students tried to calm things down and defended Cohen's right to speak, but they were unsuccessful, and the left-wing thugs shouted that no Israeli would be allowed to speak, that Israel has no right to exist and so on."

The point: No national scandal ensued, except in Guiliano Ferrara's influential newspaper, Il Foglio, which has been publishing pieces about what happened in Pisa. The Dean of the University sent a tepid, delayed apology to Cohen. More important: The invitation to Cohen has not been re-scheduled. According to Dell'Olio, "A press release proudly bragging about "Pisa antagonista" successfully casting out the Israel heathen from the university and preventing the conference, appeared in Indymedia.

Can what happened at the University of Pisa happen here?

Some might say that it already has. There is very little free speech for anyone who takes a pro-Israel position at Berkeley. Concordia University in Montreal, the site of previous anti-Jewish riots, recently refused to allow former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to speak; citing security risks, they previously did not allow former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak either. Ironically, Duke University spent more than $50,000.00 to protect the PSM's freedom of speech. My point: Threats of violence have led to self-censorship on some NorthAmerican campuses. Pro-Israel factions do not threaten to riot if anti-Israel speakers come to town. De facto censorship also rules the North American campuses courtesy of Arab oil money, (and American oil company money too) who, over many years, have funded anti-Israel and pro-Palestine scholars at Middle East Institutes.

Again, I ask: Can what happened at the University of Pisa happen here?

America is a former British colony. Ex-colonials tend to internalize the belief that the colonizer is wiser, more sophisticated, intrinsically "better. " Thus, Americans are avid followers of British culture. But Americans--especially its intellectuals--love Italy for it's sensuous, pagan-Catholic beauty, landscape, music, art. Recently, one American leftist told me that if President Bush wins this next election she will "probably become an expatriate in Italy." Another left-wing professor said that if President Bush wins that "America will effectively become a police state and I'll probably have to move to Europe." Some second- and third-generation Israeli Jews have been moving back to their grandparents' European countries of origin, especially Germany and Poland. "The Promised Land," directed by Israelis Avy Hemy and Yael Friedman, and produced by Idan Regev, is an excellent film about this troubling subject. I recently viewed it at the East Hampton Film Festival.

I understand: Jews have always been on the road, we are the original "beatniks." I understand: Like the biblical Abraham, some Jews, whether in Israel or elsewhere, want to leave their fathers' homes to explore both inner existential and outer geographic space, move freely, as individuals, from continent to continent. I understand: Some Israeli Jews want to escape the pressure cooker of the Middle East, even for a little while if not forever. Of course, most Israeli Jews are absolutely ready to die for their right to remain in Israel, despite the cost.

But, if you've read the recent pieces by long-time expatriates Nidra Poller in Commentary (France) and Carol Gould in Frontpage (England), it is increasingly clear that Europe is no longer safe for Jews. If you've seen any of Pierre Rehov's important films, including his latest one, "Hostages of Hatred," which I also viewed at the EastHampton Film Festival, you will know that the Muslim Middle East is boiling over with Jew-hatred. Arab Jews can't go home again. Nor can most Christians. Please visit my website (www.phyllis-Chesler.com) where I have posted a 45 minute video by the Maronite Christian Brigitte Gabriel, who talks about her experiences growing up under Palestinian tyranny in Lebanon.

North America remains safe. But, if the hate propaganda against the Jews and against the Jewish state is not quickly and effectively countered, then what happened at the University Pisa will happen here. It is only a matter of time.

Let us use that time very well.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., is the author of twelve books including her latest, The New Anti-Semitism. The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It (Jossey Bass/John Wiley). She may be reached through her website, www.Phyllis-Chesler.com. This article appeared on Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemagazine.com), October 29, 2004.

To Go To Top
Posted by Marcel Cousineau, October 31, 2004.

P.M. Sharon came out loud and clear that he will not permit Arafat's body to be buried in Jerusalem. But we all know that P.M. Sharon has lost his spine. He's says alot of things that he doesn't mean. There is no doubt that just 1 phone call from Washington will change his mind. This has been proven time and again.

He's said a lot of things in the past with conviction that he has suddenly changed his mind on. There is no truth worth holding to with these politicians, they sell their soul to hold to power and advance their delusional agendas.

The sad thing is they get away with their lies. A weak Israel will bend and Arafat will very likely be buried in Jerusalem. That's the reality appeaser Sharon gives us as he quiets all credible oppposition to his schemes that have proven dealdy to Am Yisriel, but pleasing to those who seeks Israel's extermination.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 30, 2004.

"Al Dura Affair: the Dramatic Conclusion" (info # 012510/4) by Stéphane Juffa, Metula News Agency, 25 October 2004.

This is a Résumé by Nidra Poller. The original article in French can be read at: http://www.menapress.com/article.php?sid=956


September 30, 2000: A France 2 news report filed by Talal Abu Rahma with a voice-over commentary by Charles Enderlin purports to show the fatal shooting of a Palestinian child, Mohamed Al Dura, and the wounding of his father Jamal by Israeli gunfire. France 2 distributed the report free of charge to world media. Metula News Agency has thoroughly investigated the affair, and concluded that the report is a fabrication, deliberately aimed at vilifying the IDF.

The accusation against the IDF was based solely on the testimony of France 2 reporter Abu Rahma, backed up by his hierarchy at France Télévision. Abu Rahma's testimony under oath before the Palestinian Center for Human Rights can be read here: [accéder à la déclaration]

The 3-year Metula News Agency investigation, in conformity with the findings of the IDF commission led by physician Nahum Shahaf, has consistently maintained that Abu Rahma's declaration was false, and that the 27 minutes of footage allegedly showing the Israelis shooting at the Al Duras does not exist. Repeated requests by our agency to view the 27 minutes of footage were denied.

Further, MNA concluded that France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin was deliberately lying, to make the incident seem authentic, when he claimed that he cut out the sequence of the childs death throes because they were too horrible to show. Enderlin also declared that there was no footage showing the fatal bullet hit the child.

The images on the news report do not corroborate the accusation that child was killed by Israeli soldiers; the commentary suggests what the images do not show. France 2 claimed to be holding the clinching evidence -- the film of the childs death throes -- but would never present it.

Friday October 22nd: the abscess is lanced

Under circumstances connected to the Metula investigation and film demonstration, France Télévisions CEO, Marc Tessier, asked the station's news director Arlette Chabot to show the 27 minutes of raw footage to Luc Rosenzweig, former Le Monde journalist (now free lance contributor to Metula News Agency, Radio Communauté Juive, etc.)

Rosenzweig, accompanied by two eminent media directors, was received in the France 2 offices by A. Chabot, Didier Epelbaum (advisor to the president of France 2) and an image analyst from the station's legal department.

The France 2 officials tried to sidestep projection of the 27 minutes of raw footage, dismissing them as insignificant and irrelevant, since Abu Rahma had retracted his testimony, explaining that the cameraman had been caught off guard when he testified. Caught off guard? Three days after the incident, comfortably seated in a lawyers office?

So they are admitting that Abu Rahma gave false testimony and subsequently retracted. Now that the sole witness to the assassination of Mohammed Al Dura has retracted, there is nothing left of the affair but a shred of bad fiction not worth a kopek.

Rosenzweig and his colleagues were not aware of Abu Rahma's retraction for the simple reason that France 2 never made it public. For four years French public TV officials had been hiding the fact that they do not have 27 minutes of film to prove the blood libel against Israel.

They had allowed the hoax to become a symbol of the Palestinian revolt against the barbarous Jews. The Al Dura image has generated years of dreadful violence, murderous mobs, the Ramallah lynching, etc. It has fanned hatred between Palestinians and Israelis, between Jews and Arabs.

The atmosphere in the France 2 office became tense. Didier Epelbaum was violating numerous provisions of the ethical charter he himself had drafted, namely the obligation to correct news reports when new, contradictory information arises.

Informed that Abu Rahma is in Paris undergoing medical treatment, Rosenzweig said he would like to speak with him. Epelbaum replied that it wouldn't be worth the trouble because the Palestinian cameraman doesnt speak French and his English is very poor. St&ecute;phane Juffa remembers hearing Abu Rahma speak on CNN; his English was fine.

Finally Rosenzweig and his colleagues are shown the 27 minutes of raw footage. No new images of the Al Duras. No shots of Israeli soldiers. Scenes of demonstrators attacking the Israeli position, scenes of kids pretending to be wounded by the Israelis. Epelbaum comments: Those kids are always doing that!

Enderlin claimed he'd handed over the raw footage intact to Israeli authorities. Rosenzweig saw that this wasn't true. The few seconds where you can see the child moving voluntarily after he was (allegedly) killed instantly by the fatal shot had been retouched with stills.

Rosenzweig asks about the unbearable death throes

Embarrassed reaction from the France 2 officials. There are no such images.

Epelbaum asks the visiting journalists if they have proof that the news report is a fake. He doesn't seem to realize that the September 30, 2000 incident at Netzarim Junction is totally baseless now that it has become obvious that the sole witness (Abu Rahma) gave false testimony and the correspondent (Enderlin) was caught lying. But Rosenzweig has further proof. He plugs his USB stick into a computer and brings up the picture of a dead child taken in Gaza's Shifa Hospital on the day of the Al Dura incident, and presented as Mohamed Al Dura. There's a slight problem here, he says. The face on this corpse is not exactly the same as the face [of Mohamed] in your news report.

Chabot wonders out loud if they had been fooled, and suggests having police experts compare the two. Metula has already made the test: the two boys are not the same age, the wounds on the corpse have nothing in common with the alleged wounds of M. Al Dura.


Enderlin can stick to his usual defense--explaining that Israeli army officers fell into his trap, which is true, and that the State of Israel would have sued him if the report were a hoax but it won't work anymore. In fact, Daniel Seaman, head of the government press office (GPO) and the Prime Minister's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, have already publicly announced that the Al Dura news report is a fake. Seaman informed us that the government had decided it was not appropriate to drag accredited foreign correspondents into court. But that might change after the revelations in this article.

There is nothing left of the claim that Mohamed Al Dura was assassinated by Israeli soldiers. But the larger question, of the dangers when foreign media interfere in a conflict, remains to be addressed. France 2 has been fooling people for four years, pretending they were holding raw footage that showed Jewish soldiers assassinating an Arab boy. The French public TV channel contributed to the revival of medieval rumors that demonize Jews: the Israeli soldiers would have to be utterly heartless to pick out a child in the crowd and fire at him for 45 minutes until they killed him.

The media hoax fabricated by Abu Rahma and Enderlin exceeded their expectations. The image of the ferocious Israelis still holds, and it has convinced the vast majority of French-speaking people. Now France Télévision has a tremendous task. They have to explain what happened and acknowledge what they did. And they must reconsider the journalists and methods that produced the Al Dura affair, the biggest hoax in media history. The people who did it should no longer be allowed to inform the French public about the Arab-Israeli conflict. And they shouldnt be allowed to keep the prizes awarded for the scoop.

The Metula News Agency will be watching!

The original article in French can be read at: http://www.menapress.com/article.php?sid=956

"Bialik in Baghdad" by Amnon Rubinstein, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 26, 2004. Amnon Rubinstein is founder of the Shinui movement and a former education minister, is dean of the Radzyner School of Law at The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.

What is the connection between the Hebrew poet Chaim Nachman Bialik and the American invasion of Iraq? Is there a connection between the author of In the City of Killing, who died in 1934, and the killing now taking place in Baghdad?

The answer is given several times a week in Britain, at London's National Theater, which is having a successful run of a new play by David Hare called Stuff Happens.

This play, like others presently on in London, fiercely attacks the United States and the Bush administration over its invasion of Iraq. The three-hour play presents two kinds of actors: caricatures and reciters.

The caricatures are of the stupid enemies of humanity George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice all of whom are presented as mindless idiots.

Two characters, however, are not idiots Colin Powell and Tony Blair. They're weak, ridiculous, and ultimately manipulated by the mindless idiots.

The reciters stand up and say what they think of the situation. One of them is a "Palestinian academic" who declares that the Hebrew poet Chaim Nachman Bialik said Israel would be normal and human only when it had Zionist crooks, Zionist prostitutes and Zionist murderers.

She adds: "Well, it's human now. The victims of the conflict have become the problem. We are the Jews of the Jews."

The audience one of the most sophisticated audiences in the world bursts into applause.

The Palestinian reciter goes on to describe Israel as a "$3-billion-a-year American colony in the Middle East," for which the mindless idiots are waging the war.

Needless to say, there is no Israeli reciter to refute that. The new fashion rules out any such balance.

That story about Bialik is a joke that made the rounds during the Palestinian yishuv: According to the anecdote whose veracity is hard to ascertain when Bialik learned there had been a theft in the little Tel Aviv of the day, he responded with typical humor: Finally we are normal.

Bialik didn't say anything about murderers. And anyone who knows anything about the poet also knows he was incapable of saying what playwright David Hare attributes to him.

Hare, moreover, has seemingly never heard of Palestinian, Arab or Muslim murderers. The only murderers mentioned in the play are Bialik's imaginary "Zionist murderers."

Hare can hardly be accused of anti-Semitism his wife is a leading Jewish fashion designer. Nor can we charge him with extreme anti-Israeli sentiments.

His monologue about a visit to Israel and Palestine may be critical of Israeli policies who isn't? but it was fair and full of empathy toward Israelis.

So what's going on here?

Two things: First, ideology defeats artistry. This is not the first time an artist has subjugated his talent to rigid ideology, the result being, invariably, boring theater.

Secondly, fashion trumps common sense. It's faddish to be anti-Israeli, even when Israel is not involved and it's a fashion that must not be argued with.

The Spectator's theater critic noted that there is no play in London which understands, or even tries to understand, the Bush-Blair position, because were there a playwright who wrote such a play, nobody would present it.

And if, by some miracle, such a play did get produced, it would be trashed by the critics and closed within days of opening.

We cannot ignore this fashion, so prevalent in Western intellectual circles including among those who were once avid supporters of Israel.

And we cannot fight it with hasbara.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Susie Dym, October 30, 2004.

Following the Knesset vote on the "disengagement program," a vote on the "disengagement law" is scheduled to be held this Tuesday - but yet another grassroots campaign is underway to have it pushed off by at least a week.

The bill to be voted Tuesday, November 2, 2004, known as the Compensation/Evacuation bill, contains the nitty-gritty of the expulsion from Gaza and northern Shomron. Almost 90 pages long, it contains details such as: the amount of money each family will receive for moving-van costs; the amount of time they are liable to spend in prison for congregating in groups of three during the evacuation (three years; five, if they are armed with a gun or knife at the time); the fact that all movable and immovable property that remains in the area after the specified date of evacuation becomes the property of the government; and more.

The "delay the vote" campaign is working on several fronts, including reminding Likud MKs of their commitment to vote against the plan and pressuring Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin to use his authority to reschedule the vote for a later date.

The organizers state that the following points can be made to Rivlin (who can be reached by fax at 02 (+9722, from abroad) 649-6193): There is no reason to cooperate with Sharon in rushing the Knesset vote - especially in view of the political upheaval to which we are currently witness; the proposed law has many "holes," such as what to do with children - who by law may not be arrested - in the expected event that both of their parents are arrested for protecting their homes; and more.

Remember the men, women, and children of Gush Katif who have endured terrorist attack after terrorist attack over the past four years and have stood fast and remained strong and made many sacrifices for their convictions to protect the Land of Israel.


The message is simple:

Ask the Knesset Member to VOTE AGAINST anything that promotes to Sharon's unilateral disengagement retreat plan. The unilateral retreat by Israel, and rout of Israelis, will create yet another radical Islamic terrorist state. It will encourage the terrorists by handing them a victory and it will increase Israel's strategic vulnerability to attack.

You may add another sentence or 2 if you like. Please make it short.

Be sure to give them your name, address and phone number.

Note: These numbers are for calling within Israel. If calling from the U.S., begin with 011-972-remove the 0 and dial the rest of the number.

This campaign is coordinated with all the major pro-Zionist groups in Israel and the Gush Katif Committee.

These are the 20 MK's who are central to the vote on Tuesday:

Cell phone numbers of the MK himself (for the brave)

fax numbers

Telephone numbers of offices (speak to aide) 

Member of Knesset





MK Ruchama Avraham



02-5309980/ 02-6753446

MK Yaakov Edri




MK Michael Eitan




MK Eli Aflalo


02-6496591  03-6976990

02-6753846/   6977154-03

MK Zev Boim





MK Daniel ben-Lulu




MK Roni Bar On

054-7703225 052-4501818



MK Inbal Gavrieli


/ 02-6773699

02-6753266 6773690-02

MK Tsachi HaNegbi




MK Yehiel Chazan



02-6753237 / 75 / 


MK Yisrael Katz




Min Limor Livnat




MK Danny Naveh


02-6496421  02-5635769


Min Bibi Netanyahu



02-6753123 / 3658

MK Yuval Steinitz


02-6753792 5303506-02


Min Silvan Shalom




MK David Tal



02-6753870 / 371802

MK Chemi Doron



02-6753666 / 133

MK Yigal Yasinov

.Was former Prisoner of Zion



MK Victor Breilovsky

Ten information items to read before you get started:

1. On Tuesday, 26 October, there will be a fateful vote in the Knesset re: the unilateral retreat plan. Below is a list of the 20 MKs who are central to the vote on Tuesday. This campaign is coordinated with all the major pro-Zionist groups in Israel and in particular with the Gush Katif Committee.

2. It's simple -- you call and say to the aide or secretary who answers something like: "My name is ___ and I would like MK ___ to vote against hitnatkut (unilateral withdrawal) on Tuesday". If the aide or secretary refuses to accept your message, or insists that you "have to" send a fax, insist that accepting telephone messages is -- with all due respect -- part of their job. If you get an answering machine, by all means, leave a message.

3. If you have a fax, fax the same short message. Don't waste your time on long messages; they are not read. Your time is better spent calling a dozen or more friends and relatives and urging them to please, please participate in this campaign.

4. Don't use email -- it is not effective enough. Knesset members hardly ever read email, and your friends and relatives are MUCH more likely to cooperate (fax or make phonecalls) if you show how much you care by personally calling them -- rather than merely emailing them.

5. All the MKs are from the Likud party, except for David Tal (Amir Peretz's workers' party -- formerly Shas) and Doron, Yasinov and Brailovsky (Shinui).

6. Are you willing to use YOUR fax machine to send a fax on behalf of somebody ELSE? Call friends or relatives who don't have a fax and ask them to dictate a message to you! Or, contact Susie Dym sddym@bezeqint.net and I will send you however many faxes (from other people) you ask for. For example, if you ask for 3 faxes from others, that will mean you have 60 pages to fax out -- 3 pages to each of 20 Knesset members. It doesn't take as long as you think and it's extremely effective.

7. If you have no fax machine, you can email me a message for the MKs and I will try to find someone with a fax machine who will fax out your message. Messages in Hebrew rather than English are better. HOWEVER DON'T FORGET TO MAKE THE PHONECALLS. Phonecalls are the most important of all!!!

8. If you know Hebrew, and are willing to call 25 people (who are known to oppose the retreat) and ask THEM to phone and fax, please contact 052-987566 or email man_mos1@yahoo.com and you will get 25 names to call.

9. Please forward this to everybody you know who you think MIGHT be against the unilateral withdrawal campaign.

10. If you get really nervous on Tuesday, it will make you feel better to make a second round of phonecalls.


Susie Dym, spokesperson
Mattot Arim

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 30, 2004.
This article was written by Ratmir Orestov, Special to Russia Profile, October 26, 2004 (http://www.russiaprofile.org/international/article.wbp?article-id =D0C11C92-D5ED-4492-BC28-EA8A065301F7).

Israel has been counteracting the threat of terrorism for about 40 years. Over the past decade, the country has developed what many people consider the world's most effective system for combating terrorism. Dr. Eli Karmon, senior analyst at the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism attached to the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzlia, describes how this mechanism works.

Karmon highlights four main elements in the terrorism-prevention scheme. These elements act as links in one chain, defending society against the threat of terror.

......To begin with, intelligence work is of paramount importance. Karmon believes that it is far more important to foil terrorists' plans on the drawing board than to deal with a real attack. Therefore, the police do not play a major role in counteracting terrorism in Israel. Rather, they are considered the last line of defense. Reports from agents in the field have led to the arrests of dozens of suicide bombers before they were able to carry out their attacks. Moreover, says Karmon, agents on the ground are not the only way that Israel's security services collect information. For instance, airborne surveillance is also used.

Defense measures are the next element that deserve particular attention. Above all, these involve guarding air and sea transportation routes, foreign embassies and any public spaces where people tend to gather. Armed air marshals began flying on Israeli planes in the late 1960s, while tight security checks were later introduced at airports and seaports. These defense measures have had an impressive record: Since then, there has not been a single terrorist attack on an Israeli plane.

Significantly, the job of providing security in Israel does not belong to the government alone. Under a special government resolution, private security is mandatory in public spaces, including shopping centers, restaurants, parking garages and schools. Since the state cannot maintain an entire army of private security guards, business owners implement these measures and cover their expenses with a small markup on their goods and services. The police have the right to check the efficacy of a business's security, and they can even close it down if the owners have not taken strong enough measures. One remaining vulnerability, however, is public transportation. In particular, buses remain at risk and the relevant security measures still need serious work.

All this activity requires not only considerable financial and human resources, but also certain psychological preparations. This leads to the third link in the chain: The general population has to be included.

Ordinary people play a significant role in Israel's counter-terrorism doctrine. For years, movie theaters and television stations have run short films about what a suspicious package looks like, how to identify a potential criminal and what to do if you find yourself in a dangerous situation. An Aganti-terrorist literacy campaignAh is being run to educate the younger generation.

Consequently, law enforcement receives a constant stream of alarms, each one of which is checked. Of course, the police do not always find a bomb, but the result is that people feel involved in something important. This, in turn, increases their confidence in Israeli law enforcement. Karmon is convinced that keeping the population informed makes them trust the authorities and cooperate with them when necessary.

The fourth important area in Israel's counter-terrorism scheme is the neutralization of terrorist groups' strategic leaders. Karmon believes that the masterminds of terrorist attacks are far more dangerous than the individual perpetrators. He argues that attacks cannot be carried out unless there is an organized structure behind them, and that the internal coordination of such structures is undermined when the people who give the orders to attack are taken out of the equation. The cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian security services in the late 1990s clearly demonstrates how effective this policy can be. At the time, the Palestinian Authority arrested most of the mid-level and senior leaders of extremist movements, which led to a near cessation of terrorist attacks.

However, when the second intifada began in 2000, these prisoners were released. Karmon points out that they needed only six months to re-establish interaction within their own ranks and resume their terrorist activities.

The counter-terrorism expert is convinced that both in Israel and other countries, governments pay insufficient attention to studying public sentiment in the areas where terrorists live and work. For example, they rarely consider that the use of excessive military force against terrorists often leads to civilian deaths and a consequent surge in radical beliefs. Meanwhile, in various meetings and exchanges of opinions with the other side, it is possible to identify moderate voices with whom constructive dialogue can be conducted.

Karmon believes that Israel's counter-terrorist scheme can be applied to Russia, even though the different scale and conditions NQ including the much larger size of the population, the country's vast territories and its complicated state structure NQ mean that far greater efforts will be needed to implement effective measures.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Dafna Yee, October 30, 2004.

Dear Editor:

In the article, "Mighty Macedonian: Alexander the Great" by Richard Covington, the map on pages 74-75 is faulty, as it completely omits Judea/Israel. A more accurate map can be found at: http://www.epsaweb.org/images/0260.gif. According to all historical references I've ever read, Alexander specifically conquered Judea/Israel, and the Hellenic influence remained long after Alexander died. "In 333 BCE, with the conquest of Judea, Alexander the Great instituted Greek rule over all of Judea and of Israel." In fact, the entire Maccabean revolt was against a Hellenic ruler, Antiochus, in 168 BCE http://www.jafi.org.il/education/festivls/hanuka/h1.html.

Covington mentions Alexander's conquest of Syria as well as the fortress of Tyre in present-day Lebanon, but noticeably omits Judea/Israel. He writes, "The conquest continued. Following a grinding, seven-month siege, Alexander captured the island fortress of Tyre, in present-day Lebanon; Egyptians, oppressed by the Persians, welcomed him as a liberator." (page 77) Tyre is on the map but Jerusalem, which was a far greater city, and which Alexander also conquered at this time, is not.

The name of that land at the time of Alexander was known as Yehud to the Greeks, and it was most definitely on their maps as separate from Syria. "After Alexander's conquest, if not earlier, the name Yehud had become known to the Greek-speaking world in the form of Ioudaia and this became the Latin Iudaea (Judea), or perhaps the name came from the people, now called Judeans instead of 'Syrians'." http://focusonjerusalem.com/whatromecalledthepromisedland.html

There has been too much altering of history in otherwise reputable publications to accommodate present-day political correctness about Israel. This is usually done in an attempt to eradicate the Jews' historical claims to their homeland, often with the excuse of being "fair to both sides." I find this tendency both appalling and contrary to sound historical research. In fact, it amounts to a historical massacre of the truth.

You can email the Smithsonian at LettersEd@simag.si.edu or send a letter to Letters, Smithsonian, MRC 951, P.O Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013 Include you name and address.

Dafna Yee is the director Jewish Watch Dog (JWD). Its website address is http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 29, 2004.
This was written by Michael Oren, and appeared on National Post, October 27, 2004.

The fall of 2000 saw the outbreak of yet another Arab-Israeli war -- the sixth or seventh, depending on who's doing the counting. This war was different from any that had raged before it. Though several Middle Eastern states were indirectly involved in the fighting, this was overwhelmingly a struggle between Israel and the (Ed. Arab) Palestinian people.

The fall of 2000 saw the outbreak of yet another Arab-Israeli war -- the sixth or seventh, depending on who's doing the counting. This war was different from any that had raged before it. Though several Middle Eastern states were indirectly involved in the fighting, this was overwhelmingly a struggle between Israel and the Palestinian people. Moreover, in contrast to previous wars, most of which were fought between regular armies, this war was fought mostly in urban areas, pitting Israeli forces against Palestinian irregulars whose principal targets were Israeli civilians.

Yet, in one fundamental way, this latest war resembled those that occurred before it.

The wars of 1948 and 1956, of 1967, 1973 and 1982 -- all were proxy wars in which the Israeli and Arab armies served as stand-ins for the competing powers of the Cold War. This war, too, has been a proxy war -- not between Soviets and the West, of course, but between the West and world terror.

This was the first war in which a Western-style democratic state was subjected to relentless, often daily, terrorist strikes whose stipulated purpose was neither a change in that state's government nor even an alteration of its borders, but the unravelling of its civil society and -- ultimately -- the elimination of that state entirely.

When the violence began in 2000, it mainly consisted of clashes between Israeli security forces and rock-throwing Palestinian youth -- a repetition, so it seemed, of the Intifada that had shaken the territories between 1987 and 1991, and that had persuaded so many Israelis of the need to end the occupation.

Yet it soon became clear that the word "Intifada," connoting a non-violent popular revolt, was no longer applicable.

Before long, masked gunmen took the place of rock-throwing youths. Their weapons were being turned not only on Israeli soldiers in the territories, but increasingly on Israeli civilians on both sides of the Green Line.

The southern Jerusalem neighbourhood of Gilo came under intense fire from the Palestinian suburbs of Bethlehem -- the level of shooting growing so loud at times that my family and I, situated just down the road, could barely hear ourselves talking around the dinner table.

However, the impact of shootings paled beside that of suicide bombers who aimed to kill the maximum number of civilians on buses, restaurants and other public sites.

Now there was nothing terribly new about roadside ambushes in Israel or suicide bombers -- my sister-in-law (a Jewish day school teacher from Connecticut) was killed in one such bus bombing in August, 1995. At the time, however, she was considered not so much a victim of terror as a victim of peace, an attempt by peripheral extremists to derail the Oslo negotiation process.

What was new in 2000 was the massive outpouring of support for terror by the Palestinian population -- parades of tens of thousands in Gaza, the relentless adoration of martyrs in the official Palestinian media, and the calls for a million martyrs more.

Israel's reaction to this new type of war was shock. The government responded not by suspending negotiations with the Palestinians but by expediting them, offering Arafat more concessions than he had achieved at Camp David the previous summer. Meanwhile, there was no attempt to beef up defences around public areas, no attempt, certainly, to counter-attack and bring the fighting across the Green Line and into the Palestinians' camp.

On Oct. 12, 2000, I was called to emergency reserve duty. A few hours later, I was in a Blackhawk helicopter bound for Nablus, the hottest front. I landed amid confusion and flying bullets. Several peppered our jeep; another, a 7.62 mm sniper's round, hit my commanding officer in the head -- where it was stopped by his newly issued Kevlar helmet.

Two Israeli reservists had just then been taken prisoner by Palestinian policemen who then turned them over to a mob that lynched them and mutilated their bodies. That night, squatting in a trench on one of the mountains overlooking Nablus, I watched Israel's response to these attacks -- an IDF gunship flew over and fired its machine guns directly into ... a deserted soccer field. I remember thinking: Why is Israel, after sustaining such terrible losses, retaliating against turf?

The most basic reason was that Israel simply lacked the means to retaliate. Though much of the territories remained under Israeli occupation, well over 90% of the Palestinian population, including all the major cities, were under Palestinian Authority control, meaning Israel no longer had access to intelligence sources. Consequently, the Israeli army's most senior officers told Barak that Israel lacked a military option and that victory over terror was impossible.

Internally and internationally constrained, unsure of itself and unwilling to confront its enemy, Israel was all but frozen. Theatres and restaurants stood vacant. Foreign investment, the lifeblood of Israel's high-tech industry, dried up.

This was Israel's situation in January, 2001, when Ehud Barak's government fell and was replaced by a more right-wing coalition under Ariel Sharon. He called in Israeli generals, demanded a plan for military victory and brought in a chief of staff who would implement it.

Slowly, almost imperceptively, Sharon began to escalate counter-measures -- targeting terrorist leaders, and establishing checkpoints around Palestinian cities. These measures continued till March, 2002, Israel's bloodiest month, which concluded with a nightmarish attack on a Passover Seder in the city of Netanya.

Sharon struck back with Operation Defensive Shield -- a far-reaching military operation to reoccupy the West Bank's cities. Open season was declared on the so-called "political" leaders of Hamas and the al-Aqsa brigades. Yasser Arafat was confined to his half-ruined headquarters in Ramallah, where he has remained ever since.

For the first time in 18 months of war, the terrorists were put on the defensive, the targets of swift-hitting raids launched by Israeli commandos working in close collaboration with the intelligence services.

One of those commandos was my 19 year-old son, Yoav. During my old paratrooping days, one operation every three months was considered a heavy load, Yoav and his group went out nightly, sometimes twice nightly.

Instead of calling in air strikes or artillery -- what any normal army would do, precisely what the U.S. military is now doing in Falluja -- the Israeli commando units went directly into the terrorists' homes, ferreting them out -- risking their own lives, yes, but also greatly reducing the number of collateral civilian casualties.

The result: In contrast to Israeli casualties in the war -- three-quarters of whom have been civilians, less then half of all Palestinian casualties have been civilian -- a statistic almost unrivalled in modern warfare.

The immediate result was a drastic reduction in the number of successful suicide bombings. Sharon had proved that Israel could strike back against terrorists, greatly inhibiting their ability to act. In 2004, Israel has prevented over 400 attempted suicide bombings, and the rate of successful attacks has been reduced by over 90%. Some of this success can be attributed to the separation barrier, which has virtually eliminated terrorist attacks in sectors of the West Bank where it has been completed.

Looking back at the last four years, the world can learn some invaluable lessons from Israel's war on terror.

The first is, quite simply, recognizing that this is a war -- a total war, an existential war, a war of survival. A national leader, accordingly, must put virtually all other considerations aside. He or she must seek to create a national consensus and to maintain vital alliances -- to emulate Churchill in 1940 and Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. Even then, the state and its leaders must be prepared to endure significant stress internally and bitter condemnations in the international arena.

Secondly, victories can be won against terror without totally devastating the host society. Victory is possible while maintaining basic moral and democratic values. This, arguably, is Israel's greatest achievement in this war, for though the Palestinian people declared war against not just the state but also the people of Israel, we did not retaliate with war against the Palestinians. Throughout, Israel used only a fraction of its military force, and never fired a single artillery shell at a Palestinian target.

And though some Palestinian neighbourhoods, particularly in Gaza, have suffered extensive damage, Palestinian society has not been reduced to rubble -- no place in the territories even remotely resembles Dresden in 1945 or Hanoi in 1972 or Chechnya today. No place evokes a sense of what a country would look like after it had sent successive waves of suicide bombers against the civilian populations of France or Russia or the United States.

From a state of near-paralysis at the end of 2000, Israel has rebounded. The hotels are filled and the restaurants, though now gated and guarded, are packed. In this year alone, Israelis garnered the country's first Nobel Prizes in chemistry, its first Olympic gold medal and the championships of both European basketball leagues -- heady achievements for a nation at war.

I would urge other Western nations to take a close look. Israel has been your litmus, your laboratory. We have shown the world that you can prevail against terror.

Michael Oren is a Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and is the author of the critically acclaimed 2002 book "Six Days of War: June 1967" and the "Making of the Modern Middle East". This essay is adapted from a lecture delivered on Monday at Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple as part of the Gerald Schwartz/Heather Reisman Fall 2004 Lecture Series, "Terror and the Defence of the West."

To Go To Top
Posted by Tamar Bush, October 29, 2004.
This was writen by Alastair Gordon, director of communications, Canadian Coalition for Democracies (http://CanadianCoalition.com).

The Canadian Jewish News reported this week that Paul Martin's Liberal government has decided to continue funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

UNRWA's commissioner-general, Peter Hansen, recently admitted to a CBC interviewer that Hamas members were on his organization's payroll. In May, 2004, UNRWA ambulances were caught smuggling out terrorists after they killed Israelis in Gaza. In that same month, Israeli news broadcast a video of armed terrorists using UNRWA ambulances to flee.

Hamas is a group that has been designated as a terrorist organization by our government. As a Canadian, I am ashamed that my tax dollars are bankrolling Hamas terrorists through the $10-million per year given to UNRWA. Why are UNRWA services to the Palestinians deemed so important by our government that they are worth the lives of innocent Israelis? We are sending tax dollars to an organization that we have outlawed.

Our government has also given a quarter-billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority while refusing to account for how it is spent. What Canadian interests are being served by such a policy?

UNRWA funding should be stopped until we are certain that the agency's activities are 100% humanitarian. By supporting UNRWA, an organization that employs Hamas terrorists, and by failing to pressure the Palestinian Authority to end its terror campaign against Israelis, Paul Martin and his government are proving to be neither friends of Israel nor friends of democracy.

To Go To Top
Posted by Donna Hadida, October 29, 2004.

He should be sent to hell one way ticket no return ... Arafat hurry! Hell is waiting for you anxiously ...

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 29, 2004.


The Israel Policy Forum approves of Israeli withdrawals (which have proved counter-productive). An activist in it said, "Being pro-Israel means making sure Israel is at peace." "An active US engagement is critical to that goal."

Candidate Kerry named a former Board member of AIPAC to head the campaign's Mideast policy formulation. But the Senator also consulted with former Mideast officials Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross. The latter pair would want Israel to negotiate even under terrorist attack. They would demand "progress" in the negotiation, when one side is not fulfilling its commitments (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2004, p.6 from Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency, 7/28).

What is "peace?" To the Israel Policy Forum, it means peace agreement (that the Arabs violate). It should mean the end of Muslim intolerance of infidels and tolerance of violence.

What is "active US engagement?" To Martin Indyk, it meant frequent US interference in Israel but no pressure on the Arabs.

What is "progress in the negotiations?" To Dennis Ross it meant that the two sides come closer together. Since the Arab side doesn't budget, "progress," or "bridge the gap," as Pres. Clinton used to put it, really means that Israel makes more concessions.

What do they mean, progress, even when one side is not fulfilling its commitments. They mean that Israel should continue to make concessions, even though the Arabs do not fulfill their commitments. That encourages Arab bellicosity and strengthens Arab belligerence.


"Al-Ahram," an official Egyptian newspaper stated that "US massacres picked up in Iraq," and "Sharon escalated his brutal 'days of penitence' campaign." Israel and the US attempt to divert attention from their alleged brutality by blaming violence on al-Qaeda. The attack in Taba may have been the work of "extremist" settlers, wiling to use any means to keep from being evacuated. (Recognize the familiar Arab disavowal of responsibility?)

Israel will use the attack in Taba to make more attacks on the P.A.. IMRA points out, it doesn't. Rather, Egypt uses these allegations to divert attention from the lack of security measures there.

The resolution against terrorism that Russia proposed fails to distinguish between terrorism and national liberation (IMRA, 10/19).

Some Americans assert that US actions invoke hated of the US. Al-Ahram's vitriol indicates that that hatred existed before the US war, as the series of terrorist incidents culminating in 9/11 demonstrated. This hatred gets exacerbated by continued defamation by Egypt, when it accuses Israel and the US of brutality. (The US donates a couple of billion dollars a year to building up the Egyptian army. That is my country's real sin.) The Arabs commit the brutal acts, but Egypt excuses it, calling that national liberation.

The bombing does not keep that prospect away. Nor are any settlers known to be willing to use such means, and especially not on their own people. This slander would not be indulged in so lightly if the Israeli Left had not prepared the way by defaming the settlers.

It isn't national liberation that Arafat seeks. It is religious domination.

Terrorism is the practice of making war on civilians. It is a war crime. It never is permissible.


To enroll Britain in the coalition against Saddam, Pres. Bush was asked to endorse the Road Map (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2004, p.9 from Eli Lake, NY Sun, 8/4).

Pres. Bush did seem suddenly to endorse the Europeans' anti-Israel version of the Map, after having emphasized that the Arabs must end terrorism. Was it a horse trade? Alternatively, was it that the traditionally anti-Zionist State Dept., headed by the powerful Powell, got its way?

The Axis of Evil looms over all. Pres. Bush should have made that apparent. Then threatened countries would join the US voluntarily and in their own long-term interest, without having to be paid concessions. The Democratic Party should have helped spread the alarm, instead of suggesting that diplomacy (at Israel's expense!), police work, and intelligence would suffice.


Islamist ideologists have been developing two theories: (1) The way to get at Israel is to take over Egypt; (2) Islamists, who have been freelancing all over the world, should struggle primarily in their own countries. They predict more attacks within Egypt.

Egypt had been releasing Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, when the organization switched to political means. The current terrorists, however, may be in the next generation (IMRA, 10/19). They would use political means to gain power, then commit violence. They still belong in jail.


Sen. Kerry proposes to use more diplomacy and to work within more of a coalition. That proposal has been derided, to some effect. Pres. Bush cites the existence of a coalition. However, British membership in that coalition is insecure. Britain may pull out at any time.

In the way he treated the Europeans, Pres. Bush made their policy disagreements more irritating. Britons feel unconsulted by the Bush administration about Iraq policy. The feel insulted, too, after Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said that they were dispensable. As a result, when the US asked Britain to redeploy some troops to guard an area, thereby freeing US troops for more active combat, Members of Parliament objected. All three major British Parties are anti-Bush, though for now the Prime Minister is not. If we need British help in the future, we may not get it (Andrew Sullivan, NY Sun, 10/22, p.11). The US request actually was putting US troops in the most danger.

The US does have a way of ruffling feathers when it takes charge. An Administration must be particularly inept to alienate Britain, our closest ally in combat. Sen. Kerry has a point.


A current report on the state of the Israeli economy shows it has been growing and will continue doing so for the foreseeable future. Finance Min. Netanyahu credits his reforms for moving thousands of Israelis from welfare to employment. On the other hand, some businessmen foresee greater deficits, foreign restrictions, and insufficient reform. PM Sharon threatened to stop supporting reform if Netanyahu stopped supporting the abandonment plan (Arutz-7, 10/20).

The reform is moving slowly. The government does play politics with billions, as for fences instead of fuller offensives. Foreign political restrictions are easier to impose upon a government that is so appeasement-minded and does not proudly make its case. Sharon plays dirty in holding his country's economic progress hostage to his abandonment plan, as if it has no case.


"... Columbia's standing as one of the great research universities in the nation is jeopardized by a contingent of professors whose disdain for Israel, America, democracy, and freedom has a remarkable influence over Columbia's curriculum and quality of its research." These professors, are a minority. Their views are not accepted by most students.

A book by the chair of Arab studies is "riddled with errors and anti-Jewish themes." The contingent's "loathing of Israel, dismissal of Israel's security concerns, and contempt of Israel's democratic values cannot be explained or rationalized but are best understood as irrational expressions of antisemitism."

Do the heads of such universities welcome anti-Western professors who are enemies of freedom and democracy? Will they return donations from Arab states, often coming with conditions? What will they do about complaints that these professors insult students for being Jewish? (NY Sun, 10/22, Ed..) What else to expect from Islamist professors?

Academic freedom cuts both ways. Yes, universities should have the freedom to choose their professors, but they should use some judgment and seek scholars, not propagandists. Yes, a professor should have freedom of thought, but he should not deny students freedom of thought.

Student conferences shouldn't be hate fests. American Jewish students should not have to fear for their safety from anti-American foreigners in US colleges. Islamism made war on the US. Nevertheless, many Middle Eastern Studies programs hire Arabs who wage that war from within the American universities. The non-Arab leftist professors in Middle Eastern studies are anti-American, too. The universities badly need reform. Congress meanwhile should stop subsidizing those programs. We taxpayers should not pay for professors to teach treason and antisemitism.


Israeli security officials find threats of assassination and violence greatly exaggerated.

The Yesha Council explains it opposes PM Sharon's abandonment plan with non-violence, and that the exaggeration about violence is an attempt to smear that campaign (Arutz-7, 10/20).

Let Israelis learn to be skeptical about news reports. Do they realize that the Establishment is running a smear campaign against Sharon's opponents?


A P.A. diplomat asserted that his religion and his Arab culture forbid him to be antisemitic. "Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all are part of Arab culture... their prophets come from our region and are part of us. Islam is the continuation of Judaism and Christianity?" He cites past eras of tolerance, but those were mostly under foreign control (and the Arabs before that were not tolerant, merely less murderous than Christians, except at the beginning of Islam).

No, IMRA explains, "Islam regards itself as SUCCESSOR to Judaism and Christianity, insisting that Jews and Christians manipulated the Bible text to their own advantage." "The Jews also are accused of having seized of having seized holy places and of limiting availability." (IMRA, 10/20.)

It was not the Arab region. The Arabs poured out of their Peninsula, conquered the pre-existing Mideast Christians and Jews, and claimed the other religions' prophets and holy cites. It insults other faiths by claiming they manipulated their own Bibles. Tolerance or usurpation? The other religions have the decency not to asset that Islam distorted their Bibles.


The Taliban is exiled and dispersed, Saddam's sons are dead, Saddam himself shackled and destined for the gallows, his regime smashed beyond repair. But Pres. Bush must announce that this is only a shadow of what will happen to Iran, Syria, or to any regime that sponsors or permits any future attack on America and its interests." "And then, as the earnest of his pledge, Mr. Bush must wage war with new vigor, larger forces, and a farseeing strategy for victory." (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2004, p.13 from Charles A. Kessler in the Claremont Review of Books.)

Those are my sentiments. Unfortunately, conservative commentators' assumptions that Pres. Bush shares those views are contradicted by Bush's failure to express and propose them.


Sometimes the US and Israel disagree about the Arab-Israel conflict. What are the consequences? Some people try to garner support for the Gaza abandonment plan by warning that if Israel does not go through with it, the US would abandon Israel.

ZOA issued a release reassuring friends of Israel that the warning is mistaken. The US does not expect Israel to follow every US desire for Israeli policy on national security. Members of Congress, the people, and even the President would support Israel anyway. Some members of Congress have expressed astonishment that Israel would make concessions to the enemy during wartime (10/21).

Those Members of Congress understand life and are rational about it; Israeli leftists do not and are not. Remember, the abandonment plan was devised by Israel. The US did not demand it. But it is not correct to say that Pres. Bush supports Israel. Israel should explain its case and then do what it must to preserve itself. .


Experienced in taking polls, IMRA's comments about polling in general are valuable. Its Dr. Aaron Lerner explains that when polled, people talk "off the top of their heads." If the abandonment plan came before them, and they thought about it, they might realize how self-contradictory the plan and its defenders are. The people already disagree with PM Sharon's arguments in behalf of the plan. In that case, their polled support for the plan cannot be solid.

Only 28% agree with Sharon's contention that the plan would reduce pressure on Israel for additional evacuation. (The West wants total evacuation. Why would it be fobbed off with voluntary partial evacuation? Rather, it would sense in partial evacuation a weakness it could turn into total abandonment.) Only 24% accept his contention that abandonment would reduce terrorism. (If the majority realizes that it would INCREASE terrorism, they should, and they would, oppose the plan.)

Opponents of retreat don't have to convince the people of the weaknesses of Sharon's arguments. They just have to get the people to draw logical conclusions. That may be why Sharon, who had his own polls conducted, opposes a referendum (IMRA, 10/21). He hints at promising one on condition that the Knesset give him the power to proceed without it, in which case he could and would break his promise. He is all about manipulation, not about democracy. He is not doing this for the people, not with his false arguments. Then whom is he doing it for, and why do they want 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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by David Bedein, October 29, 2004.

Five Step Plan for a LEGAL TEAM to challenge the Sharon plan, in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.

1. Bring hundreds law suits in the name of every business, health, education and social facility that face eradication by the Sharon plan. The LEGAL TEAM will file several hundred individual suits in this regard. Such actions will tie up the courts and make the implementation of any eradication plans nearly impossible during the litigation process.

2. Bring hundreds of law suits against the PA from people in Sderot and from the western negev whose property values will be depleted by the continuing mortar attacks from Gaza. The LEGAL TEAM will demand a lien on all funds that the Sharon government continues to transfer to the PA. This will also serve to publicize the fact that Sharon continues to fund and strengthen the PLO, after Israeli intelligence demanded that all such funding cease.

3. Represent those whose loved ones have been murdered and maimed by the PLO security forces, at a time when mainstream Palestinian security forces take credit for the majority of the 25,000 terror attacks that have occurred in Israel over the past four years. The LEGAL TEAM will also bring suit to challenge the legality of Israel offering to train a hostile force, as mandated in clause five of the Sharon Plan. All this will help to expose the fact that the Sharon Plan indeed involves Israel's "training of Palestinian security forces", even though clause one of the Sharon plan declares that "there is no Palestinian peace partner..."

4. The LEGAL TEAM will go to the Israel High Court of Justice to to challenge the continuing Sharon employment of Dov Wesisglass, since our news agency has uncovered the fact that Dov Weissglass, the closest confidante to the Israeli Prime Minister, and the creator of the Sharon Plan, never closed his law practice or business partnership, as required by Israeli civil service law.

Meanwhile, Weissglass's law practice and business partnership are conducted on behalf of the leading financial interests of the PLO, which are directly owned by Arafat himself. We must also now hire top investigators to uncover and reveal the full and precise documentation of Weissglass's financial interests in the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.

Indeed, documents of the PM office show that Weissglass personally intervened to renew Israel government funds for the Palestinian Authority, in August 2003, after the Israeli security establishment had examined the Arafat HQ papers seized the year before which showed the funding for humanitarian services were being siphoned off for terrorist use.

Weisglass's office openly acknowledges that his law firm represents the Palestinian Authority casino and resort interests, and that his law firm also represents Muhammad Rashid, the man in charge of Arafat's mysterious accounts. At the same time, the tourism and trade department of the Palestinian Authority have confirmed that their intent is to construct a new casino resort village to replace the 19 Israeli farming communities of Katif.

That would present a profit motive for Weisglass's involvement in the current Sharon Plan.

In January 2001, a senior Israeli intelligence official stated that funds from the Casino were laundered to support terrorist activity. After that, Weisglass threatened to sue that official. When the official would not back down, Weisglass did not follow through with his threat.

The Israeli public, outside of the small readership of the our news column in the weekly newspaper, Makor Rishon, do not have a clue about the Weislass conflict of interest.

5. The LEGAL TEAM will sue to bring charges against Israel Minister of Interior Avraham Poraz to the fraud division of the Israeli Police and to the attention of the Israel High Court of Justice.

Poraz is a founder and senior member of the Shinui party, formerly associated with the Meretz (Peace Now) political party and remains a key advocate of the Sharon plan.

Our news agency's investigations have uncovered documentation from the Israel Ministry of Interior's Registrar of Non Profit Organizations which shows that the Poraz's own organization, "The Liberal Institute", helped to fund the Meretz political party during the last election, in direct violation of Israel's election laws. In addition, we have uncovered documentation which shows that Poraz's organization was funded through funds received from the German government, and that Poraz is not willing to provide an accounting of the funds he received from the German government for a period of four years, 1995-1998.

When the head of the registrar of non profit organizations asked that Poraz disclose past bookkeeping of his organization, as required by law, Poraz would not do so.

Poraz remains in direct violation of Israel's campaign laws.

Poraz's refusal to disclose the accounts of his non-profit organization place him in a felony .

The LEGAL TEAM will be headed up by Yaakov Rubin, former head of the Israel Bar Association, and Maxim Rakov, former legal counsel for the Israel National Security Council. This was written by David Bedein of the Israel Resource News Agency (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). David Bedein is Bureau Chief of Israel Resource News Agency.

To Go To Top
Posted by Moshe Dann, October 29, 2004.

Scenario #1: The Rafiah Plan

There is no need to evacuate Jews or the IDF from the Gaza Strip in order to "end the occupation of Palestinians"; the Palestinian Authority controls all Arab- populated areas.

Jewish residents of the Gaza Strip are completely separate from the million Arabs who live there. Jews have built communities on land that was uninhabited, unclaimed or undisputedly Jewish-owned (like Kfar Darom).

Most of Gaza's Jewish residents are located in a small area along the coast called "Gush Katif," bordering Egypt. There are no Arab towns or villages between Gush Katif and the western Negev, except Rafiah (on the Egyptian border) and Khan Yunis.

Rafiah, a divided city in the Strip's least populated district contains only about 150,000 Arabs. By unilaterally withdrawing from its part of Rafiah, Israel can immediately eliminate the major source of weapons to Palestinian terrorists and allow Egypt to take control of the entire city.

Khan Yunis can either be relocated a few kilometers to the north, or remain where it is, under Palestinian Authority control.

The national trauma of uprooting 8,000 Jewish residents in order to create a mini provisional Palestinian state can be avoided. Except for the extreme Left, most Israelis would likely approve and Palestinian terrorism would be more containable and eventually eliminated. Even President Bush could support this plan given his commitment to negotiate the future of major settlement blocs.

Scenario #2: Status quo

Israel continues its war against Palestinian terrorism until a moderate non-terrorist leadership emerges. Israel must control their access to weapons and pre-empt attacks.

After Arafat, a violent power struggle among various clans and gangs that control Palestinian towns and villages will consume them. Eventually moderate leaders will emerge from localities and make separate peace agreements with Israel. They will have local autonomy, without national sovereignty.

Scenario #3: Regional solution

Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demands a change in perspective, not piecemeal, local maneuvers. This is a regional problem, involving every surrounding Arab country; everyone must work together with international assistance and enforcement towards a regional solution. The burden must be shared by all.

UN sponsored Palestinian "refugee camps" must be dismantled, turned into towns and residents given citizenship rights in their host and/or other countries. "Palestinians" living in Israel should be given the opportunity to become citizens of Jordan. Until the Palestinian Authority abandons terrorism and moves towards peace, Jordan should be considered the sole representative of the Palestinian people and responsible for them.

Palestinian terrorism and incitement must end as a pre-requisite. This is a fundamental principle, not only for Israel but for the world community. Terrorism deserves no rewards or legitimacy. A society that teaches homicide and murder threatens not only Israel, but our entire civilization.

All Palestinian terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Fatah, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aksa Brigades and those who support them must be outlawed. All humanitarian funds should be directed to legitimate institutions which promote the health, education and welfare of those in need for a limited period wherever they reside and whatever their origin. This will allow people to get on with their lives.

Only when terrorism ends once and for all and a regional solution imposed will there be a real possibility for peace.

Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. He can be reached at moshedan@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Michael Anbar, October 29, 2004.

Dear Friends:

I would like to present to you a very important reason for not voting for John Kerry in the coming elections. If John Kerry would be elected, his foreign policy is likely to endanger the future of the USA and jeopardize the very existence of the State of Israel.

John Kerry may sacrifice Israel politically for an Iranian unreliable promise to stop enriching uranium and build nuclear bombs. The Iranians may be ready to launch a nuclear attack on Israel in two years. They vowed to do this as soon as it will be possible. Kerry promised to negotiate with Iran rather than destroy their nuclear facilities. However, he has nothing of significance other than Israel to offer to the Islamic clergy in order to satisfy their religion-driven political ambition, at least for a while. The US attack on Iraq, so bitterly criticized by Kerry, was aimed not just to topple Saddam but, more impotently, to achieve a regime change in Iran, the most dangerous member of the "Axis of Evil" Unfortunately, this objective has not been met, and Tehran is now fighting the US in Iraq to prevent this threat from happening. This has been the greatest failure of the war in Iraq.

The US cannot permit a nuclear threat from religious zealots who cannot be deterred by retaliation. It will have little choice but to confront and defang Iran sooner or later as part of the global war with Islamism. This will be a major decision that the next US President will have to make. John Kerry, who has shown a life-long reluctance to project militarily abroad, is extremely unlikely to take a preemptive step against Iran, or urge Israel to do it, before it might be too late for the Jewish state.

A single successful nuclear strike would devastate Israel. After such an attack the US will have no choice but to fight Iran with or without global consensus. However, for Israel it may be too late. If the US does not subdue theocratic Iran, it might have to capitulate to Islamism, which will then proceed with its global expansion. John Kerry will promise anything to win the elections, even if it contradicts his life-long political convictions. Therefore, his promises regarding Israel are utterly unreliable.

I am ready to go out on a limb and state that if Kerry is elected any Jew who voted for him will have contributed to the potential destruction of the State of Israel and eventually to the demise of the Jewish people. My prediction is not intended to scare people. I hate to be a Cassandra and I truly hope that this nightmare never happens. However, the growing virulent anti-Semitism in Europe under the guise of anti-Zionism, echoed by the American Left (which is the political power base of John Kerry), combined with the vicious aggressive Jew-hatred of the Arab and Iranian Islamists, make this a realistic projection.

I cannot forget that Adolph Hitler was elected Reichskanzler (Imperial Chancellor) of Germany in free democratic elections. This took place when his supremacist ideology was public knowledge. Hitler's "Mein Kampf," was published four years before those elections. Please understand that I am not comparing Kerry to Hitler. These two personalities have diagonally opposed ideologies. I brought up Hitler's election to show that of a democratic process in an enlightened society can elect a leader whose decisions result in a national disaster. Unfortunately, too few Americans pay attention to the passivity demonstrated in Kerry's political track record and to his anti-nationalistic ideology. Both these attributes are likely to be disastrous in a time of war.

I am a one-issue voter. That issue is the survival of Western culture, its ethics and way of life, which is now under attack. The Jewish nation is likely to become the first victim of that assault, just as it was two generations ago, before Hitler started his expansionist campaign in Europe. All other political and social issues are miniscule compared to the issue of survival. When this issue is at stake, all of us should become single-issue voters. If Jewish civilization, on which Western civilization is founded, will not survive, nothing else will matter.

Michael Anbar, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University at Buffalo, did his PhD work at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth. Before coming to the US he was Professor in the Feinberg Graduate School and Director, Chemistry Division, Soreq Nuclear Research Institute, Yavne. He is author of "Israel and its Future: Analysis and Suggestions."

To Go To Top
Posted by Marcel Cousineau, October 28, 2004.

Since Israel continues to bend under pressure always, without fail, more pressure will be applied to advance the Arafat plan.

For those of you ignorant of the Arafat plan, it is the removal of non-moslems (infidels) from land once under Islamic rule, the extermination of Israel.

The plan has always been to advance in stages. Since the majority of the Israeli population has been dumbed down along with the present Prime Minister, who helps Yasser, the next move will be much easier. Israel, trained to surrender and appease with nothing in return, will be pressured to allow Arafat to be buried on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The pressure will be unbearable to Israel's weakened and spineless leaders, so once again they will fold. It will take a phone call from Washington and after this success, the Palestinians will increase their jihad, knowing the time is right to kill off a feminized and cowardly Israel in retreat, which would rather die than fight and defeat the enemy.

The road to hell has been prepared by the weak and vacillating Neville crowd who bring RUIN to Israel.

Welcome to WWIV.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 28, 2004.

1. Upset the environmentalists by using it to poison piranha fish.

2. Use it to help boost Purina's stock value.

3. One word: McNuggets.

4. Give it tenure at Ben Gurion University.

5. Fire it off into space so Barry Chamish's UFO friends will never want to visit earth again.

6. Clone it and sell the spinoffs as 21st century scarecrows.

7. Just leave it in the gutter holding a sign reading "I am deconstructing."

8. Hoist it up on two-by-fours and then let Israeli bulldozer drivers train for future Rachel Corries.

9. Save Holland by using it to plug the dikes.

10. Market it as a carpet beater.

11. Let the US javelin team train on it for the Olympics.

12. Makes a great speed hump.

13. Tie it to a pole and use it as the bait at the dog race track.

14. Send it to the Presbyterian leaders.

15. Enroll it in the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Seminary. Heck, it already has taken more Rabbinic courses than Michael Lerner.

16. Halloween Decoration.

17. Lease it as straight man for Oprah's show.

18. Export it to France as a wine supplement.

19. Sell it as organic produce in Berkeley.

20. Tie it to the back of cars for newlyweds in MTV commercials.

21. Use it to scare your kids when they refuse to clean their rooms.

22. Sell it as a Yigal Tomarkin original sculpture.

23. It gives people 101 reasons to prefer having a dead cat.

24. Use it to become the patron saint for dung beetles.

25. Sell it to that Museum in Sweden that ran the "Snow White" sculpture.

26. Let John Edwards and his tort lawyer bandit friends file a class action suit on behalf of it against the Plastic Surgeons responsible.

27. Enter it in the Texas State Cow Chip Toss as the world's largest cow chip.

28. Make it the drummer in a punk rock band. Or better yet, the drum.

29. Tell Anna Nicole Smith it is rich.

30. Sell it to Soros for three billion smackers.

31. Put it in an envelope and send him to the Elect Ralph Nader committee.

32. Let Brandeis hire it for its peace and justice studies program.

33. Rent it to Cubans as a device to hold their place in the bread line while they go off fishing.

34. "Fear Factor" TV show could make people sit on a bench next to it.

35. Clearicil could use it in its commercials to show what happens if you use the inferior brand.

36. Set it up on 3rd Avenue with a sign reading "Will Terrorize for Food". Addendum From Ely Silk: Here are some more possible uses for Arafat's body:

(1) Put it back into his Ramallah compound and prop it up. This way, the Israeli left can still go to him for guidance.

(2) Send it to Jacques Chirac. (That is kind of what was actually done - SP)

(3) Using the skills of head-shrinkers, shrink his entire body down to three inches in height. Attach it to a chain and send it to Shimon Peres for his car mirror.

So many possibilities. So little time

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 28, 2004.
This is from today's Arutz-7.

Yasser Arafat, who reportedly is now breathing his last, is considered the father of modern terrorism. He is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israeli citizens, the deaths of untold numbers of Arabs and the killing of more than 100 U.S. citizens. Among the Americans were two diplomats, whose cruel murders in Sudan Arafat ordered by radio from his Beirut headquarters.

In 1995, Ariel Sharon said, "I don't know anyone other than Arafat who has as much civilian Jewish blood on his hands since the time of the Nazis."

Arafat's official biography on the Nobel Prize website glosses over his terrorist past, writing only,

"In 1958 he and his friends founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary, organising Fatah raids into Israel from Jordan. It was also in 1964 that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was established, under the sponsorship of the Arab League, bringing together a number of groups all working to free Palestine for the Palestinians. The Arab states favoured a more conciliatory policy than Fatah's... Arafat developed the PLO into a state within the state of Jordan with its own military forces. King Hussein of Jordan, disturbed by its guerrilla attacks on Israel and other violent methods, eventually expelled the PLO from his country. Arafat sought to build a similar organisation in Lebanon, but this time was driven out by an Israeli military invasion. He kept the organization alive, however, by moving its headquarters to Tunis..."

In fact, however, this long period was one of blood and murder orchestrated by Arafat. The PLO under his leadership conducted plane hijackings, bombings, and other acts of violence against Israel. In fact, the beginning of terror sky-jackings has been attributed to Arafat and the Fatah. Two years ago, after an Israeli plane was almost shot down in Kenya, then-Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned, "Sky-jacking terrorism first began against Israeli targets abroad by Arafat and Fatah in the late 1960's, and it very quickly became an international plague. We face exactly the same situation now. The terrorism of firing missiles against civilian airlines is now beginning against Israeli planes, but it can easily spread to other areas..." Arutz-7 reported at the time that though there had been "transportation" skyjackings in which criminals wished to reach Cuba, the first terrorist-extortion hijacking of an airliner apparently occurred when Palestinians hijacked an El Al airliner to Algiers in July 1968. Two years later, Palestinian terrorists hijacked four jets almost simultaneously; the passengers were released after three weeks, and the planes were blown up.

The PLO under Arafat was also responsible for the massacre of 26 people, mostly children, in the Netiv Meir school in Maalot in May 1974. Another PLO organization perpetrated the Munich Olympics slaughter, killing eleven Israeli athletes in 1972.

In Lebanon, Arafat's forces killed hundreds of thousands of Christians, destroyed Christian villages, and burned churches, as detailed here. See also this article by a Lebanese Christian.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, wrote [Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2002],

"... I am not surprised to see that Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well during my years at the top of Romania's foreign intelligence service. I became directly involved with Arafat in the late 1960s, in the days when he was being financed and manipulated by the KGB... Gen. Sakharovsky asked us in Romanian intelligence to help the KGB bringing Arafat and some of his fedayeen fighters secretly to the Soviet Union via Romania, in order for them to be indoctrinated and trained. During that same year, the Soviets maneuvered to have Arafat named chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, with public help from Egypt's ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser. When I first met Arafat, I was stunned by the ideological similarity between him and his KGB mentor. Arafat's broken record was that American "imperial Zionism" was the "rabid dog of the world," and there was only one way to deal with a rabid dog: "Kill it!" ... Arafat and his KGB handlers were preparing a PLO commando team headed by Arafat's top deputy, Abu Jihad, to take American diplomats hostage in Khartoum, Sudan, and demand the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy... Just six months earlier Arafat's liaison officer for Romania, Ali Hassan Salameh, had led the PLO commando team that took the Israeli athletes hostage at the Munich Olympic Games...

"On March 2, 1973, after President Nixon refused the terrorists' demand, the PLO commandos executed three of their hostages: American Ambassador Cleo A. Noel Jr., his deputy, George Curtis Moore, and Belgian charge d'affaires Guy Eid. In May 1973, during a private dinner with Ceausescu, Arafat excitedly bragged about his Khartoum operation. "Be careful," Ion Gheorghe Maurer, a Western-educated lawyer who had just retired as Romanian prime minister, told him. "No matter how high up you are, you can still be convicted for killing and stealing." "Who, me? I never had anything to do with that operation," Arafat said, winking mischievously.

"In January 1978, the PLO representative in London was assassinated at his office. Soon after that, convincing pieces of evidence started to come to light showing that the crime was committed by the infamous terrorist Abu Nidal, who had recently broken with Arafat and built his own organization. "That wasn't a Nidal operation. It was ours," Ali Hassan Salameh, Arafat's liaison officer for Romania, told me. Even Ceausescu's adviser to Arafat, who was well familiar with his craftiness, was taken by surprise. "Why kill your own people?" Col. Constantin Olcescu asked. "We want to mount some spectacular operations against the PLO, making it look as if they had been organized by Palestinian extremist groups that accuse the chairman of becoming too conciliatory and moderate," Salameh explained... Arafat has made a political career by pretending that he has not been involved in his own terrorist acts. But evidence against him grows by the day. James Welsh, a former intelligence analyst for the National Security Agency, has told U.S. journalists that the NSA had secretly intercepted the radio communications between Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad during the PLO operation against the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, including Arafat's order to kill Ambassador Noel..."

Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri revealed in their 1997 biography, Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat, that Arafat was born in August 1929, in Cairo - and not in Jerusalem or Gaza, as Arab sources often claim.

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 28, 2004.


Human rights organizations purport to review, in harmony with international law, whether the P.A. war is waged with proportionate means. They find Israel's methods "disproportionate." "Disproportionate" means flinging ordnance far beyond military need, and pursuing military goals without unnecessary risk to civilians.

By that standard, the P.A. Arabs should be ostracized. The P.A. targets primarily civilians! It needlessly risks its own civilian lives by placing terrorists among them (which is a war crime), and urging them to be human shields. It should not have launched a war in the first place, after having signed an agreement for peaceful resolution. The NGOs fail to raise these issues.

By contrast, Israel screens military plans and reviews ongoing battles, striving to minimize civilian casualties. It often uses ordnance that will not destroy a wider area than the target, which it sometimes fails to destroy. (That risks its own, innocent people). It leads occupants out of buildings to be demolished for having been used as ambush sites. It arranges for sending food and medicine into embattled areas. Israel should be renowned for that, but instead is criticized as brutal, because a few Arabs are killed (some because the P.A. stationed terrorists among civilians). The NGOs fail to explain how Israel's minimal action is "disproportionate," they just call Israel names. Their theory seems to be that war is war, when it comes to Jewish casualties, though the Arab method of fighting be war crimes, whereas deaths are impermissible when Jewish self-defense brings about a few dozen Arab casualties.

I think there also is a psychological explanation for the false judgment against Israel. People tend to sympathize blindly with the perceived underdog, even though the perceived underdog is a mad dog that warrants being put under. They think of the Palestinian Arabs as the underdog, as if several Arab states didn't and wouldn't gang up on Israel again. What about the peace treaties, you ask? Arabs don't consider them binding. Deeming Arafat's Arabs as the underdog, these critics of Israel resent the Jewish state's use of heavier weapons than Hamas and the P.A. forces have. Would they really prefer that the Arab terrorists have equally effective weapons?


Just as, under Gresham's law, unsubstantiated currency drives out sound money, current rationalization drives out sound ideas. The fault is not just that "the media" fails to present news fully and fairly. The problem is that we have become so consumerist a, that many of the "thinking people" neither think straight nor possess the facts to think about. What do students even of highly rated schools learn about Western civilization, modern conflicts, propaganda, and political analysis? Little and lopsided. What they are taught renders them hostile to the civilization they ought to be saving. They sympathize with its enemies, instead. That, they imagine, makes them ethical. (Let us not be confused by the fact that our civilization has committed foul deeds, into concluding that it should be taken over by civilizations still committing fouler ones.)

For whatever reason, Western correspondents blindly accept the latest Arab propaganda against Israel and start it percolating through our society. How rapidly the Arab lexicon has become a Western one! Words such as "humiliation," "occupation," and "sensitivity" have taken on their unfair Arab meaning.

"Sensitivity" originally meant to avoid gratuitous offense to other groups, without abasing one's own. Every act of religious independence from Islam offends the Arabs. We Westerners cannot appease their "sensitivity" without submitting to them. Nevertheless, Western "political correctness police" demand that we defer our own religious and political traditions to the Arabs'.

Remember the humiliation of the American troops sent to S. Arabia to save it from Saddam, forbidden from holding open-air Christmas services on their own base? A couple of years ago, Muslim terrorists used to fire from a Christian village into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem. If Israel returned fire, it might strike a church. Then Arafat would condemn Israel as oppressing the Christians, whereas his thugs actually do.

Why not ask the Muslims to honor Western religious sensitivities?


Hillel Halkin explained the "Trouble Over Gaza Withdrawal" (NY Sun, 10/19) clearly and powerfully. PM Sharon's failure to win approval for abandoning Gaza and part of Judea-Samaria is due to his presenting it poorly and failing to set precedent by swiftly dismantling unauthorized outposts. PM Sharon falsely claimed his proposed territorial sacrifice would enable Israel to retain most of Judea-Samaria. Worse, he is afraid to cite what makes the plan imperative - the demographic threat that, counting the Territories, makes Jews a minority that would fall under Arab domination. Why afraid? Because if they hear that the abandonment would be of most of the Territories, Israelis would reject it. After having lost a Likud Party referendum on the plan, PM Sharon is afraid to hold a national referendum, lest his less disciplined majority not come out to vote.

Sounds like sour grapes -- PM Sharon afraid of losing because he makes a poor case, and he makes a poor case because his case is poor? Why call the Jews a minority by virtue of counting Arabs not part of Israel. If not part of Israel, don't count them.

Despite Mr. Halkin's command of the demographics, he omitted a key fact. The same high Arab population growth that he cites in the Territories, also occurs in Israel. Will he some day propose ceding part of the State to the Arabs? When does this process stop? Besides, Israelis would not agree to cede it, and leave themselves an easily conquered rump. But they should be awakened to the problem.

The same problem applies to ceding the Territories, which are just as much a part of the Land of Israel as is the State of Israel, and in fact contain more of the cradle of Jewish civilization and offer the secure borders that Israel badly needs. Retreat from jihadists does not provide security, but encourages them to press on. Let us find another solution than retreat.

If the problem is that Israel holds areas that contain too many Arabs, then one solution is to relinquish only those areas and annex most of the rest, populated by Jews or vacant. Israel has a legal right to do that, as heir to the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home, of which the Territories are the unallocated portion. The Arabs in what is left of the P.A. would not be attached to Israel. The result should ally Mr. Halkin's fears of Jews being swamped by Arafat's Arabs and there would be no rationale for the Sharon plan.

If the problem be too many Arabs, then the solution is to reduce their number. Arabs migrate to where they can earn a living. They came into this area because Zionism built up its economic opportunities. Hundreds of thousands left the Territories, when the Gulf state offered them better jobs. Hundreds of thousands have left recently, as wartime conditions deteriorated, but the rest stay on, where their basic needs met by charity. Israel is one of their main benefactors, providing jobs in its own sovereign area, tax revenue, utility service, and for Arab residents of Jerusalem, welfare benefits. Why spend money succoring the enemy making war on it?

As for the Arabs in Israel, many are illegal immigrants, or stole the land on which they live, build illegally, evade taxation, enjoy subsidy for their polygamy, get favored subsidy for college, and are draft-exempt. Enforce the laws on immigration, land ownership, building, taxation, and marriage, equalize college admission standards, and require equivalent national service of draft exempt populations, and the internal Arab demographic threat that Mr. Halkin omitted to mention would diminish. Besides preserving Jewish national development and security, these measures would save billions of dollars that could improve defense and allow for tax reductions on Israelis, among the most heavily taxed in the world.

If Israel needs foreign workers, let it select, say, the non-threatening Philippinos, rather than Arabs whom it must inspect at checkpoints for terrorism and then get criticized or having checkpoints.


Some 20-50 Saddam intelligence officials in Syria are said to be financing and directing the insurgency in Iraq. Border tightening complicates their mission, but they manage to keep the cells well organized and the networks running. They actually had mortars fired across the border.

Western intelligence officials think that these former Iraqi Baathist officials are using the Shiite rebels and the foreign Islamist fighters, rather than the reverse. The Baathists are in this for the long run. They know that America does not like long wars.

If Iraq falls to the Islamists, bases could be set up alongside S. Arabia. Nevertheless, Saudis are believed to be financing and arming some of the insurgents (IMRA, 10/18).


On the strength of a vague offer to hold a national referendum, which all along he has opposed, and fears losing, PM Sharon is asking in advance for a Knesset vote of approval for his abandonment plan. When the Knesset approves, one suspects, he would proceed rapidly with his abandonment, without waiting for a referendum. Rabin and Peres used to promise referendums, in order to allay opposition, and then forget the promise.

Why the belief that the Knesset vote is a ruse? First, it is a matter of logic. Logically, there is no need for the vote. If the referendum rejects the plan, the vote would have been wasted. If the referendum approves the plan, the plan could be submitted for a vote.

The Knesset is likely to approve the plan with weak safeguards that it surely knows PM Sharon would ignore. It would pretend to rely upon the future, iffy, referendum to protect the nation.

Second, Sharon's broken promises about prior referendums. Sharon had promised to abide by the votes of the Likud Central Committee and then by Likud Party members. He did not.

Third, Sharon is acting increasingly like a dictator, repressing dissent. He shut down radio station Arutz-7, that would have exposed his scheme as harmful without benefit. He plans to reduce security protection in the areas he would like to abandon, cut off their utilities (but not that of the Arabs!), tear up their roads, and administratively detain opposition leaders there, on the false grounds that they plan violence. Non-cooperators are threatened with imprisonment.

Sharon is using his position against Israel in behalf of foreign interests. The Knesset ought to investigate why that is true of the past several PMs (Winston Mid East Analysis, 10/19).

Why do Israelis believe their leaders any more? If anyone should be detained, it is Sharon.


Three years ago, a well-liked, right-wing MK of rare integrity, known as Ghandi, was assassinated apparently by Arab terrorists. PM Sharon just paid him generous tribute (IMRA, 10/19).

The MK was about to pull his small party out of the governing coalition, over its appeasement of the Arabs. The coalition probably would have failed. Was the assassination coincidental, any more than was the assassination of the Israeli Ambassador to France, when he was about to expose government appeasement, any more than was the assassination of PM Rabin, when he balked at continuing with Oslo?

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Batya Medad, October 28, 2004.
"The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal, that you can gather votes like box-tops is... the ultimate indignity to the democratic process." - Adlai Stevenson

The Greeks, led by their King, Antiochus tried to destroy Judaism, then the Christians, in many guises including the Crusaders and then the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. Later the Nazis were more concerned with murdering anyone with Jewish ancestors, while in the same century the Communists tried to wipe out all religions, especially Judaism.

But in modern time Judaism has an even more dangerous enemy: DEMOCRACY!

I have to finish this musing quickly. The words were rattling so noisily in my brain, that they were crowding out the shacharit prayers, and I have less than an hour before leaving for boker limud nashim, where I study King David's T'hilim and his son, King Solomon's Kohelet. Democracy, the ultimate philosophical hevel, norishkeit.

In recent weeks, as political and spiritual leaders are being "polled" as to their opinions/instructions concerning Arik Sharon's "disengagement" from yishuv Ha'Aretz, "settling" the Land of Israel, the Land that G-d sent Abraham and all Jews to in this week's parsha, portion of the Bible, Lech Lecha.

This is a moment of truth between man and G-d, between those considered leaders and the One G-d, HaKodesh Baruch Hu. Some, like HaRav Ovadia Yosef, have publicly stated that we are to oppose Sharon's plan. But another rabbi, who had been saying confused things, causing many to publicly argue and debate what he means, finally said that "democracy" must rule. Yes, Rabbi Shlomo, "Stevie Wonder," Riskin stated that as important as Eretz Yisrael is, "Israel is a democracy." (quoted from The Jerusalem Post, Friday October 22, 2004.)

The same rabbi, who inspired so many of us in the 1960's, the rabbi who was not embarrassed to be an Orthodox Jew, to doven with a mechitza to posken that the only hair covering for a married female must be 100% obvious, a hat or scarf, not a wig. He was, for us, the epitome of a proud Jew.

Today Rabbi Riskin publicly stated that Judaism is secondary to democracy. I am saddened to write this, but Stevie Wonder is no longer wonderful. He worships demoracy as his primary religion. G-d's rulings, G-d's Torah, G-d's mitzvot, go second to votes in the Keneset.

Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein in the same issue of The Jerusalem Post said that "... the government is framing the disengagement in a way that would translate halachically as pikuach nefesh ..." so it must be considered as not violating halacha. That brings us to the Adlai Stevenson quotation and the Kohelet shiur I'm rushing to get to.

Rabbis Riskin and Lichtenstein are basing their decisions on norishkeit, not Yiddishkeit. Hevel, vanities, democracy, advertising. Let's return to our roots and not repeat - ain chadash mitachat lashemesh - there's nothing new under the sun. Let's not repeat the sin of the spies. The "people" worshipped democracy; ten spies verses two.

That fatal mistake has been made too many times. Now we must prove to G-d and man that we have learned our lesson. We must follow Joshua and Calev and redeem Our Land.

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il This article is Musings #79.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth Matar, October 28, 2004.

Dear Friends,

Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, made a speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, in Basel, Switzerland, in 1937. His words are as relevant today as they were then.

"No Jew is at liberty to surrender the right of the Jewish Nation and the Land of Israel to exist. No Jewish body is sanctioned to do so. Even all the Jews alive today have no authority to yield any piece of land whatsoever. This right is reserved to the Jewish People throughout the generations. This right cannot be forfeited under any circumstances. Even if at some given time there will be those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to negate it for future generations. The Jewish Nation is neither obligated by nor responsible for any such waiver. Our right to this land, in its entirety, is enduring and eternal. And until the coming of the Redemption, we shall never yield this historic right."

Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 67 years later, will go down in Jewish history as a most tragic occurrence. Sharon's Plan to forcibly evacuate fellow Jews from their communities in Biblical Gaza was approved by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) on this date.

Our government has been hijacked by Ariel Sharon, who has turned into a clever manipulative dictator. He thumbs his nose at his own party, the membership of which had rejected his Unilateral Disengagement Plan (deporting Jews from their Biblical Homeland) by an overwhelming majority of 19.5% on May 3, 2004.

One cannot blame Labor, Yachad (formerly Meretz), and the Arab Knesset Members who voted for the Plan. They did what was expected of them. They had advocated surrender to the Arab enemy all along.

The "Revised Disengagement Plan" was approved in a 67-45 vote with 7 abstentions. 29 of the votes in favor of Unilateral Disengagement came from Left wing opposition MKs, who jumped jubilantly from their seats after the vote to congratulate Sharon that he now has Knesset approval to uproot Jews from their homes. Ironically, once upon a time, before Sharon betrayed his own Likud Party and the voters who had given him a landslide victory in the last election, these very leftists considered Sharon to be Public Enemy Number One.

Thus, there were few surprises in the result of the Knesset vote. Nevertheless, there were some heartening aspects. Seventeen Likud Knesset Members had the courage to vote against Ariel Sharon. The nation may be seriously divided as a result of Sharon's Plan, but it should be noted that there are those in the Likud Party who will not timidly submit to his dictates.

Bibi Netanyahu, Limor Livnat, Tzachi Hanegbi, Dan Naveh, and Silvan Shalom, our so-called "friends", all Likud Ministers in Sharon's Cabinet, have put a knife in the back of their own constituency - betraying all Zionist principles - in order to hold on to their ministerial seats of power. They have joined the camp of the enemy, the extreme Left, which brought us the disastrous surrender policies of the Oslo Accords.

Of the Likud Ministers, only Uzi Landau and Michael Ratzon had the moral integrity not to go against their own Likud Party Platform and the great majority of the Likud membership. They cast their votes against Sharon's Disengagement Plan. As promised, they were immediately fired by Sharon, just as he had previously fired Ministers Benny Elon and Avigdor Liberman, when they announced that they were going to vote against his Plan.

We will continue to fight Sharon's evil immoral Plan to forcibly evacuate Jews from their Homeland. The People of Israel will not accept this shameful vote of the Knesset. NO ONE, NO PRIME MINISTER, AND NO PARLIAMENT, HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY ANY PORTION OF OUR G-D GIVEN BIBLICAL HOMELAND.

Most importantly, the Women in Green will continue our important work to educate the People of Israel as to THE RIGHT TO OUR LAND, and to resist government suppression of dissent to Sharon's manipulative Plan to surrender to terror.

We are in desperate need of a leader who believes in the ultimate destiny of the Jewish People at this crucial period in our history. May the G-d of Israel send us such a leader.


With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Ted Belman, October 28, 2004.

This article was written by George Friedman, who is with the Stratfor organization. (www.startfor.com). It appeared October 12, 2004. "Stratfor provides strategic intelligence on global business, economic, security and geopolitical affairs."

During the two presidential debates held so far, we have learned three things. First, that George W. Bush never made a mistake. Second, that John Kerry would never have made any of the mistakes Bush made, and that he does not intend to make any mistakes in the future. Third, and most important, that there is precious little substantial disagreement between the two candidates on war strategy going forward. Whatever Kerry has had to say about Bush's execution of the war in the past, he has made it clear that he will continue what Bush calls the "War on Terror" and that he will not abandon the war in Iraq.

This last is by far the most important thing to have emerged during the campaign from a geopolitical and strategic point of view. However much the candidates argue over who would be better at fighting the war, it has become clear that the war will go on regardless of who is elected or re-elected -- and that that includes the Iraq campaign. Neither is promising a radical redefinition of the war. Each is claiming simply to be the more effective in executing the war.

Therefore, on this fundamental level, the election has become unimportant. What is important is how the war will be executed after the election. Neither candidate has been particularly enlightening on this subject. There has been no substantial discussion of follow-on campaigns or operations either in the general war or in Iraq. From an American point of view, this should be comforting. Underneath the storm and stress, the two parties have -- as unbelievable as this might sound -- agreed that the war must continue unabated. They have also agreed, in effect, that discussing war plans during a debate would not serve anyone's interest. For whatever reason -- patriotism or political expediency -- the campaign is being carried out within careful, prudent boundaries. The future of the war is not being debated. The campaign is being confined to vicious personal invective.

Since we know that the war will continue, it falls to us to consider how it will be executed after Nov. 2. One fundamental fact must be borne in mind: Since the war will not be abandoned, it will be the war, not the candidates, that will determine the course of events. What we mean is simply this: The war has an inherent logic that constrains policymakers. If you continue to fight this war, there are certain things that you must do, and certain things that are impossible. The choices are much fewer than what one might imagine. Therefore, having agreed on the basic strategy that the war will continue, most of what follows from this decision will apply to either a President Bush or a President Kerry. If you are going to make fried chicken, there aren't that many ways to do it.

U.S. and al Qaeda War Aims

The primary American war aim is simple: The United States wants to secure its homeland against any further attacks by al Qaeda or any other group using its tactics. It is a clear and simple war aim. The goal is easy to define, but far more difficult to achieve. The United States is full of potential targets, and al Qaeda is a very small and dispersed group. Defending the homeland -- in the sense of physically preventing the penetration of the United States by al Qaeda operatives -- is difficult to achieve, and it is even harder to know whether you have achieved it. Since al Qaeda is a global, sparse network consisting of covert operatives skilled at evading U.S. intelligence, an offensive strategy is equally difficult to execute. It is not merely a question of destroying al Qaeda. It is more a matter of knowing when you have destroyed all of al Qaeda that you need to destroy. At this point in the war, no reasonable person would claim the United States has achieved its primary war aim.

Al Qaeda's war aim is more complex. Its goal is to trigger a massive uprising in the Islamic world that will sweep away at least one and preferably several existing Muslim governments, replacing them with jihadist regimes. These countries would serve as the nucleus for the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate that would both restore the authority of Islamic law -- understood in al Qaeda's terms -- while setting the stage for the political reconstruction of Islamic greatness.

Thus far, al Qaeda has failed in its war aim. Contrary to dire forecasts, the single most important fact of the war has been a negative: There has been no rising in the Islamic streets of sufficient substance to endanger any established Islamic government (Iraq is excluded inasmuch as it lacks an established government). Not a single Islamic government has shifted its stance in support of al Qaeda while many -- some overtly like Libya, some covertly like Syria -- have moved toward suppressing al Qaeda on their territory.

Since al Qaeda initiated the war, it is critically important to understand that it has completely failed to achieve its strategic goals. From a purely political standpoint, the war has thus far been a disaster for al Qaeda. At the same time, assuming that al Qaeda has not lost the ability to carry out operations, the United States has not yet secured the homeland from follow-on attack. This is more a military-security failure than a political one, but it remains a failure. To this moment therefore, al Qaeda is losing the war from a political point of view, while the United States has failed to win the war from a military point of view.


The American strategy has been driven by a realization that the United States does not by itself have the intelligence and covert capabilities needed to destroy the al Qaeda network. Without the active support of Muslim governments, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the United States cannot hope to destroy al Qaeda and secure the homeland. By the same token, many of these countries have little appetite for a vicious back-alley war with al Qaeda. Such a war threatens the survival of their regimes by increasing the chance that either al Qaeda will strike directly at the political leadership, or that the covert war will trigger a backlash that will create an uprising among the masses.

U.S. strategy has therefore focused on inducing or coercing these governments not only to strike out at al Qaeda and jihadists in general, but also to have them work in tandem with U.S. intelligence so their combined capabilities can be that much more effective. In order to do this, these countries had to become certain of three things: First, that the United States would punish them severely if they did not cooperate; second, that they had more to fear from the United States than from al Qaeda; and finally, that the United States was willing to bleed with them.

We can argue endlessly at this point about the wisdom of the Iraq campaign or about the Bush administration's justifications for it. Stratfor readers know our view of this well. This fact, however, is incontestable: Prior to the Iraq campaign, the key country, Saudi Arabia, was not cooperating with the United States in trying to crush al Qaeda. After the Iraq campaign the Saudis did begin to cooperate with increasing intensity, the proof of which has been the jihadist attacks in Saudi Arabia. There were not attacks before the war. There were increasing attacks after the war. Clearly the Saudis were taking actions that the jihadists didn't like.

What we are seeing is coalition warfare in the fullest sense. However, it is not the "traditional allies" (France and Germany) that can bring the needed resources to bear. It is the Islamic countries whose intelligence services have the most knowledge of jihadist networks, and who are the most valuable allies in this war. Coalitions change depending on goals, and in this war that means joining with Islamic powers.

This is not a coalition of the eager, or even of the willing. In many cases it is a coalition of the blackmailed, bullied and coerced. Some countries, like Egypt, are deeply hostile to al Qaeda and the jihadists. Others, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have little appetite for this conflict and will cooperate only to the extent that they are forced and induced to do so. Al Qaeda can be crushed only to the extent that these countries are induced to cooperate. At this moment, most Islamic countries -- even Syria and, at times, Iran -- have with great reluctance done what they were forced to do.

President Bush or Kerry, if he chooses to continue to prosecute the war, will have to continue to carry out a strategy of coercion against those Islamic countries whose participation is essential. It is a fantasy to believe that countries like Saudi Arabia will risk their internal tranquility on behalf of the interests of the United States. Their interests diverge from America's. Therefore, all strategies will have to focus on maintaining the pressure for cooperation. Kerry will have an opportunity for a few months of creative diplomacy before returning to this course; Bush will simply continue this course. But in the end, the United States will have to frighten these countries more than al Qaeda does, while demonstrating its ability and willingness to protect the regimes.

If the United States were to simply withdraw from Iraq at this point, it would undermine U.S. credibility with these regimes. Therefore, as both Bush and Kerry have stated, they will remain in Iraq. Bush's rhetorical flights notwithstanding, this will not be about building democracy. The one obvious lesson learned in Vietnam is that you do not do nation-building in the midst of a guerrilla war. The purposes of remaining in Iraq now are:

  1. Creating a psychological atmosphere in which Islamic countries do not doubt American will.
  2. Setting rational, achievable goals.
  3. Matching goals with resources.

      Leaving Iraq is not an option. Defining the mission effectively is an option. The United States will neither bring an end to the guerrilla war, nor will it bring democracy to Iraq. However, the actual intensity of the guerrilla war, compared to such wars in Vietnam or Algeria, is much lower. The United States has -- in about 18 months -- lost fewer than 2 percent dead compared to Vietnam. The goal for the United States in Iraq is not to end violence but to reduce U.S. casualties even further. That means reducing the exposure of U.S. forces by reducing their security responsibilities.

      This does not require fully trained Iraqi troops to take the place of U.S. forces. Since violence cannot be eliminated, trading somewhat higher levels of violence for lower U.S. casualties is clearly the option that will be pursued. Bush is currently mounting an offensive to set the stage for this by attacking guerrilla strongholds. This offensive will create a temporary window that will allow the United States to become less intrusive; however, the guerrillas appear to have substantial recuperative powers, at least at the relatively low levels of effectiveness at which they are currently operating.

      The need to reduce the exposure of U.S. forces by withdrawing to bases -- as in Afghanistan -- or to the west of the Euphrates is not simply conditioned by Iraqi reality. It is also conditioned by the U.S. force structure. The first problem either Bush or Kerry will face as president is the fact that the U.S. military -- particularly the Army and Marine Corps -- is too small for the war. A mistake was made under the Bush administration, and will not be rectified by either president. This will not mean a draft. Apart from political consequences, this is not World War II. The kind of troops needed take a long time to train and mature. They need to be highly motivated and capable. The volunteer force will have to be massively expanded through a vast increase in the defense budget. Kerry or Bush will propose this early on.

      There is no choice, particularly because al Qaeda's strategy must now be to counter the United States in the Islamic world. As the attacks in Egypt last week showed, jihadists are expanding operations in the Islamic world. If they cannot topple the Saudi, Pakistani or Egyptian governments through an uprising, they will try to sap their strength through ongoing, low-grade conflict. At a certain point -- and the point is unpredictable -- the United States might have to suddenly intervene in any of a host of Islamic countries in order to stabilize exhausted regimes. At this moment, the United States does not have the manpower to do so. The expectation that the United States will have the option of whether to intervene is unrealistic. Events will determine what the United States has to do, and al Qaeda -- having failed thus far -- is not giving up. It intends to shape events. This excludes the possibility that a U.S.-Iranian confrontation might suddenly explode.

      If all goes well -- and it has not gone nearly as badly as some would say -- there remains the endgame, in which the United States destroys the command cell of al Qaeda. That cell is by all reports in northwestern Pakistan, and the Pakistanis show no appetite for going in and getting it. The United States will have to commit forces to the task in the end, and right now the forces aren't there.

      Having agreed that the war will continue and that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq, these things simply follow. The pressure on reluctant allies in the Islamic world will continue. The United States will not leave Iraq, but will reduce its exposure. Forces must be held in reserve for al Qaeda countermoves. Kerry might well hold a meeting with the French. Bush will undoubtedly make speeches about building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Politicians must be granted their little pleasures. Democrats seem to love European summits, which seem to remind them of John F. Kennedy or something. Republicans love to call things evil, which seems to remind them of evil. Neither French help nor rhetorical gestures will make the slightest difference. Whether they know it or not, Bush and Kerry have agreed on one thing: The only thing they have to offer is blood, toil, sweat and tears.

      Ted Belman is cofounder and cohost of IsraPundit, a pro-Israel strong activist website (http://israpundit.com).

      To Go To Top
Posted by Barry Rubin, October 28, 2004.

One of the most remarkable distortions of the many now circulating around the world is the claim that Israel controls the United States. This notion is difficult to distinguish from a traditional antisemitic theme. When one examines the weakness of the evidence used to advance this argument it is clearly merely a new version of it.

Yet this claim is no mere marginal phenomenon but from supposedly great intellectuals, serious journalists, and former policymakers, appearing in such places as the Guardian, Toronto Star, Financial Times, and even in the New York Times. These people insist that the Bush administration--or even both U.S. presidential candidates--do whatever Israel says, give Prime Minister Ariel Sharon total support, and, consequently, betray America's own interests.

Here is how the New York Times puts it in an October 18 editorial which is so beyond belief that it must be quoted extensively:

"Although the United States has long been a close ally of Israel, Washington had also managed, prior to the Bush administration, to convince the Palestinians of its good faith as a peace broker. Over the past three and a half years, that trust has been needlessly and recklessly forfeited. This administration has allowed itself to become the pawn of Mr. Sharon's machinations. How far this has now gone is clear from a recent Israeli newspaper interview in which the prime minister's chief of staff bragged that Mr. Sharon had secured American endorsement for positions designed to postpone serious discussion of Palestinian statehood until the far distant future."

What is that dreadful position? That Israel withdraw completely from Gaza! And how can someone criticize the United States for undermining its own trustworthiness in Palestinian eyes, when the exact opposite is so clearly the case? It requires only 800 words to demolish this nonsense. First, these claims omit the reasons why American leaders might support Israel, other than Ariel Sharon's supposedly hypnotic charm--a remarkable notion for anyone even generally familiar with the Israeli Prime Minister. The United States has sound reasons for its strongly pro-Israel stance. These include:

--Watching a seven-year-long peace process sunk by Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat's and Syrian intransigence and helped little by Arab states.

--Observing how the Palestinian leadership rejected ceasefires and supported terrorism since 2000.

--Knowing that the current Palestinian leadership is not going to make any conceivable compromise peace or live up to any serious commitments it makes.

--Understanding, after 9/11, that Israel is a fellow victim of terrorism and partner in the global struggle against it.

--Witnessing Yasir Arafat's lies over arms smuggling in partnership with Hizballah and Iran, his funding for terrorists, his refusal to arrest the murderers of three U.S. government employees in Gaza last year, his sabotage of reform and many more reasons.

--The conclusion based on careful investigation that Arafat sabotaged the Roadmap by encouraging continued Palestinian terrorism, even though the plan promised his people a state in a matter of months.

In short, the United States has good reasons based on its interests, strategy, and experience for taking a strongly pro-Israel stance at present.

The second distortion is that Bush has done nothing for peace. There can only be two assumptions here: either some real opportunity has been missed (which is hard to show) or Washington should be active just for the sake of being active.

Yet again the actual evidence is deliberately obscured. Bush has sent out many emissaries to the region, was the first president to endorse a Palestinian state, devised the Roadmap, and even set a bold strategy to encourage Palestinian reform. It is a lie to say Bush has neglected the issue. Indeed, it would be more accurate to note that he gave the Palestinians two big gains: accepting their statehood and promoting Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Third, if the United States supports most of what Sharon did this is largely because he has followed a restrained policy which couples a few targeted killings of those involved directly in terrorism (something U.S. policy is also doing now) with limited, temporary military operations into the territories rather than reoccupation. He has gone slow on the fence, heeded judicial verdicts to change its route, and even sought U.S. approval for where it will be built! And he is the first Israeli prime minister to order--at the risk of his own continued power--dismantling Jewish settlements and the withdrawing from the whole Gaza Strip.

What is particularly obnoxious is the lie that Sharon advisor Dov Weisglass implied some arrogant belief that Israel set U.S. policy. For anyone who actually reads what Weisglass said, his tone is not one of bragging, as the Times would have it, at manipulating the Americans but rather one of almost cringing awe and praise at American power. He makes it clear instead that the Americans reached their own conclusion, "They didn't need us to understand what it's all about." And at least in large part, the same applies to Kerry.

So does all this add up to, in the New York Times' words, the leader of the Jewish state having "the world's only superpower dancing to his tune" and leading the Bush administration "by the nose"? If, as the editorial complains, neither candidate for the U.S. presidency offers "any serious proposals to break the deadlock," perhaps that is because there is no possible such plan at the present time.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography and Hating America: A History (Oxford University Press, August 2004).

This article is archived at Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at .

To Go To Top
Posted by Rabbi Haim Cassorla, October 27, 2004.
"A[nother probably too] Simple Solution - or if you prefer, with a nod to J. Swift A Modest Proposal" This is archived at http://www.rabbihaim.com/disengagement.html

People who have read some of my previous comments on the Arab war against Israel might remember that I like to find the simplest solution to what seems to be the problem. I hope that by doing this, in some way I might be able to emulate Noah, who was selected to save the world by virtue of his simplicity.

Let it be clear that any solution I might suggest will be, to the best of my humble abilities, in full compliance with Jewish Law and tradition.

Here, then, in the interests of simplicity and Halakhicly correct justice, is my proposal:

First I will cover the facts on the ground, as I see them:

1. Those who speak in the name of the "Palestinians" have repeatedly rejected any solution which would include the continued existence of any piece of land as a remnant of the "Zionist entity" on lands which they claim as Arab lands. Since this claim includes ALL of Israel, it is a demand that we cannot accede to. Because of this, we will have to offer a solution that will not make the "Palestinian" side completely happy. Despite this, my solution will try to help them and the rest of the world get at least some of what they want, while not denying Israel's existence.

Halakhicly we cannot end the existence of Israel. This principle is called NILI.

2. Those who speak in the name of the "Palestinians" have repeatedly rejected any solution which would not allow the "Palestinians" a contiguous land mass.

3. Over the entire history of the modern State of Israel a major issue has been the passage of family members across Israel for purposes of "family (re)unification."

4. The State of Israel has always had to deal with the problems of the "refugee camps" built and supported by UNRWA. This burden on the world organization grows from year to year and there has been no solution proposed to replace these "camps" with permanent housing, and reduce the UN budget in this area so that something can be done to preserve life in The Sudan, or other troubled areas of the world.

5. The Rabbis of Israel, (and many others throughout the world) have declared that observant Jews may not take part in uprooting Jews from their homes in Eretz Yisrael. These same Halakhic authorities also declare it to be unacceptable to "cede" any part of Eretz Yisrael. To be perfectly clear, most of these same authorities include YeSh"A as part of Eretz Yisrael.

6. The government of Israel, led by Arik Sharon, is committed to "disengagement."

7. The government of the United States has affirmed its support of the resettlement of large populations from Gaza as part of a "disengagement." This is an endorsement of "ethnic cleansing," clearly and undeniably.

Taking all of the above into account, I submit my solution. Please understand, I know that it is simple. I also know that this is not a complete solution and will not settle border issues, but remember that the Arik Plan also does not purport to solve everything. Disengage from the "Palestinian" population in Gaza by removing the "Palestinian" population from Gaza. I believe that enough money has been allocated by the Knesset to allow the resettlement of these people to other places - not excluding PA controlled areas of Judea and Samaria - but also not limited to those areas. The United States government has already agreed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Why shouldn't they agree to moving a different group to the same end? This will defacto end the "Refugee Camps" which have been a bane to the "Palestinians," Israel, and the UN.

This solution will allow for the (re)unification of those families who wish to live together and will end the need for a land bridge to connect a "Palestinian Entity" at the cost of the contiguity of the "Zionist Entity."

I am sure that the government of Egypt will give its tacit support to this proposal that will limit or end smuggling across the demarcation line.

This single act will also send a clear sign to all of those who support the "Palestinian Cause" that terrorism will not be rewarded, and that we will fight terrorism by uprooting its perpetrators.

This solution will decrease the need for crossing points from PA administered areas in the name of "family visits."

This unification of the now separated "Palestinian" population will also allow those "Palestinians" who have attempted to engage in commerce, to now engage in building an indigenous "Palestinian" economy.

As a final point, I believe that a "disengagement plan" that looks like this will allow Arik to change his name back to Ariel.

Rabbi Haim Cassorla lives in Jacksonville, Florida. Contact him at his website - www.rabbihaim.com - or send emails to rabbihaim@comcast.net

To Go To Top
Posted by Tamar Eden Rush, October 27, 2004.

In honour of the chairman's (hopefully painful) suffering, I think I'll repost a few things from IsraPundit (http//israpundit.com). This was published Wednesday, August 06, 2003.

It is now late afternoon here on the coast of Israel, and I have spent all afternoon witnessing the release of 339 Palestinian prisoners on Israel Television. I had expected to see a few arrogant souls flashing the victory sign, but even "cynical little me" was surprised at the anger and hatred displayed by most of those who will spend this evening with their family and loved ones, courtesy of our policy of appeasement.

Arch-Terrorist Yassir Arafat told a local paper yesterday that he, " regards Israel's release of prisoners this week as an act of fraud and deceit.", his newly released followers echoed those sentiments as they spoke to reporters, claiming that they did not want to be released, while 3,000 other members of various Palestinian terror organisations remain imprisoned for "infractions", such as blowing up busloads of Jews, and shooting innocent children in their beds.

Arafat and his minions have made a farce of the "Goodwill gesture" demanded by the Bush administration. If we continue with the implementation of the even more farcical "Road Map", then we should be absolutely pedantic about it, and refuse to accommodate the Arabists at the State Dept. by enacting an endless succession of new and unappreciated "confidence building measures".

If it ain't in the "Road Map", then forget about it!

The Institute for Contemporary Affairs has published the following article, that should clear up the "Prisoner release" issue, once and for all! It's called "Prisoner Release - Veering Off the Roadmap" and was written by Eli Kazhdan. It is in Vol. 2, No. 31, 14 July 2003. Eli Kazhdan is a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He served as a foreign policy advisor to Minister Natan Sharansky. The Institute for Contemporary Affairs (ICA) is dedicated to providing a forum for Israeli policy discussion and debate.

The first sentence of Phase I of the roadmap is crystal clear, demanding that "the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence." The roadmap's cease-fire is not contingent upon Israeli performance on any other issue.

Any linkage between the question of Palestinian violence and Israeli implementation of the roadmap makes violence part of the negotiating process.

Not a single mention of Palestinian prisoners or their release is to be found in any of the three phases of the roadmap. The Tenet Plan, to which the roadmap refers, only called upon Israel to release Palestinians "arrested in security sweeps, who have no association with terrorist activities."

Over the past few weeks, there has been a protracted arm-wrestling match between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as well as within Israeli and Palestinian governments and societies respectively, regarding the issue of prisoner release. Government meetings and negotiations, press releases and threats, condemnations, and counter-condemnations have all focused on one issue: the release of Palestinian prisoners incarcerated in Israel.

Judging by all the recent global commentary around this issue, one would naturally assume that this is a first and foremost issue of the roadmap, referred to in the first sentence of this document as one of the "performance-based and goal-driven benchmarks" essential for any further progress.

Additionally, militant Islamist groups, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have been insisting that unless their prisoners are freed, their temporary truce (hudna) with Israel will be cancelled, thereby creating a formal link between the prisoner release issue and the cease-fire. Are these assertions consistent with the roadmap or a deviation from its original terms?

The Roadmap's Concept of an Israeli-Palestinian Cease-Fire

While the roadmap includes three phases connected to benchmarks, the first sentence of Phase I is crystal clear, demanding that "the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence." The roadmap's cease-fire is not contingent upon Israeli performance on any other issue. The requirement of the Palestinians to halt violent activities is absolute. Any linkage between the question of Palestinian violence and Israeli implementation of the roadmap makes violence part of the negotiating process.

The roadmap cease-fire, moreover, is not confined to halting Palestinian terror attacks alone. It states that the "unconditional cessation of violence [be undertaken] according to the steps outlined below." Those steps include "dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure," as well as "commencing confiscation of illegal weapons." In terms of sequence, it is clear from reading the roadmap that these security steps are an inherent part of the definition of a cease-fire and are to be implemented immediately as well.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority security services have not taken one step to dismantle the terrorist organizations or disarm them, in accordance with their obligations. Worse still, Palestinian ministers, like Muhammad Dahlan, have repeatedly asserted that they have no intention of implementing this roadmap obligation. True, the Palestinian Authority has taken some initial steps against incitement, a handful of weapons were confiscated from "criminal elements" - not members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and some attempted attacks were foiled. But the roadmap's fundamental demand to deal with the terrorist groups by removing them along with their arms has yet to be acted upon. Moreover, there are increasing signs that Palestinian organizations, like Hamas, are actually expanding their infrastructure, by increasing the rate of production of Qassam rockets and upgrading their range.

The Roadmap and the Prisoner Release Issue

Overlooked in the controversy over prisoner release is the fact that not a single mention of Palestinian prisoners or their release is to be found in any of the three phases of the roadmap. The only possible reference appears in the roadmap's demand that "Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan" - a demand which is a "supportive measure" to the immediate cessation of violence, certainly not a precursor to it. In any case, the Tenet Plan itself only called upon Israel to release Palestinians "arrested in security sweeps, who have no association with terrorist activities."

So before the two parties have even begun to follow the roadmap, Israel already finds itself in a corner: on the one hand, a cease-fire which was supposed to be immediate and unconditional has become temporary and contingent upon prisoner release; on the other hand, the Palestinians are not moving ahead on other "immediate" demands of the roadmap, such as dismantling terrorist groups (or disarming them) and comprehensive political reform, until the prisoner issue is settled to their satisfaction.

Within a very brief period, Israel has found itself at a strategic disadvantage as the Palestinians focus our own attention on the issue of prisoner release and effectively divert world attention from critical demands for performance on the Palestinian side.

The roadmap, which has been accepted by Israel and the Palestinians as the compass for the peace process, is today the prism through which progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front is globally judged. Israel must play strictly by the roadmap, meticulously monitoring Palestinian compliance with each and every benchmark and demand of the roadmap, and not veering off it, especially when the Palestinians seek to divert attention to an issue that was never part of it.

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, October 27, 2004.

After the first 24 hours of celebrations among the civilized world at the death of the most foul creature to infest humanity since Hitler, there will be big problems. The Arabs will blame Israel and the Jews for Arafat's demise. They will say something to the effect that if it weren't for his isolation in Ramallah, he would still be alive and killing. They will blame his lack of living in obscene luxury and with a nice scenic view on his 'premature' departing. Then the killings and chaos will start.

Definitely look for the Arabs to attack each and every one of the Jews living in Gaza. Look for them to tear their bodies apart and kick-roll their heads down the streets like they have done in the past. Look for them to take keepsakes of babies hands, men's ears or noses, and do other unspeakable acts that they have done mere months ago.

Then look for chaos and darkness to descend upon the land. Every group will be angling for rulership. Judging from recent elections there, many groups will run on the same platform as one did so successfully before: who can kill the most Jews. When rival groups aren't busy killing each other, look for them to be competing as to how many rockets they can launch at Israel, how many genocide bombers they can send, roadside bombs they can plant, axe murders they can commit and more.

Meanwhile, look for the media to play it up to Israel's detriment. Look for al-Jazeera, the BBC, CNN and Reuters to report that 'Palestinian Activists' took to the streets to express their grief. They may even show file footage of a Jewish family celebrating a wedding with much dancing, laughing and handing out of treats, implying that this was the way that Jews treated the death of Arafat. Even the New York Times and the Village Voice might get into the act with banner headlines reading: "Last Victim of Intifadah" and showing Arafat's picture alongside some file photos of the IDF bulldozing a house.

Also look for Islamists the world over blaming Jews for the 'premature' death of Yasser Arafat (as if he was too young to die of old age). Recalling recent incidents in Europe, riots, burnings and home invasions on a massive scale may become common, along with knifings and stonings. Jewish businesses the world over may be trashed and looted, Jewish school children may be dragged through the streets and beaten. This will be a very difficult time for Jews.

Meanwhile, I noticed a curious thing which may be more than an oddity if Arafat dies now. When the talk of a Knesset vote on Sharon's 'disengagement plan' (more accurately known as expulsion-of-Jews-from-their-homes-plan) first started, Arafat got sick. Within hours of it passing, he fell critically ill. I wonder......

Moving along, in keeping with journalistic tradition, I have written a piece about Arafat before his demise. Most newspapers do this for famous people so they can go to press as soon as someone of importance passes. Here is mine, which is not a bio but the eulogy I'd love to deliver.

Arafat's Pre-Mortem Eulogy

We come here today to rejoice in the belated death of Mohammed Abdul-Ra'ouf Qudwa Al-Husseini, an Egyptian who changed his name to Yasser Arafat. Having aspired to follow in the footsteps of his uncle -- The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- who was Hitler's representative in the Middle East, Arafat decided to continue Hitler's plans of committing genocide on the Jewish people.

In the early 1960s, he cobbled together a group of Arab rejects, mostly from Jordan and Egypt, and renamed them the 'Palestinians.' Right off, he led his 'people' to an ignoble start, using murder, terror and unmentionable atrocities in an attempt to destroy a sovereign nation and exterminate an entire people. He continued on through 40 years of murder, mayhem and genocide and will share a place in history next to Hitler.

Listing each and every one of his acts of horror, barbarity and chaos would take way too long and I know you are all in a party mood, so let me conclude this with a warning to Satan:

Now that Arafat is in your domain, look out for him organizing a bunch of demons, declaring them the originators of your realm and the first and only 'Satanists,' creating chaos and angling to have your own area declared illegally 'occupied' by You. You must also beware that he will soon have help. Some of his most ardent supporters in the UN are biologically scheduled to relocate to your realm soon, as is his 'partner for peace' and co-Nobel Laureate.

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles.

To Go To Top
Posted by Bernard J. Shapiro, October 27, 2004.

Yesterday was a BLACK DAY FOR ISRAEL. The consequences of the Knesset vote on the expulsion of Jews will be horrendous and is not fully understood.

The Jews have faced expulsions many times throughout their history - the largest from Spain in 1492. Today we witness the first time Jews have been expelled by a Jewish government from their own nation.

The immediate consequence of this vile act by the Sharon government is the total fracture of the national consensus. It is a rupture of the historical roots of Israel in Zionism. The ruling Likud Party will be split and there is a possibility that the anti-Zionist left will emerge as the most significant influence on Israeli politics after being defeated in the last election by a landslide.

Democratic principles are being undermined and critics of Sharon's policies are being threatened with imprisonment.

What can we expect in the future following the surrender to terrorism. For one, Gaza will be come a haven and training base for terrorists from all over the world. New weapons will be introduced in large number including rockets capable of reaching Israel's major cities. Just like the days before the Six Day War, terrorists will infiltrate into Israel from Gaza bringing death and destruction in their wake.

The most significant damage will be to Israeli morale. While the Arabs will feel elated at this victory over Israel, Jews will become depressed and their feelings of national pride will be greatly diminished. Many Jews will seek to avoid joining the IDF and its elite units. Many more will emigrate to other countries, disgusted with Israeli anti-Jewish policies.

The goal of improving Israel's demographic balance by leaving Gaza will fail as fewer Jews will immigrate to Israel as the security situation deteriorates. As increasing numbers of Jews emigrate and the Arab birthrate continues to grow Israel will find itself in the same difficult position. There are other answers to the problem like transfer, but the leftist government will refuse to even discuss it.


[Writer's Note: This editorial is conceptually based on the history of both the American Revolution and Martin Luther King Jr's struggle to emancipate the black population of the United States. Of course it is modern and on the struggle for Israel, but the voices of George Washington, Patrick Henry and Dr. King ring loudly in my heart and soul.]

It is clear to all of us that the present Likud government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is leading Israel to disaster. It is also clear that nothing external is compelling this self-destruction. The only thing that will save Israel is new elections.


The only way to speed up elections and thus save Israel is by destabilizing the current government and causing it to fall. This would force new elections and stop the insane Oslo/Road Map process.


Over the last one hundred years, many governments have been destabilized by the action of a determined group of its citizens, not necessarily a majority. Two recent cases in this country are the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War in Viet-Nam Movement. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for a second term because of the anti-war movement. There is also no doubt the Afro-American population would not have been able to throw off the yoke of discrimination without non-violent protest. In Israel it is obvious that the intifada succeeded, no doubt because of the Israeli government's reticence in crushing it.

It is this reticence by democratic regimes to crush popular uprisings that is the biggest weapon in the hands of groups wishing to destabilize their government. This principle does not work under autocratic governments as witness Syria (Hama) and China (Tiananmen Square).


1. Demonstrations -- the larger the better. Demonstrations will not in and of themselves bring down a government. Good media coverage is essential to give the population a feeling that the tide of history is turning against the regime.

2. Civil disobedience -- the key to success. There is one essential requirement for destabilizing a government and that is for a determined group of people to be willing to go to jail, be beaten by police, and possibly be killed in the pursuit of their political aims. More will follow later on organizing civil disobedience.

3. The Wrench In The Machinery Of Government

A Physical - roads and bridges can be blocked by slow or stalled cars.

B. Electronic - computer networks, telecommunications can be adversely affected [10,000 people calling government offices at the same time can paralyze the system].

C. Psychological - photo's can be taken of police and military personnel who become involved in violent action against peaceful demonstrators. Available now are miniature video cameras that can be worn inconspicuously and send live feed to distant computers. At a time and place of your choosing their names can be revealed - you can compromise those security officers involved in non-democratic violence against demonstrators. Their names and photos can be publicized, leading to fear and a sense of insecurity.


A. Armed resistence to non-democratic police and military actions is not the best course of action since the military, police and security services will always be stronger and better equipped.

B. Open revolt against authority - Democracies are primarily based on voluntary compliance with the legal system. When that democracy ceases to govern in the best interests of its citizenry, with its security and survival, then it is lawful and justified to resist authority. This includes refusing to pay taxes, following illegal orders of the non-democratic army, traffic regulations etc.

C. Mass demonstrations, including the right of self-defense, are meant to intimidate the police and the government. The horrible vision of civil war will restrain the government. Knowing that the Zionist/Right will not physically resist, gives the government strength to pursue suicidal policies. The policy of not striking back at the Left (as experienced during the "season") begun in the pre-state days by Menachem Begin has had the effect of emasculating the Right in its relations with the Left.


While it is preferable to wage a non-violent campaign, there are certain lessons one can learn from the Israel Defense Forces.

1. Most important: Do not give the enemy time to rest and re-group. The IDF always advances in one massive push to victory, never allowing the enemy a respite. The same must be true of the demonstrations against Sharon. It is a mistake to agree to a truce. This time will be used to organize special police units including female police officers to handle demonstrators. The government has already learned that reservists do not like this heartrending undemocratic task.

2. Attack in many places at once, causing physical and psychological stress on the enemy. Demonstrators should not just take over hills in YESHA, but should take over government offices from Eilat to Metulla. Roads should be blocked all over the country. In Jerusalem, with its many government offices and a supportive religious population, you should be able to create and sustain chaos.


Half measures will not work. Either we want to bring down this government or we don't. You can not be both meat and milk. It was the IDF's failure to destroy the intifada that led to much of our trouble. Remember the principle of vaccinations: a tiny doze of the disease that allows the body to build its immune system. Half-measures allow Sharon to develop a resistance to the demonstrations. We must take the momentum and build continuously to the day of victory. The decision is ours.


We find all the expressions of horror at the recent Rabbi's ruling concerning a soldier's obligation to avoid abandoning army bases and settlements to terrorists, to be hypocritical, self-serving, and unfortunate. The Israeli government is in rebellion against everything that Israel, Zionism, and Judaism are all about. They are the ones causing the rift in the body politic and they will be totally responsible for any resulting violence.

When will the Nationalist Camp realize that we are "at war already" with a PLO-supported government that rules Israel? At what point will Israelis realize that the CIVIL WAR they fear, IS ALREADY TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE LOSING? Why don't members of the Nationalist Camp understand that FORCE is being used by only ONE side and that is the government. The monopoly on power must be broken or there is no hope.

Under the Nazis, the Jews of Warsaw numbered over 500,000. They were depleted with regular deportations aided by Judenrats (Jewish leaders). The Revolt in Warsaw began when the Jewish population was down to 50,000 (or 90% murdered). At what point is it OK to rebel? When is civil disobedience OK? When is civil war a better course than suicide? All throughout history there have been rebels and loyalists. History is usually written by the victors but truly there is seldom a universally accepted moral standard as to what is a proper rebellion and what is not. We can say with absolute certainty, however, that the Jewish return to Zion and our struggle today for Eretz Yisrael are more righteous than any other struggle for national liberation in the history of the world.

The Jews of YESHA must not be passive pawns in the political surrender of their homes. They must fight the Arabs, where necessary, to maintain their travel, water, and land rights. When the Israeli government retreats, leaving them behind PLO battle lines, they must be prepared to go on the offensive militarily to secure safe contiguous areas of Jewish control. The defeatist Israeli leaders, who have surrendered our Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael, should be told that there are still proud Jews in YESHA who will give up neither their inheritance from Abraham nor their right of self-defense.

Exercising one's right to self-defense is a moral imperative. There is a lot of hypocritical talk coming from the government about the danger of Jew fighting Jew. These warnings came from the likes of Yitzhak Rabin who delighted in shooting Zionist (Betar) teenagers swimming to shore after his forces sank the Altalena in 1948. New more dangerous hypocrites are putting the Jews of YESHA and all of Israel in life threatening peril. They care nothing about Jewish lives!

The glorious Hebrew Warriors who defeated five Arab armies in 1948, three in 1967, and two in 1973 must not surrender their Jewish homeland to an evil terrorist, who delights in killing Jewish women, children, husbands, sons and daughters.. The Brave Heroes of Zion must not limit themselves to passive civil disobedience but must on the offensive.

While such internal Jewish fighting would be DREADFUL, it is a consequence of the government's disregard for the security and well being of its citizens. At this great time of trial and apocalyptic threat, the safeguarding of the future of the Jewish people's right to Eretz Yisrael must take precedence.

Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly Internet magazine, "The Maccabean Online" and its email broadcast, freemanlist.

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 27, 2004.

The Disengagement Plan was approved by the Knesset Tuesday night in a 67-45 vote, with 7 abstentions. While the plan had been expected to pass all along, there were some last minute tensions - the result of power play attempts by Ministers Binyamin Netanyahu and Limor Livnat who sought to present Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with an ultimatum during the last hour before the vote.

Netanyahu and Livnat were planning, according to reports, to threaten to vote against Sharon's plan unless the Prime Minister would agree on the spot to hold a national referendum on the withdrawal plan. Mr. Sharon refused even to meet with them, taking his seat in the Knesset plenum 15 minutes before the vote in a demonstrative show that he had no desire to engage in last-minute negotiations.

Netanyahu, Livnat and several other ministers did not show up for the first reading of names, leading many to think they would carry out their threat and vote "nay" - but they suddenly appeared in the plenum and actually voted in favor, apparently fearing Sharon's threat to dismiss any minister who did not vote for the plan. A smiling and victorious Sharon later told his aides, "Let this be a lesson to you: Never give in to threats or pressure."

While, or before, Netanyahu and Livnat were attempting to present their ultimatum, Minister Zevulun Orlev of the National Religious Party (NRP) came out with a 14-day ultimatum of his own. He said that the four members of the NRP who still support the government would quit the coalition in 14 days unless Sharon agrees to hold a national referendum regarding the expulsion of Jews from Gaza and northern Shomron. On the other hand, if Sharon agrees, the NRP would promise not to quit the government at all - regardless of the outcome of the plebiscite.

Immediately after the Knesset vote, Ministers Netanyahu and Livnat attempted to save face with a dramatic announcement that they were joining the NRP's ultimatum. "If within 14 days, the Prime Minister has not agreed to a national referendum, we cannot see ourselves remaining in the government," Netanyahu said, stating that the terms apply to him, as well as Ministers Livnat, Yisrael Katz and Danny Naveh. Katz and Naveh refused to be interviewed today.

"We do not want to topple or replace anyone," Netanyahu said, "but we want to give unity a chance, uniting the Likud and the nation." He added that if the Gaza plan is not taken to the nation to decide, it will lead to a severe split.

Likud loyalists who oppose the plan were disappointed that Netanyahu and Livnat actually voted in favor of the expulsion of Jews and the hand-over of land to the PA. The two explained repeatedly in recent days that they remain essentially opposed to the plan, and favor a national referendum. While most analysts said that Netanyahu had come out the loser in the war of nerves with Sharon, a minority said that Sharon now faces the threat of losing several of his most senior Cabinet ministers, as well as the prospect of a toppled government.

Likud loyalist Minister Dr. Uzi Landau remained true to his position and voted against the plan, as did Deputy Minister Michael Ratzon. They were both well aware that letters of dismissal awaited them, and in fact, Minister Landau was invited to the Prime Minister's office only minutes after the vote, where he was fired. The dismissal takes effect on Thursday night. Ratzon has also been sacked, effective immediately. MK Ruchama Avraham is reportedly interested in his position.

Landau told the media yesterday that if Sharon in fact dismisses him, he will continue his battle against unilaterally forfeiting portions of the Land of Israel from his Knesset seat. In a press conference this morning, he had strong words against Sharon, accusing him of taking the nation's overwhelming vote for a right-wing government and turning it into a left-wing one. Ratzon said he was very proud of his letter of dismissal, adding that he planned to frame it in gold as a testimony of his having passed the test of commitment to the Land of Israel.

Aside from Ministers Netanyahu and Livnat, many other votes aroused interest. Minister Yisrael Katz, a leading member of the "Likud loyalists" opposed to the disengagement plan, voted in favor, fearing Sharon's threat of dismissal. Some said that he had thus forfeited his right to lead those who oppose the withdrawal.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, as well, opposes the plan, but never indicated he would vote against it - and in fact voted in favor. He said that the vote had nothing to do with removing Jewish communities, but was rather a ratification of the Cabinet decision of June 7.

Likud Minister Danny Naveh has expressed opposition to the plan, absented himself from the first polling last night, but ultimately voted in favor of the plan.

MK Yisrael Eichler of United Torah Judaism had indicated he would abstain, but in the end, voted against the plan, together with all the other members of the hareidi parties - UTJ (5) and Shas (11). Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, who issued a strong ruling against the disengagement plan, phoned Eichler's rabbinical authority, the Rabbi of the Belzer Hassidim, yesterday afternoon, and asked him to advise Eichler to vote against. On the other hand, at least two other UTJ Knesset Members said they voted against - not because they oppose the plan, but because of political considerations.

Several Arab Knesset Members, particularly Muhammed Barakeh, embarrassed themselves when they changed their vote at the last moment. A rowdy exchange between Labor MK Chaim Ramon and Barakeh had taken place in the Knesset several hours earlier, when Ramon accused the Arab MKs of subjugating their ideals to their political needs. "You know very well," Ramon railed at Barakeh, "that if we in Labor were not voting for this plan, thus giving it a majority, then you would vote for it. What, are we your Shabbat Goy [a reference to non-Jews who perform actions on the Sabbath for Jews who are not permitted to carry them out]?! You know that this plan is exactly what you want, and yet you're voting together with the right-wing against it! Look at who your allies are - Effie Eitam, Benny Elon and the like!"

Barakeh responded furiously and could barely contain himself, continuing to shout at Ramon even after the latter was on his way out of the plenum. Holding a copy of the disengagement plan, Barakeh shouted, "I cannot vote for a plan that states that it does not call for the removal of communities! I cannot vote for a plan that states that it is aimed at strengthening Israel's hold on Judea and Samaria!" In the end, when it appeared that a last-minute change of vote by some Likud ministers might endanger the plan's passage, Barakeh and five of his Arab colleagues abstained, instead of voting against. The other two Arab-party MKs had said all along that they would vote in favor, and did so.

The other abstention was that of MK David Tal, formerly of Shas and now of Labor's Am Echad faction. He had planned to vote in favor, but changed his mind following Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef's ruling against the plan. It should be noted that the rabbi's ruling negated abstention, saying, "If you see a baby drowning, would you 'abstain' from helping?!"

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin of the Likud voted against the plan, as he long indicated he would. He has in fact expressed strong criticism of Ariel Sharon for the plan... MK Eli Aflalo (Likud) arrived at the Knesset from the hospital in an ambulance, and voted in favor of the plan... MK Yehudit Naot of Shinui, who resigned her Cabinet post due to illness, was the only MK not present for last night's vote... MK Chemi Doron (Shinui), who had been rumored to be considering voting against or abstaining, voted in favor...

The entire Shinui faction voted in favor, as did all of Labor (except for Tal) and Meretz/Yachad. The entire NRP and National Union factions (except for Michael Nudelman, who voted 'yea') voted against. The Likud was split almost down the middle, with 17 voting against and 23 in favor. Among those voting against were Chaim Katz, Ness, Kara, Kachlon, Gorlovsky, Erdan, Chazan, Yatom, Ben-Lulu, Saar, Blumental, Gamliel, Edelstein and David Levy.

To Go To Top
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 27, 2004.
In order to illustrate the utter absurdity of Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza lunacy, here is a masterpiece article written tongue in cheek. It appeared on the IsraPundit's website (http://israpundit.com/archives/009297.html).

I always wondered why only Jews must be evacuated from their homes in Gaza, why not Arabs? Of course, this makes no sense and is racially indefensible, as it would be anywhere else in the world.

So, what if all the Gaza Jews convert to Islam? Should we evacuate them then?

Although, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza - the largest deportation of Jews from their homes since Poland 1944 - passed a legislative hurdle in today's Knesset vote, it has not begun or been definitively approved and may yet be subject to a nationwide referendum.

The whole process, though, may have just been stopped in its tracks.

In a press conference held at the Dome of the Rock immediately following the Knesset vote, Gaza settler leaders, led by the leaders of the settlement block Gush Katif, announced that they and their followers have converted to Islam. The Gaza settlers have all either submitted electronic forms through an Islamic website or have stated "I bear witness that there is no diety but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

This news seems to have brought an immediate reaction from certain countries and NGOs.

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, stated that "the deportation of 8000 Muslims from their homes constituted a serious crime against humanity and a violation of international law."

Saeb Ekrat, interviewed on CNN, stated that the people of Gush Katif had lived in their homes since time immemorial, before the Jews even existed, and that the planned actions of the Sharon government constitute another vicious deportation of indigenous peoples by the Israeli government. He continued that the Palestinian Authority could not be held responsible for the violence that might result from this unheard of provocation - the deportation of 20,000 women and children. He stated that the Palestinians would seek an international presence in the Gaza Strip to protect these people. Also interviewed by CNN was the former president of Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. He was not aware of the developments but welcomed the new converts to the fold and stated emphatically that if any Muslims are removed from their homes, Iran would "burn the little satan, the Zionist entity, with fire from the sun to bring peace to the world." When asked if he was referring to a hydrogen bomb or other nuclear device, President Rafsanjani stated that Iran was only pursing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In a hastily arranged speech in Kuala Lumpor, former Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad stated that Sharon and the Jews are pig monkey dogs and that the attempt to deport 50,000 Muslims would demonstrate to the world that the Jews are cockroaches and the spreaders of AIDS. The Malaysian Foreign Ministry later clarified that these statements were not anti-Semitic but reflected a reaction to the actions of Israel.

Human Rights Watch is preparing a report on the deportations which it says violates the first, third and forth Geneva Conventions as well as numerous other laws applicable only to Israel. It announced that it is investigating allegations of massacres of former Jews in these former Jewish settlements, now ancient Arab villages, by Israeli security forces,

France in its role as rotating president of the European Union announced that it and other members of the European Union could not be expected to protect Jews living in the European Union if Israel undertakes such aggressive actions against Muslims. France has announced that it will accelerate aid to Hamas, Hizballah and other humanitarian organizations which will deal with the eventual human rights crisis that would result from these actions. When a reporter asked about the concurrent humanitarian crisis in Sudan, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier stated that as the crisis in Gush Katif dwarfed that of Darfur, Sudan, the European Union had rescheduled its meeting to discuss taking immediate action to aid those being killed by Arab militias in Sudan until the fall of 2006.

The government of Israel has not formerly responded to these developments but former Knesset member, Yossi Beilin during a stopover in Geneva stated that while he did support the deportation of Jews from their homes, he did not support the deportation of Muslims under any circumstances but went on to question whether the settlers had the proper intent when converting. Tomy Lapid, head of the Shinui party stated that any form of conversion, no matter how cursory, was satisfactory and he would not stand for a haredi interpretation of conversion requirements.

When questioned during a campaign stop over, John Kerry said that he would have voted for the disengagement but would now vote against it, if he could vote.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Tamar Rush, October 27, 2004.

This article was written by Jacob Gershman, Sun's Staff reforter, and it appeared in the New York Sun (ttp://www.nysun.com/article/3758) yesterday.

A British professor who caused an international uproar after she fired two scholars because they were Israeli urged academics to sign a letter in support of a Columbia University professor, Joseph Massad, who she believes is under attack by the "pro-Israel lobby."

A professor of translation studies at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Mona Baker yesterday urged academics to sign the letter calling on Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, to publicly defend Mr. Massad.

The campaign was spurred by a report in The New York Sun last week about Rep. Anthony Weiner's reaction to an underground documentary film featuring Columbia students talking about what they perceive as an anti-Israel bias among a number of faculty members, including Mr. Massad.

In response to the Sun article and an editorial published in the New York Daily News condemning Mr. Massad, Mr. Weiner, who represents Brooklyn and Queens, called on Columbia to "fire" Mr. Massad, saying the professor does not have "carte blanche to spew hate."

Mr. Massad and Ms. Baker yesterday refused to speak to the Sun.

On her Website, www.monabaker.com, Ms. Baker writes that Mr. Massad "is the target of a new and particularly vicious attack by the pro-Israel lobby in the States, aimed at getting him dismissed and destroying his highly promising career."

Ms. Baker said she knows Mr. Massad "personally" and praised him for his "dazzling scholarship, academic and personal integrity" and his advocacy for "peace with justice" in the Middle East.

The attention surrounding Mr. Massad mirrors a controversy involving Ms. Baker two years ago, when she fired Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University and Miriam Schlesinger of Bar-Ilan University from the editorial boards of two journals she owned.

Ms. Baker said she was following through on a boycott she signed against Israeli academic institutions. After carrying out an inquiry, her university said she had the right to fire people from her own journals.

On her Web site, www.monabaker.com Ms. Baker encourages readers to sign a letter in support of Mr. Massad written by a University of Texas professor, Neville Hoad. In his letter, Mr. Hoad states: "We, professors, scholars, teachers and students at universities world-wide are shocked by the slanderous campaign long launched in the New York media against our colleague Assistant Professor Joseph Massad."

The letter said attacks against Mr. Massad "grossly misrepresent" his scholarship and said the Columbia scholar has spoken out against anti-Semitism.

Mr. Hoad, a professor of English who met Mr. Massad as a Columbia graduate student, said he has collected hundreds of signatures and plans to send his letter to Mr. Bollinger and Columbia's provost, Alan Brinkley, tomorrow.

"It's very important that the academic community remains self-regulating and people not be vulnerable to this kind of political pressure," he told the Sun.

A spokeswoman for Columbia, Susan Brown, said, "We appreciate people taking the time to share their concerns with us and we take them seriously."

Since the death of Edward Said, a Columbia literature professor, in 2003, Mr. Massad, a non-tenured professor of modern Arab politics, has become one of the most well-known opponents of Israel in academia.

To critics of Middle East studies at American universities, Mr. Massad represents the basic problem of the field, which they say has become corrupted by anti-Israel sentiment and has largely ignored Islamic terrorism and the lack of political freedom in the Arab world.

Although he has popular support among members of his Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures department and among a number of students in his classes, Mr. Massad has caused Columbia some concern.

According to a report in the Times Higher Education Supplement, a British newspaper, Mr. Massad was forced to cancel a course he taught on Israeli and Palestinian politics due to the controversy over his writings and the content of his courses. He continues to teach other courses at the university.

Students writing on an unofficial Web site that collects student feedback on Columbia courses are divided about Mr. Massad. This spring, one student wrote: "Rather than just melting into the background as spoiled kids he must teach, he takes the students seriously and gives them the respect that many professors on this campus do not."

In 2003, another student wrote: "He teaches a polemic, not an academic class, and abuses the position of teacher to rant at his students, offering little analysis grounded in anything resembling reality."

In one scene in the documentary film "Columbia Unbecoming" an Israeli student is interviewed describing a lecture by Mr. Massad on the subject of the Middle East conflict in 2001. According to the student, who served in the Israeli Air Force in the 1990s, Mr. Massad wouldn't answer the student's question following his lecture but insisted that he say how many Palestinians he killed.

The David Project, the Boston-based pro-Israel group that produced the film, is expected to screen it for journalists later this week.

In his writings, Mr. Massad has argued that Israel is a racist, colonialist state that has never had legitimacy and does not represent Jews of the world. He has argued for a one-state solution to the Middle East conflict and believes that Palestinian-Arab refugees ought to have the right to return to Israel.

In an article published in Al-Ahram in 2003, Mr. Massad argued that Palestinian Arabs were losing international support because their leader, Yasser Arafat, was giving in too much to Israeli and American political demands.

"In light of Oslo, Arafat and the PA put a stop to the first Intifada and have been diligently trying to suppress the current one," he wrote. "Our allies and friends, as a result, began to waver in their support for Palestinian resistance."

e-mail: mona.baker@umist.ac.uk
phone: +44/0 161 200 3081
fax: +44/0 161 200 3099

To Go To Top
Posted by Marcel Cousineau, October 27, 2004.

I watched unamazed, as the U.S. Government was the first and only Foreign power to applaude the Gaza surrender and retreat vote in the Knesset. I know why they applauded and I understand why P.M. Sharon is pushing for it so hard, and it's not for 'any' peace. Why would a Jew betray his own nation and people unless he was seduced by threats and promises from his Overlord, and did not have enough faith in Hashem to withstand?

It is comforting to know that Israel's land and her survival are not dependent on a weak and confused P.M. Sharon nor on Road Map to Israel's destruction, President Bush or Senator Lying in wait, Kerry.

Someone else,Someone whom these planners are ignoring will have the LAST WORD on the devious plans of these men. Men who can not deliver on any of their promises,men who can only deceive and lead astray those who thrust in them. Thank G-d there is someone else to trust in than these failed lying men. This article was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg and is entitled "An Open Letter To The Likud." The chairman of your party, Ariel Sharon, castigates as "rebel" those of you who oppose his unilateral disengagement plan - which he himself opposed in the January 2003 election campaign.

He has the audacity to tell you and the entire nation that he has not departed from his January 2003 campaign against unilateral disengagement, which garnered your party 38 Knesset seats! He threatens that new elections may leave many of you outside the Knesset, because those seats, he boasts, were brought to the party by him personally, when in truth it was your party's anti-disengagement campaign that made this impostor Israel's prime minister.

He has betrayed your Zionist principles, your voters, and the heritage of the Jewish people - and for what? Nothing! That is precisely the value of the good will he expects from the United States and Europe. And now he mocks settlers as having a "messianic complex," even though he was once their champion.

Such is his arrogance that he disregards the warnings of IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Moshe Ya'alon and of Gen. Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, head of IDF Intelligence. He dismisses their warnings against retreating under fire from Gaza even while Hamas and Islamic Jihad are developing rockets that can reach Jerusalem. Would it not be ironic justice if their rockets struck the Knesset where you and your colleagues have so ignobly decided the fate of thousands of Jewish families?

You have a monster at the head of your party, who is bringing the State of Israel to the brink, and you do nothing more than call for a referendum. How contemptible! Bring the government down! You have 17 MKs who voted against disengagement, and at least 8 more who really oppose this criminal deed. Form a coalition with the four anti-disengagement parties, National Union, the National Religious Party, Shas, and Torah United Judaism, which together have 29 MKs - a coalition that will now give you 54 seats, more than enough for the President to call upon you to form the next government!

Know well that retreat from Gaza will only heighten the Arabs' contempt and reinforce their commitment to Israel's destruction. Know well that the Arabs despise Sharon, precisely because they know he has the power to destroy them but refrains from doing so. Know well that the Arabs despise the Jews because they are willing to sacrifice what they call their birthright - for peace.

There is no honor, there is no courage, among Jews whose leader is Ariel Sharon. Therefore, I call your attention to a former leader of your party, Menachem Begin, before he succumbed to the cult of peace or appeasement and proceeded to surrender the Sinai to Egypt - today the primary arms supplier of Gaza's terrorists - Egypt, which Sharon has invited into Gaza to train those Jew-killers!

* * *

At the height of the outpouring of joy on Israel's declaration of independence on May 15, 1948, Menachem Begin - who had lived in the Underground for almost five years - addressed the Jews of Israel over the secret radio station of the Irgun Zvai Leumi:

We went Underground, we arose in the Underground under the rule of [British] oppression in order to strike at oppression and to overthrow it. Now, for the time being we have Hebrew rule in part of our Homeland. And it is in this part that there will be Hebrew Law - and that is the only rightful law in this country ...

The State of Israel has arisen, but we must remember that our country is not yet liberated, and you see now the words of your Irgun fighters were not vain words; it is Hebrew arms which decide the boundaries of the Hebrew State. So it is now in this battle [the War of Independence]; so it will be in the future.

Our God-given country is a unity. To attempt to dissect it is not only a crime, but a blasphemy and an abortion. Whoever does not recognize our natural right to our entire Homeland, does not recognize our right to any part of it...

Citizens of the Hebrew State, soldiers of Israel, we are in the midst of battle. Difficult days lie ahead of us... we cannot buy peace from our enemies by appeasement. There is only one kind of peace that can be bought - the peace of the graveyard, the peace of Treblinka. Be brave of spirit, and ready for more trials. We shall withstand them. The Lord of Hosts will help us; he will sustain the bravery of the Hebrew youth, the bravery of the Hebrew mothers who, like Hannah, offer their sons on the altar of God.

Now let me speak for myself. Members of the Likud: Unless you form the coalition mentioned above, the Third Commonwealth will disintegrate; indeed, it is already disintegrating. Know well, however, that Israel is eternal. Though you abandon Gaza, Jews will return. Though you abandon Judea and Samaria, Jews will return. They will pay a terrible price for leaving, and a terrible price to return. But the Fourth Commonwealth that will emerge in the coming chapter of Jewish history will be very different from the Third, for it will witness the spiritual redemption of the Jewish people.

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 27, 2004.
This was written by Michael Matza and appeared today in Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1004/sharon_wins.php3?printer_friendly) (KRT) JERUSALEM - Shattering decades of public policy with a landmark vote, the Israeli parliament has, for the first time in the nation's history, approved a plan to uproot Jewish settlements from lands claimed by the Palestinians for a future state.

Tuesday night's vote in the 120-member Knesset was 67 in favor of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan, and 45 opposed, with seven abstentions. One gravely ill member could not attend the historic session.

Sharon's proposal still faces fierce opposition from within his Likud Party, with no guarantee of implementation; four future votes of the cabinet are required before any pullout can take place. Seventeen of 40 Likud members voted against the plan, which the well-organized settlement movement has pledged to fight to the end.

The plan for "unilateral disengagement" calls for the evacuation by next summer of all 8,200 settlers from 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and several hundred from four small settlements in the northern West Bank. Sharon calls the move a necessary step to enhance Israel's security after four years of Palestinian violence and absent a Palestinian partner for peace.

Palestinians remain deeply skeptical. Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat described the plan Tuesday night as Israelis "negotiating with themselves."

Making good on his threat to remove ministers who voted against disengagement, Sharon immediately fired cabinet minister-without-portfolio Uzi Landau, and deputy minister Michael Ratzon, both of whom cast "no" votes.

Opponents have called for a national referendum. Two principal members of Sharon's cabinet, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Education Minister Limor Livnat, who reluctantly voted "yes," told reporters immediately after the vote that they will resign if Sharon does not call for a plebiscite in the next two weeks. Sharon opposes a referendum, which would take months to prepare, because he views it as a stalling tactic.

The possible defections of Netanyahu and Livnat, along the expected departure of the National Religious Party unless a referendum is held, threaten to topple Sharon's already shaky governing coalition. He might be forced to call new elections or cobble together a unity coalition, mostly likely with the opposition Labor Party.

Still, the historic significance of Tuesday night's decision is that it moves Israel one step closer to achieving Sharon's vision of withdrawing from Gaza while consolidating his hold on the largest West Bank settlements.

"I cannot say the messiah came down," said political analyst Avraham Diskin, "but it's another important step that proves Sharon means business."

In the countdown to the vote, an estimated 15,000 settlers, many in the movement's signature orange T-shirts, rallied outside the Knesset in a hilltop rose garden to urge legislators to reject the plan.

Vendors sold ice cream and cotton candy in a carnival atmosphere, while loudspeakers blared patriotic songs and "Hatikva," the Israeli national anthem.

Rabbi Mordechai Elon, leader of a Jewish school near Jerusalem's Western Wall, told the crowd "prayer and faith" would sustain them.

Anita Tucker, 58, born in Brooklyn, has lived for 28 years in the Gaza Strip settlement bloc known as Gush Katif, in a community of 75 families called Netzer Hazani. Among the residents are her two married sons and five grandchildren.

"I'm here with a lot of people from Gush Katif and they don't look too worried," she said. "The prime minister has pressured these members of the Knesset. They are totally disoriented. They're not listening to the people. There's no freedom of thought in the Knesset anymore," she said.

Tucker said she worked hard to defeat the plan when Sharon put it to a referendum of his 190,000-member Likud Party in May, which he lost. She will continue to work against it by all legal means, she said.

"My parents were refugees from Germany. My grandparents were refugees from Poland. I do not expect to be a refugee in the homeland of the Jewish people. ... Reporters ask me where I will go if the evacuation happens. G-d willing, they will be asking me the same question next year," she said.

Some demonstrators held placards emblazoned, "Sharon is a traitor," and "Soldiers, disobey orders to evacuate us."

Miriam Tratner, 45, a mother of eight in the West Bank settlement of Kedumim, said she came to Jerusalem to support her friends in Gush Katif. If soldiers try to move them out, she said, she will put her body on the line to try to block the evacuation.

"We will be there. They will open their homes to us. We will be with them in the last bad moments," she said.

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 27, 2004.


A frequent human rights organization complaint about Israel is that its military employs disproportionate force and kills Arab children. Dressed in humanitarian concern, the complaint reflects antisemitism. How so? The complaints are false and misleading. Israel acts with restraint; the Arabs do not. The Arabs endanger their own civilians as well as Israeli civilians.

The so-called human rights organizations have little to say about Arab terrorism against Israel. Their silence is hypocritical. They don't care that most of the P.A. war effort goes into attacking civilians! These are war crimes. Not that Human Rights Watch or Amnesty Intl. notice. They act like the UNO, the US, and the Pope, who usually did not denounce terrorist attacks on Israel, but: (1) Urged Israel, when it was about to retaliate, to act with restraint, as if there should be any restraint in liquidating terrorists; or (2) Waited until after retaliation, and deplored the "cycle of violence." They should condemn only the Arab violence, for that is aggression, whereas Israeli violence seeks to curb P.A. means for inflicting more.

Almost every day, the minor media describe attempted terrorist attacks turned back by Israeli security forces. Two terrorists killed at the security fence. Three at an army post. Another at a checkpoint. Some in a Jewish community. Attempted ambush. The major media publicize mostly the ones that succeed in murdering people. This kind of reporting gives the misleading impression of the conflict being intermittent and the current situation as a period of "quiet." By this means, the media pretends that the P.A. was reducing terrorism, and so Israel should resume making territorial concessions. Consumers of the media thought they were being informed and that our political leaders, who press for Israeli concessions, had some reasonable motives. The motives are not reasonable and unthinking if not sordid.

The sector that should take most notice of the constant Arab terrorist attacks on Israel is the human rights NGOs. Since they fail to do so, they forfeit respect and entitlement to charitable donations. Instead of these inconsistent or antisemitic human rights organizations, contribute to Israeli relief organizations, such as the one that trains guard dogs for Jewish communities.


The head of an Egyptian Islamist political party commented on al-Jazeera TV about the Iraq war. He declared that Islam authorizes hostage-taking, that attacking US civilians there is permissible, that bombing civilians in Taba is legitimate, and that the US bombing of Fallujah warrants a future Islamist bombing of Los Angeles. These tactics are permitted when the Muslim forces are weak. He urged clerics to go to Iraq and fight. Oh, he laments, if only the insurgents had missiles that could reach L.A.!

His rationale for the war and for executing certain hostages is that Iraq is occupied and the hostages supported the occupation. The Islamist deems them part of the military, because he sees war as total. Thus interpreters and those who provision the military assist the war effort. (This rationalization would designate water works engineers, seeking to restore supplies for the whole country, as targets.)

His rationalization of the terrorism at Taba is that the Egyptian people, in his opinion (and perhaps he gauges this opinion correctly) do not want foreign tourists. (So murder them?) He finds it inconceivable that Taba has become a resort for the "Israeli Army." (The Islamists take the hard edge off perceptions of their terrorism by calling Israeli families "soldiers".)

He claims that all countries permit execution of prisoners. He named none. He did cite examples by Mohammed of having poets and others assassinated (IMRA, 10/18 from MEMRI).

Iraq no longer is occupied. Hostages who were rebuilding the country were not supporting occupation but the imminent independence of a viable Iraq, mostly at US expense. Most countries do not permit civilian hostage-taking, and forbid the execution of prisoners of war.

The purpose of the insurgency is not to counter occupation, which, ironically, would have ended sooner if there were no insurgency. The purpose is to replace the interim government and nascent democracy with Islamist rule. Similar barbarities are rationalized by the Palestinian Arabs on the false, but if true, inexcusable, grounds that they are occupied. They signed a peace agreement, but commit aggression against Israel, thereby drawing in Israeli troops, and then complain of their presence.

The false rationalization in behalf of cruelty indicates the evil at large. We had better destroy it!


PM Sharon and the Foreign Minister of France discussed many issues. PM Sharon praised Europe for adding Hamas to its list of terrorist organizations (rather late to do so, isn't it?) and France's efforts against antisemitism, etc.. (But it keeps importing Muslims.)

Sharon emphasized Israel's acceptance of the Road Map. He did not, however, reiterate the conditional acceptance. It was his 14 reservations that gave Min. Netanyahu and others a rationalization for approving what otherwise was so obvious an anti-Israel plan.

Sharon reiterated, "On security-related issues, Israel is not subject to pressure." He tells Israelis, however, that he proposes Israeli abandonment of Gaza and northern Samaria because of pressure and in the hope that this retreat would mollify those applying the pressure. IMRA wonders whether the Foreign Minister smirked at that contradiction, that pitiful Israeli bluster (IMRA, 10/18).

Min. Netanyahu et al are not objecting now to Sharon's ignoring the reservations. Was their conditional approval lip service? They who wish to succeed Sharon are craven and duplicitous.


Foreign Min. Shalom praised France's efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear weapons development, expressed satisfaction with UNO recognition that Syria must stop occupying Lebanon, and elicited France's help in getting the P.A. to relinquish terrorism. Shalom urged Europe to support those P.A. Arabs committed to reform and peace (IMRA, 10/18).

They never identify any Palestinian Arabs "committed to peace," or at least they never prove commitment to it. Neither do they show which reforms would promote peace. The bruited reforms -- unifying the P.A. armed forces and ending corruption -- would not promote peace.

To get the P.A. to relinquish terrorism would be like getting the Nazis to relinquish antisemitism. Can't be done. Fanatics with clerical authorization to use any means, and whose society prefers foul means and thinks them fair, are impelled by an inner voice. France does not tell them otherwise, when it constantly criticizes only the Israeli side and the EU enrolls the terrorist Syrian dictatorship in a free trade agreement supposedly premised on democracy and anti-terrorism. The Security Council has not enforced the order for Syria to stop occupying Lebanon.

What French efforts to reign in Iran's nuclear weapons development?


Israel's national security advisor stated that if Israel withdrew not only from Gaza, but also from the border corridor at Rafah (both withdrawals contrary to military advice), underneath which arms are smuggled into Gaza, a multi-national force is likely to patrol that corridor.

A Member of Knesset observed that this so-called withdrawal leaves Israel still responsible for security, in that it anticipates having to return to repress continued attacks from Gaza. In that case, the only difference withdrawal makes is cruelty to the dispossessed Jews (Arutz-7, 10/18).

An multi-national force probably would not stop any arms smuggling, if it even stays long. Precedent indicates it would work out an accommodation to let the Arabs smuggle and the Arabs would let the force pretend it is fostering security and order. When the Islamists tire of the infidel presence, they would attack the multi-national force. The force probably would not react with force. You may expect it to take that as its cue to depart. Its presence would have had the effect, as perhaps was intended, of barring Israeli troops from stopping the terrorists.

When the international force is present, Israeli casualties might be low. When it departs, the P.A. force, by then rearmed, would inflict heavy casualties upon the Israelis.


Pres. Mubarak rejected Israeli praise of Egyptian security cooperation over the terrorist bombing in Taba as political, but complained that Israel did not express enough appreciation. Calling bilateral security arrangements unreliable, he said future security cooperation would await UNO arrangements. Rebuking Israel as not interested in maintaining good relations with Egypt, he implied that Israel should let Egypt's army approach (IMRA, 10/18 from al-Ahram). Trust him?

The approach of an enemy army should make jittery relations.

Pres. Mubarak realizes that Israel tries to put a better face on their relations than warranted.

Israel praised Egypt too much, considering the initial lack of cooperation. Israel wants good relations, so it mostly ignores his slighting Israel by not visiting it, withdrawing his ambassador, not normalizing other relations as per treaty, fomenting hatred, letting arms be smuggled to the P.A., and the US building up the Egyptian military. But Egypt has become a menace, again.


Israeli firemen arrived before Egyptian ones, and rescued people. There are hardly any checkpoints between Suez and Taba; most are not staffed or have a solitary Egyptian cop. There were few barriers. Security checking at the entrance to the hotel area still is superficial, as if, "Who are you? Go on through." Egyptian hotel people did not believe themselves endangered, although Israel warned them. Their excuse is to pretend that they instituted security measures the week before.

Now the Taba vacationers are gone, many Israelis, vowing never to return, as they advised the press (IMRA, 10/18 from al-Ahram). They learned the hard way. Couldn't forego casinos?


Jordan's economy has changed. Although still dependent upon foreign aid, Jordan's budget deficit has been halved. It signed free trade agreements, but still has a trade deficit (as does the US). It imports cheap labor for private industry, and exports or engages in services requiring well-trained workers, such as teachers, transport communications, medical services, and tourism. Unemployment has been reduced (almost to Europe's level), but still is high. This leads to poverty and social problems. The government employs more than a fifth of the work force.

The "Jordan Times" crows that the economy is stabile, improving, and exploits every regional crisis. IMRA notes that the government laments each crisis (IMRA, 10/18) so it can claim compensation. Jordan was allowed by the US to smuggle oil for Saddam, while it complained that the UNO embargo hurt its economy.


Terrorists could fire rockets from the "security" fence further into Israel.

The P.A. could acquire anti-aircraft missiles and long-range rockets.

Snipers could shoot Israeli farmers.

Terrorists still could penetrate Israel, by tunnels, ladders, sea, or gliders.

Gaza is more likely to descend into anarchy than to climb out of terrorism (IMRA, 10/18).


The editorial inveighed against the terror festival at Duke U., cheered on by some far-leftist Jews who call Israel an apartheid state. Perhaps the problem at Duke is that the students have been reading "Haaretz." "Haaretz" long has been promoting the same kind of Jewish leftist self-hatred.

"Haaretz" "understands" terrorism and its "root causes" (which are not the causes, religion is), opposes Israeli self-defense measures, suggests capitulation, denounces Israel as discriminatory, and has been running articles advocating combining the P.A. with Israel. A "one-state solution" would end Jewish sovereignty and national determination, and lead to mass dispossession if not mass-murder. Why does "Haaretz" deplore the bigots at "Haaretz," when its own columnists are just as bad? (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/18, e-mail.)

The proposal is to allow entry and voting by millions of Arabs who consider themselves entitled to dominate the Jews and their religious duty to murder them. Is that proposal by "Haaretz" journalists sane?

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Charles Jacobs, October 27, 2004.

NEW YORK, October 27, Columbia University students will unveil a controversial, disturbing documentary, today, which reveals academic abuse and student intimidation at Columbia University.

The film, Columbia Unbecoming, was produced for a group of Columbia University students by the David Project, a non-profit educational organization. The screening begins at 10 a.m. in the Regency Room of the Grand Hyatt Hotel on 42nd Street between Lexington and Park Aves.

The documentary features interviews with students who share their experiences and feelings about professors and campus events relating to the Middle East conflict.

Columbia student Ariel Beery comments: "What we have here is a clear case of abuse of professional power, of intimidation of students, done for political ends. The politics are irrelevant - the abuse is relevant. Some students here are fearful of expressing dissenting views or complaining against professors, and the Administration has yet to deal with the problem sufficiently."

Another student observes in the film, "Harassing students because they express pro-Israel views or are identifiably Israeli should be treated no differently than harassment of students because they're black or gay."

Students are asking the Administration to:

  • adopt a zero-tolerance policy on campus against intimidation and harassment, with clear consequences for violators;

  • ensure academic integrity and an intellectually-diverse faculty in the Middle East studies department; and

  • adopt a single standard of sensitivity for all minorities and ethnic groups on campus.

For more information, visit http://www.davidproject.org. Dr. Charles Jacobs is co-founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, He launched The David Project in response to the increasing defamation of Israel and the rising new global anti-Semitism. Dr. Jacobs brings decades of passion and intellect to the struggle for peace and justice.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ted Belman, October 27, 2004.

Assuming Sharon is able to transfer the last Israeli from Gaza, what will be the situation the morning after?

Gaza will be a hornet's nest of terrorist factions vying for power. As DEBKA points out (ttp://www2.debka.com/article.php?aid=923), no outside force will be willing or able to instil anything remotely resembling law and order.

The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (ttp://www.nad-plo.org/gazaplan2.php) makes the case for Israel still being considered by international law, the occupying power. This Report makes fascinating reading.

The term "occupation" describes a regime of control over territory and population by a foreign sovereign's military.[4] When a foreign sovereign occupies land, international law obligates that sovereign to uphold basic standards to protect both the population under its control and the land on which that population lives.[5]

The Hague Regulations of 1907 set forth the basic legal standard: "Territory is occupied when it has actually been placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation only extends to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The IDF supports this conclusion. I submit that it is much more complicated than this.

Obviously war precedes belligerent occupation. Thus it is necessary to determine when the war ends and belligerent occupation begins. To shed light on this question we should look at a legal decision as to when it ends, which is cited in this Report.

In The Hostages Case, the Nuremberg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations' basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that "[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."

So the question becomes, does Israel have the ability to exercise effective control? In other words, does Israel have the ability to subdue the terrorists and maintain law and order? I submit not; at least, not without going to war, as the US is doing in Iraq. This would entail much death and destruction. But if Israel were to attempt this, the world will complain that it is using excessive force and is not sufficiently protective of the Palestinian civil and human rights. In effect international law would be argued to conclude that Israel has the ability to exercise effective control but would also be argued to inhibit Israel from doing so.

The Report argues

"... one of the primary motivations behind the Gaza Disengagement Plan is to 'dump' 1.3 million non-Jews while illegally confiscating as much Palestinian land in the West Bank as possible."

Other motivations which have been alluded to by Sharon include increased security and less pressure to make concessions are wishful thinking, similarly for freezing the peace process. The opposite will be the case.

As for the primary motivation above set out. I ask you, how will Israel have "dumped the 1.3 million Non-Jews"? Since Israel will still be considered the occupier, it is doubtful to say the least, that Israel will have accomplished even that.

As for whether it will have strengthened its hold on major settlement blocks, the answer is far from certain. America is not yet fully committed to this. Remember that the letters exchanged with Bush merely state that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" and that ".. the settling of Palestinian refugees there (Palestine), rather than in Israel.". I would point out that what is "unrealistic" doesn't have much currency in the world when it comes to Israel the all important words "all" or "the" don't precede "Palestinian refugees" as they didn't proceed "territories" to be relinquished in Resolution 242.

The EU recently reaffirmed its intention to pressure Israel to go back to the Green Line.

So what in effect, will disengagement accomplish? One thing for sure is that it will leave Gaza Juderein. It will also succeed in traumatizing Israel, the effects of which we can only imagine. Similarly it will energize the Arabs to continue with their Khartum Declaration of "no negotiations, no recognition and no peace.

Ted Belman is cofounder and cohost of IsraPundit, a pro-Israel strong activist website (http://israpundit.com).

To Go To Top
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, October 27, 2004.

Ever since Prime Minister Sharon announced plans for a unilateral disengagement from Gaza last April, adjacent towns in Israel proper have come under increasing attack. Qassam rockets have been frequently fired into communities such as Sderot, deliberately aimed at terrorizing civilians. Whereas Israel tries its best to carefully target those responsible for the murder of its people, the Arab targets of choice are the most innocent. Not only is greater shock value derived from this, the reality is that, in Arab eyes, there are no Jewish innocents. Two Jewish preschoolers were recently killed in such a volley, helping to set into motion Israel's latest assault on Gaza's terror apparatus.

Now, when choosing this Arab weapon of terror, Hamas (which, like most other Arabs, denies Israel's right to exist with or without the disputed territories) gave careful thought to the name that it should go by. Since the "militant wing" of the organization (the folks that actually blow up the buses, teen night clubs, pizzerias, and such) was named after Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, it made sense to name the weapon after him as well.

Surely such a man must have had some great credentials in the "Palestinian" Arab movement...don't you think?

Of course.

Izz ad-Din made his name by butchering and disemboweling "Zionist invaders" during the early mandatory period after World War I.

So, what else do we know about this legendary leader of the "Palestinians?"

Well, for starters, hold on to your seats...

Hamas' hero--like most other "native Palestinians"--was born elsewhere. In his case, Ladeqiya, Syria.

In just one three month period alone, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission documented scores of thousands of other Syrian Arabs pouring into the British Mandate of Palestine. Like numerous other Arabs moving in from elsewhere, they came to take advantage of the economic boom going on because of the influx of Jewish capital. And for every Arab newcomer--i.e. settler--that was documented, many more slipped in under cover of darkness and were never recorded. Add to this the fact that, for a number of reasons, the Brits were more concerned about entering Jews than entering Arabs. Despite this, lots of evidence exists which shows that--like the murderous Sheikh--most "Palestinian" Arabs were no more native than most of the returning, forcibly exiled, Diaspora Jews.

Now think about this for a moment...

So many Arabs were recent arrivals into the Mandate that when UNRWA was created to deal with the Arab refugee situation, created as a result of the invasion by a half dozen Arab states of a reborn Israel in 1948, it adjusted the definition of "refugee" from the prior meaning of persons normally and traditionally resident to those who lived in the Mandate for a minimum of only two years prior to 1948. Also keep in mind that for every Arab who was forced to flee the fighting that the Arabs started in their attempt to nip a nascent Israel in the bud, a Jewish refugee was forced to flee Arab lands...but with no UNRWA set up to help them.

Indeed, scores of thousands of Jews fled the same Syria that the Sheikh immigrated to Palestine from. Greater New York City alone now has some tens of thousands of these folks. Many others moved to Israel and elsewhere.

But, while Arabs see it as their natural right to settle anywhere in the Dar ul-Islam and what they claim as purely Arab patrimony (despite the fact that scores of millions of non-Arabs also live in the area and have been conquered and forcibly Arabized by them), when Jews moved into their sole, reborn state (as opposed to some two dozen for Arabs), Arabs declared this to be al nakba...the catastrophe. Hundreds of millions of Hindus and Muslims could arrive at a less-than-perfect modus vivendi in the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent--at virtually the same moment Arabs were rejecting a similar offer over what was left of the Palestine Mandate after Arabs had already been awarded the lion's share in 1922 with the separation of Transjordan--yet the mere thought of anyone else gaining a mere sliver of the very same political rights that Arabs demand for themselves (be they Kurds, Berbers, Black Africans, Jews, or whomever) was out of the question. The conflict we have in the Middle East today is largely all about this mindset.

The next time you hear about those "Qassam" rockets, consider the irony here. And, oh yes, I almost forgot...

Old Yasir himself was born in Cairo. And tens of thousands of other Egyptian Arabs had preceded his own migration and settlement in Palestine somewhat earlier in the wake of Muhammad Ali and son Ibrahim Pasha's military excursions in the 19th century.

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.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 27, 2004.
1. Quote of the millenium:

Speaking immediately after the Knesset vote to implement the Sharon-Mitzna capitulation plan for Gaza, Shimon Peres, the godfather of Oslo, was interviewed on the TV. I am paraphrasing because I was too catatonically shocked by what he said to get it down word by word.

"A national ballot referendum now would be a catastrophe. After all, the Knesset today, which approved the plan, is entirely unrepresentative of the country. Therefore allowing the citizens to vote in a referendum would be undemocratic because it would block the will of the Knesset."


2. Now that the Knesset has approved the Gaza First Unilateral Capitulation Plan of Sharon-Mitzna, by 67 to 45, I would like to make a modest proposal. The Knesset should now pass a new law requiring that all Knesset Members who voted in favor of the plan be coerced into moving to the Negev town of Sderot next to Gaza, together with their entire extended families, the day after the Sharon-Mitzna plan is implemented.

A few months after the Sharon-Mitzna plan is implemented and Sderot has been erased from the face of the Negev and hundreds of rockets are hitting Ashkelon, we will be holding a contest to see which journalist or which politician writes the most convincing article entitled, "But who could possibly have known that the rocketing of Ashkelon would result from last year's peace plan?" The First Prize will be a month's free accomodation in Sderot. The Second Prize will be two months free accomodation.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 26, 2004.
These are items from today's Arutz-Sheva (INN). What is frightening is that some MK proponents have not even read the disengagement plan, but they are still willing to vote away Israel's future! And isn't it great - here is Sharon telling the Knesset he is not a liar. Shades of Nixon. And like Nixon, he IS a liar. And then there are the spineless, who claim to be against disengagment but will vote for it. They are more worried about being fired from their cabinet positions by Sharon than they are about Israel. But if they contribute to corroding Israel from the inside, what ensures there will be an Israel to govern? MK Yigal Yasinov (Shinui) requested to use his time to give the Knesset Members "five minutes of silence in which to carefully think about their vote." Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin, however, did not allow him to do so, saying that "demonstrations" are not allowed in the Knesset. "If you do not wish to speak to the point during your allotted time, you may take your seat," Rivlin said. Yasinov quickly decided to speak.

This the first - and only - Knesset debate in which a vote on the expulsion plan is being held, and it is expected to pass by a margin of approximately a dozen votes. Prime Minister Sharon told reporters today that all other decisions related to the disengagement will be made by the Cabinet, and not in the Knesset.

It must also be noted that the bill itself does not stipulate that the Jewish communities will be uprooted, but only confirms the Government's decision of June 7, 2004. At that time, as Sharon later said, the Government "decided that it is Israel's intention" - as opposed to what it will actually do - "to relocate all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in Samaria by the end of 2005." The government decision itself specified, "this decision does not [necessarily] include the dismantling of Jewish communities." Another Cabinet decision will be required to approve the actual demolition of the Jewish localities. Sharon led off the tension-packed debate yesterday with a heart-felt speech emphasizing the importance of the unilateral withdrawal. Ynet commentator Ofer Shelach wrote this morning, "Read Sharon's speech carefully. What are the reasons he mentions for the critical importance of the disengagement plan? - That he thinks it's critical, and some garbling about the demographic danger - as if there is something in his plan to thwart this danger..."

Sharon said,

"I am convinced to the depths of my heart and to the best of my understanding that this disengagement will strengthen Israel in its grasp on the territory that is vital for our existence, and will receive the blessing and admiration of those near and far, will lessen the hostility, ... and will advance us on the way of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors."

"...As someone who fought in all of Israel's wars, and has 'learned on his flesh' that without power we have no chance to survive in this region, which has no mercy on the weak - I have also learned from our experience that not only the sword will determine this bitter battle in this land."

Asked about this apparent contradiction - "power is critical" and "no mercy on the weak," yet at the same time, "the sword won't determine" - MK Benny Elon (National Union) told Arutz-7 today,

"This apparently corresponds with his strange quote of not long ago, that 'restraint is strength.' He has apparently discovered a new form of power, and that is to turn the other cheek, over and over. He has unfortunately caused us to lose our unity, our majority, his own prestige, and is leading the State of Israel through a swamp of mud and mire in which we will be stuck for many years to come."

Sharon also said that he had not deceived anyone, and that he had long called for "painful concessions." To this, MK Elon said it was clear to all that he was not referring to such vast concessions such as a unilateral withdrawal from an entire region: "He told me himself that he was not referring to specific communities, but rather to giving the PA more control over areas that they already controlled administratively [Area B]."

Sharon continued, "I am told that this disengagement will be understood as a shameful retreat under pressure, will increase the terror attacks, and will show Israel in its weakness and our nation as one that is not willing to fight and stand up for itself. I reject this categorically. We are strong enough to defend this land and totally smash the enemy that wants to destroy us."


"The public debate about the disengagement plan has concentrated mostly on the settlement issues, and has largely ignored the security issues - but the plain fact is that the plan will actually increase terrorism." So says IDF Col. (res.) Meir Indor, who has prepared a paper on the dangers of the withdrawal and has circulated it amongst the 120 MKs.

According to the disengagement plan, Egypt, Jordan and the CIA will re-train and rehabilitate the terrorist armies, including Arafat's Force 17, that were badly affected by the fighting with Israel. The terrorists will be provided training in various combat situations, will be allowed to re-arm, will be given free mobility in wider areas than before, and will be restored to combat-ready status. The disengagement plan states clearly, "Israel agrees that consulting, aid and guidance will be given to the Palestinian security forces in order to fight terrorism and maintain order, by Americans, British, Egyptians, Jordanians and other experts."

Col. Indor told Arutz-7 today that he was astonished to find that even Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz was not aware of some of these facts. "I asked him why he was promoting a plan that called for the retraining of Arab terrorists, and he said he didn't know what I was talking about," Indor said. Other excerpts from the document:

* Three million Arabs - known as "Palestinian refugees" - will be on their way to Judea and Samaria from Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and elsewhere. They will settle in the PA-controlled cities and villages, including the mountains that overlook Israel's coastal plane - Netanya, Kfar Saba and Israel's most densely-populated areas. They will all receive economic assistance from the European Union, encouraging them to arrive. The disengagement plan states, "It is clear that a realistic, agreed-upon and fair framework for the refugees issue will be found via the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settlement of the refugees there."

* Most of the military checkpoints in Judea and Samaria will be removed. Israeli security activity in Bethlehem, Tul Karem, Shechem and elsewhere will be reduced, and the vacuum will be filled by terrorists - just as occurred in Hevron. The disengagement plan states, "In accordance with the circumstances, Israel will consider reducing its activities in the PA cities... Israel will act to reduce the number of checkpoints throughout Yesha." Some 65 checkpoints have already been removed, and were not restored even after the double bus bombing in Be'er Sheva (16 killed) - which was perpetrated by terrorists who arrived along the checkpoint-reduced southern Hevron highway.

* The plan states that the construction of an Arab airport and sea port in Gaza will be considered - despite the long-held objections to such by Israeli security elements for many years. Sharon himself said, "Who will check the large containers that arrive there?"

* The plan also states that Arab workers from Gaza will continue to enter pre-1967 Israel, that the PA will receive territorial contiguity in northern Shomron, and that implementation of the plan will negate the claims that Israel is "responsible for the Palestinians in Gaza" - something that recent developments have shown to be untrue. See, for instance, Arutz-7's article today, "Gov't Report: Sharon Plan Leaves Israel Holding the Bag" (ttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=70885).

[Editor's note: The text of the Plan can be read below. Click here.]


Opponents of the disengagement/expulsion plan continued to hold out hope - until last night - that Ministers Netanyahu, Shalom and Livnat would oppose the plan in today's vote. Once again, however, as most observers have noted, the three ministers' basic opposition to the plan has not stood the political tests to which it has been put. This was placed in basic relief last night when they decided to vote unconditionally in favor of the plan.

The three had considered making their vote conditional on the holding of a national referendum on the issue. However, in light of Sharon's strong opposition to a plebiscite, as well as his threat to fire any minister who votes against the plan, they decided to withdraw this ultimatum. The original Cabinet decision of June 7, '04 - the subject of today's Knesset vote - was actually a compromise proposal formulated largely by these three ministers. The chief aspect of the compromise was that another government decision would be necessary to mandate the actual removal of the 25 Jewish communities.

Ministers Netanyahu, Shalom and Livnat continue to support a referendum, and Livnat even predicted today that Sharon would not be able to withstand the increasing calls for such a vote. Foreign Minister Shalom said last night that the only way to carry out such important processes, like the disengagement, is by consulting the nation.

MK Benny Elon (National Union) addressed much of his remarks in the Knesset today to the five Likud ministers who plan to vote for the withdrawal even though they object to it:

"You five - Silvan Shalom, Limor Livnat, Binyamin Netanyahu, Tzachi HaNegbi, and Danny Naveh - wish to remain 'loyal' to the Prime Minister. But the simple arithmetic is that you could all vote against it and thus lead to its defeat. Sharon fired Avigdor Lieberman and myself merely in order to scare you - and he has succeeded! With just a drop of courage, you could lead to a situation in which he would be forced to resign - and then one of you could become Prime Minister."

Elon said that some of these ministers say that they are voting only for the formulation agreed upon by the Cabinet last June, which does not stipulate the removal of communities - "but this is just a technical matter. The disengagement ball is rolling - just as the compensation law that was approved in the Cabinet this week, and that will come up for a Knesset vote in a few days, assumes that there will be an evacuation..."

Minister Shalom, in his remarks, addressed himself to this point and said that all the relevant legislation is based on the wording of the Cabinet decision of June 6, which stated that it does not "include the removal of communities."

Many MKs do not accept this explanation. Minister HaNegbi, for instance, who plans to vote in favor, said,

"It's true that the vote is not on the actual implementation of the disengagement, but it's certainly accurate to say that it brings the disengagement closer..."

HaNegbi also said,

"It is clear to all of us that this government is on very wobbly legs. The question is, is now the right time to bring it to its end? ... This disengagement plan will clearly not bring about better security, nor does it make any claims to do so... The plan is dangerous for Israel, and in general, its damage is greater than its benefits... I didn't like Sharon's speech yesterday, and I specifically didn't like how he criticized the settlers by attributing to them 'Messianic' motives. You can call some of them fanatics, or whatever, but where would we be today without Messianism? When we sat on the rivers of Babylon and cried for Zion, that wasn't Messianism?"


Another Likud minister, Yisrael Katz, who has been a leader of the disengagement opponents, continues to remain uncommitted as to his vote. He essentially would like to vote "against" without actually doing so - as evidenced by his request to Prime Minister Sharon to "offset" his vote with that of Minister Yehudit Naot. In practice, he asked to be excused from the vote in consideration of the fact that Naot, a supporter, would also not be there. Sharon, however, turned him down, and said that Katz must show up and vote one way or the other - with Sharon's threat to fire ministers who vote "nay" looming sharply in the background.

At least four of the five MKs of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) party plan to vote against the plan, but at least two of them do not truly object to it. MK Moshe Gafni explained today that the decision to vote "against" was made in the knowledge that the votes of UTJ would not make a difference in the end, as the plan is sure to pass today's vote in any event.

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 26, 2004.

This was written by Moshe Kempinski and appeared in http://www.shorashim.net

Today, on the day of the critical first reading of Sharon's "Disengagement/Retreat" plan, is the day commemorating the passing away of our matriarch Rachel, wife of our forefather Jacob. Rachel has, in our tradition become the archetypal mother. She was willing to sacrifice herself for her sister. She was fierce in her defense of her children. She would spare no effort on behalf of her natural or spiritual children. In an unusual segment in the biblical text we find ourselves eavesdropping on a conversation between her and G-d in the very Heavens. Jeremiah 31:14-16

"Thus saith HaShem: "...a voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not. Thus saith HaShem: 'Refrain thy voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded,' saith HaShem; '...and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for thy future,' saith HaShem; '...and thy children shall return to their own border. "

On this day Ariel Sharon is planning to do the opposite. On this day, in uniting with all the political forces that were thrown out in the last elections, he has succeeded in doing what was unheard of until today. Jewish force has never been used to uproot Jews from their homes. Ariel Sharon wants to change that precedent.

We have been told that this disengagement plan of retreat will solve the demographic problem of a growing Palestinian population in Gaza voting in the Israeli Knesset. The argument fails when one realizes that the Palestinians have been voting in their own parliament in Ramallah and have no effect on Israeli elections.

We have been told that this plan will help reduce terrorism.This argument seems strange as it goes against all the predictions of our intelligence authorities and is the opposite of what the Palestinians themselves say.

We have been told that we are endangering battalions of soldiers to guard several thousand settlers. On the other hand Yitzchak Rabin said to Tzvi Hendel of Gush Katif "if your people were not in those settlements we would have to invent them. They are my excuse for putting the forces there that are keeping their eyes on Gaza and thereby protecting all of Israel".

We have been told that "we have to do something". That argument never really made sense. In fact that argument has led to too many deaths and too much pain.

Yet in this time of confusion and Divine hiding we can only turn to our Creator.

If our Matriarch Rachel hears my words then I need to tell you, Momma Rachel, to wipe away your tears because your children ARE coming home to their borders. I saw them on my way to the Old City of Jerusalem. Young and old are standing on the street corners of Jerusalem in the hot sun holding flags and protest banners. Thousands were praying to our Father in heaven at your grave in Bethlehem all last night and will continue to do so all week. I watched parents who have lost their children to terrorism, and I watched children who have lost their parents to terrorism, stand up proudly and declare that the people of Israel are stronger than their Prime Minister and his misguided policies.

These are your children Momma Rachel.

These are your children and they are and will continue to return to their own borders.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by David Ben-Ariel, October 26, 2004.

Israel, true to its suicidal self, enables traitor Sharon to bulldoze over them and trample democracy with his JUDENREIN plans, his evil intentions of letting loose trained foreigners, Gentile mercenaries, to soon violently expel law-abiding Israeli citizens from their biblical villages.

If Sharon didn't have such a cruel and hardened heart, he could express love for his land and people, especially those who brought him to power whom he's now brutally betrayed, and lead the nation in discussing and implementing what Rabbi Kahane courageously called for years ago.

This essay by Rabbi Meir Kahane, Zt"l was called "An Exchange of Populations" and it can be found at http://www.kahane.org/meir/anExchange.htm

In all the furor that has been created in Israel and the world Jewish community over the suggestion by certain "radical" Jews that Israeli Arabs be transferred from the country, there appears to be forgotten the fact that such an action would only be the second part of an ultimate exchange of populations.

The fact is, that with the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Jews fled Arab countries, almost all of whom left behind all their property for which compensation was never paid. It is worth while to look at the record before we dismiss the concept of the transfer of Arabs from Israel.

Algeria had 150,000 Jews in 1948. Pogroms in that country had occured almost every 10 years since tha 1890's, and during the 1930's, many Jews of Constantine were massacred despite French intervention. In 1961, the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) attacked the large cities where most of the Jews lived and 100,000 were forced to flee the country, leaving behind all their belongings.The FLN desecrated the Great Synagogue at Algiers and the ancient Jewish Cemetary at Oran, and succeeded in driving out all but 900 Jews by 1973. And so: Algeria 1948: 150,000 Jews; Algeria 1973: 750 Jews.

In Morocco in 1948 there were 300,000 Jews. On June 7 of that year, mobs in Oujda sacked the Jewish quarter, killing and wounding hundreds of Jews, and in nearby Djerada, 30 Jews were massacred by Arab mobs the same night. The new revolutionary government passed anti-Jewish laws so severe that they drove out 300,000 Jews. With the return of the Sultan in 1961, there was some relaxation of the laws; but by 1973 only 25,000 of the original 300,000 Jews remained. Morocco 1948: 300,000 Jews; Morocco 1973: 25,000 Jews.

There were 23,000 Jews in Tunisia in 1948. Following the revolutionary government's program of Arabization, Jews became "instant scapegoats," and many were arrested for "economic" crimes simply for being merchants or practicing any gainful occupation. By 1973, all but 9,000 Jews had been driven out of Tunisia. Tunisia 1948: 23,000 Jews, Tunisia1973: 9,000 Jews.

Syria had 45,000 Jews in 1948. They had prospered under the Turks and the French, but when the Arabs took over, they at once became the target for both official and unofficial violence. Anti-Jewish legislation froze bank accounts and confiscated property. New laws forbade Jews to sell their property or move more than three miles from their homes. Special identity cards were issued to them, and they were allowed to work only at certain jobs. Government employees and military personnel were forbidden to patronize Jewish shops. Today there are fewer than 4,000 Jews in Syria, and they are under constant attack. Syria 1948: 45,000 Jews, Syria 1973: 4,000 Jews.

There were 45,000 Jews living in Libya in 1948. In Tripoli in 1945, 120 Jews had been killed by mobs of Arabs. After independence, most of the others were driven from the country, many were murdered after the Six-Day War and numerous others were arrested. In 1976, there were only about 70 Jews remaining in the country ruled by Colonel Qaddafi. Libya 1948: 45,000 Jews, Libya 1976: 70 Jews.

Jews have been in Egypt since Biblical times, and Alexandria had once been, at least partially, a Jewish city. In 1945, the pro-Nazi "Young Egypt" group led anti- Jewish rioting in which many Jews were killed. In 1947, a new law for companies made it practically impossible for Jewish businesses to operate. Egypt had 75,000 Jews in 1948, when bombings, burnings and looting destroyed almost $50 million worth of Jewish property. After the overthrow of King Farouk by Nasser and his "Free Officers," life for Jews became intolerable in that country. After the Suez War, 3,000 Jews were arrested and imprisoned without trial. Thousands of others were presented with deportation orders forcing them to quit the country within days and leave all their property behind. By 1967, Nasser had managed to force all but 3,000 Jews out of Egypt. There were fewer than 500 Jews remaining in the land ruled by the "moderate" el-Sadat in 1976; the rest were driven out to find new homes, mostly in Israel. Egypt 1948: 75,000 Jews, Egypt 1976: 500 Jews. ( Amnesty International reported in 1976 that there were only 350 Jews in Egypt.)

Iraq was the home of 125,000 Jews in 1948. Since then, the revolutionary government has conducted an almost incessant campaign of terror against them. Nine Jews were hanged in public and 68 tried as Israeli spies in January 1968 while chanting mobs moved through the streets beating up any Jew that passed their way, women and children included! By 1973, only 400 Jews remained in Iraq. Iraq 1948: 125,000 Jews, Iraq 1973: 400 Jews.

Yemen, where 54,000 Jews lived in 1948, had none in 1976. Hundreds were killed, and the rest found shelter in British bases until they were carried to Israel by Operation Magic Carpet. Before that, it was legal to stone a Jew to death, and the law decreed that " fatherless Jewish children under thirteen be taken from their mothers and raised as Muslims."Yemen 1948: 54,000 Jews, Yemen 1976: No Jews whatsoever!!

In Aden, there were 5,000 Jews in 1947, but in 1976 there were none. In December, 1947, Arab mobs attacked the Jewish quarter, killing several people and burning down buildings. Between 1948 and 1967, most Aden Jews fled to Israel. The 130 who remained fled after the riots in June 1967 to escape torture and certain death. Aden 1948: 5,000 Jews, Aden 1967: No Jews Whatsoever!!

A total of some 750,000 Jews fled Arab lands since 1948. Surely it is time for Jews, worried over the huge growth of Arabs in Israel, to consider finishing the exchange of populations that began 35 years ago.

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall." He can be reached at http://www.pushhamburger.com/david.htm

To Go To Top
Posted by Deb Kotz, October 26, 2004.

This is a recent article by Emanuel A. Winston, who is a Middle East analyst and commentator.

When Yuval Steinitz, MK and chief of Knesset security and foreign affairs committee, spoke at KMS [Silver Spring, Maryland] last month, he said that "Egypt is the main supporter of terrorism against Israel" and that most of the arms for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-asqa Martyr Brigades, come from Egypt. In fact, he said, the head of Shin Bet confiscated 5,000 automatic rifles that came from tunnels in Rafa (in the Sinai) just three months ago. Jordan's King Hussein, whose country is also at peace with Israel, sealed his borders so nearly all illegal arms from Jordan are prevented from being smuggled in. So, yes, smuggling operations can be stopped. Egypt just refuses to stop them.

It has been an open secret that the Israeli-Egyptian border facing the Sinai desert has been a porous entry for Terrorists and smuggled weapons for a long time.

The fact of Egypt's continuing war with Israel, enabling Terrorists to fight an insurgent war against Israel is well known to Israel's Intelligence services. In fact, it is such an open secret that American, British, France and, of course, the Arab League members all know that Egypt is the willing enabler of weapons and explosives transfers into Gaza.

The recent publication about 377 tons of HMX, RDX and PETN High Energy Explosives that have gone missing in Iraq is, of course, of grave concern both to America, Israel and Europe. These explosives are of a special nature which allows them to be shipped in anything, meaning that they do not explode without a detonator. The American and Allied forces are experiencing heavy losses due to roadside explosives, where small charges of highly powerful explosives in small quantities can blow up APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers).

These explosives are designated as HMX (High Melting point Explosives), RDX (Rapid Detonation Explosives) and PETN (Pentaerythritol). The amount missiing would fill a fleet of 40 large trucks. These explosives pack far more power than conventional TNT. They are easily smuggled because, even hitting them with a hammer will not cause detonation, therefore they can be transported on by donkey cart on a rough dirt road. (1)

For Israel, this kind of explosives can easily make it way across the Egyptian-controlled Sinai and into Gaza through the smuggling tunnels under what is called the "Philadelphi Road" and into the town of Rafah which straddles that road. From there it is not difficult to smuggle these explosives into Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin and even into Israel's cities.

Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon understands all of this through Israel's Military Intelligence and her various Secret Services, namely, the Mossad, Shabak and others. Regrettably, Sharon is ignoring what will be an inevitable flood of shipments once Israel withdraws from Gaza. Presently, the Terrorists make do with smuggling tunnels and are thus somewhat limited although tonnage does get through.

If Sharon succeeds in leaving Gaza (denials of military withdrawals notwithstanding), the gates will be wide open. Trucks with larger missiles coming from such Egyptian seaports as Alexandria from Iran and Syria will cross the Sinai into Gaza - with impunity. Some of the explosives out of the 377 tons missing in Iraq will make their way into Israel, courtesy of Sharon's Retreat and the Egyptians.

When Israel's borders should be tightened with road patrols, check-points, Sharon is throwing the gates wide open.

When the smuggling ship Karin A made its way through the Suez Canal controlled by Egypt a great pretense was made that the Egyptians knew nothing about it. There were other such shipments but Israel did not want to accuse the Egyptians of conspiring to arm Terrorists lest even the stone cold dead Camp David Treaty of 1978 be declared null and void publicly by the Egyptians. Better a fake peace than open hostility with Egypt now armed with $60 Billion in freely gifted American arms. American has been giving Egypt $2 Billion a year since Camp David was signed in 1978, adding up to $60 Billion which Egypt has used to buy weapons, courtesy of free American tax-payers dollars, thus building Egypt into the military colossus of the Middle East.

Sharon's gamble is that, IF Egypt's military and intelligence forces are invited back into the Sinai they will stop the smuggling which, of course, Egypt has actually aided and abetted. But, Sharon has signaled that he believes Egypt will stop the Terrorists in their own self interests.

These are only a few of the problems with Sharon's wishful thinking. One is that Hosni Mubarak is old, ill and will likely not continue leading his nation. Add to that the ever present possibly of assassination by the Muslim Brotherhood who managed to assassinate former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Egypt is slowly drifting toward the kind of Islamization that one sees in Iran. Should any of the above take place, Israel will see an Egyptian army in the Sinai who Sharon himself invited in. This army could phase into one driven and controlled by radical Muslim Jihadists.

Sharon thought he could buy reduced pressure from the E.U. (European Union), the U.N. (United Nations) and American pro-Arab interests, IF he withdrew from Gaza. But, Javier Solana, Europe's foreign policy chief of the E.U. has already stated in the most hostile manner possible for Israel not to expect the Gaza withdrawals to be the end of Israel's capitulations to Arab Muslim Terror. (2)

In the meantime, our defeated Prime Minister has agreed to give the World Bank authority to gift all Jewish properties to the Palestinian Authority. There was a phrase that precluded gifting Israeli properties to those involved in Terror but, even that was eliminated.

Sharon has betrayed any principles he may have once had, to the point where malfeasance of office should be invoked by the courts to impeach Sharon. The number of Jews who have died due to his confused planning and those who, no doubt will die across all of Israel can be laid at Sharon's doorstep. Hopefully this dictatorial tyrant will be thrown from office before his Nero-like madness makes all of Israel vulnerable to massive attacks.

The Jewish nation has always been under deadly peril, both from the Arab Muslims who intend to overtake the whole Jewish State and their European supporters. But, not until now has the existential threat of extinction actually come so clearly from inside - with the exception of the Oslo Gang. Sharon's rule must be terminated by all legal means possible before the prophecy which speaks of the sand being burned black, the streams run with pitch - with only the owl and the bittern inheriting the land.

There are several passages spoken by the Prophet Isaiah which may make sense to those who wish to see, hear and understand:

"Come close, O nations, to hear and regimes be attentive; let the earth and its fullness hear; the world and all its offspring. For Hashem has a fury against all the nations and a wrath against all their legions; he has destroyed them; he has delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain will be thrown aside and their corpses will bring up a stench; the mountains will melt with their blood.

"For it is a day of vengeance for HaShem; a year of retribution for the grievance of Zion. It's rivers will turn to tar and its soil to sulphur; its land will become burning tar. Night and day it will not be extinguished; its smoke will ascend forever. From generation to generation (the land) will be desolate; for all eternity no one transverses it. Owls and bitterns will occupy it." Isaiah 33:16-35:15

Is HaShem speaking of all the nations who have attacked Israel who He will destroy. When Isaiah speaks of the sand becoming black and the streams to run with pitch (tar), burning with smoke going up forever, is the reference to the nations with oil.

As for the ignorant Jew, Sharon - no doubt, he will be re-educated before he leaves us.


1. "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq: US Admits the Loss of Material It Was Urged to Safeguard - Inquiry is Set" by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David Sanger, NEW YORK TIMES, October 25, 2004

2. "Solana Says EU Will Not Settle For Gaza Withdrawal Only", MA'ARIV, Oct. 24, 2004

Deb Kotz is a member of the Brandeis chapter of Zionists of America (ZOA).

To Go To Top
Posted by Herb Greer, October 26, 2004.

Carol Gould's article (http://www.think-israel.org/gould.american.html) about hysterical verbal and physical abuse of herself, American tourists, and Jews in London sounds a bit overwrought to me. I notice that she is a dramatist. I too am an American and I too have lived as long or longer in Britain. I have travelled from one end of the British Isles to the other, I have vocally and in print supported Israel, and never have I encountered an incident the like of which she describes. I might add that most of the abuse and 'fury' that -- she says -- made her cringe is an offence under Britain's Race Relations Act, and -- assuming her descriptions are true -- she could have complained to the police and begun a prosecution. The 'bus' incident as described is a clear case of physical assault and would have rendered the assaulter liable to prosecution. Ms. Gould's explanation of why she did not complain to the police (she must know about the Race Relations Act) would be interesting to hear.

Herb Greer is an American writer and playwright and a longtime resident in England.

To Go To Top
Posted by Menahem Alexenberg, October 26, 2004.
This statement appeared in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com) on October 17, 2004. It accompanied my exhibition at the Robert Guttmann Gallery of the Jewish Museum in Prague, August 11 - September 26, 2004. The exhibition was under the patronage of the Ambassador of Israel to the Czech Republic, and in collaboration with the Academy of Fine Arts, Prague, the Center for Jewish Culture and Creativity, Los Angeles, and the College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel, Israel.

The lack of peace in the Middle East can be seen as an aesthetic problem that requires an artistic solution. It calls for a shift in perception derived from Islamic art and thought.

In my "Cyberangels of Peace" exhibition, human creativity at its best in both Islamic and European cultures encounter each other. The beautiful patterns of Islamic art meet Rembrandt's angels in an aesthetic peace plan.

Digitized Rembrandt angels* emerging from Islamic geometries are electronic age messengers drawing out the beauty in European and Islamic cultures, rather than the ugly anti-Semitism that plagues them. The Holocaust was the attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe. Islamic extremists with the tacit support of most European countries are now using terrorism in an ongoing attempt to annihilate the Jewish State.

My artwork invites a perceptual shift through which Muslims see the State of Israel as a blessing expressing Allah's will and Christians see it as the Divine fulfillment of the Biblical promise of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people.

Historian of Islamic art Elisabeth Siddiqui writes in the Arabic journal Al-Madrashah Al-Ula that art is the mirror of a culture and its worldview. She emphasizes that there is no case to which this statement more directly applies than to the art of the Islamic world. "Not only does its art reflect its cultural values, but even more importantly, the way in which its adherents, the Muslims, view the spiritual realm, the universe, life, and the relationships of the parts to the whole."

The repetitive geometric patterns in Islamic art teach Arabs to see their world as a continuous uninterrupted pattern that extends across North Africa and the Middle East. Unfortunately, they see Israel as a blemish that disrupts the pattern. From this perspective, Israel is viewed as an alien presence that they have continually tried to eliminate through war, terrorism, and political action. Palestinian Authority television labels Israel as a "cancer in the body of the Arab nation." Its emblems, publications and web sites show the map of Israel labeled "Palestine". Israel does not exist. Former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani expressed his longing for a day when an Islamic nuclear weapon could remove the "extraneous matter" called Israel from the midst of the Islamic world.

The major obstacle to peace between Jews and Arabs is the Islamic world's rejection of Israel as a Jewish state in its midst. The 56-year-old State of Israel still does not exist on maps produced in Islamic countries. All Road Maps to Peace in the Middle East will come to a dead end until the sovereign State of Israel is included in Arab maps.

Fortunately, the perceptual shift needed to lead to genuine peace can be found in Islamic art and thought. In Islamic art, a uniform geometric pattern is purposely disrupted by the introduction of a counter-pattern that demonstrates human creation as less than perfect. Based upon the belief that only Allah creates perfection, rug weavers from Islamic lands intentionally weave a small patch of dissimilar pattern to break the symmetry of their rugs. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Imam of the Italian Muslim community, who holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Sciences by decree of the Saudi Grand Mufti, proposes that the idea of underlying the Divine infinitude and the human fallacy by including some voluntary counter-pattern in works of art is common in Islamic art, and extends to tapestry, painting, music, architecture, etc. The Islamic artisan does not want to be perceived as competing with the perfection of Allah.

In Islamic Textile Art: Anomalies in Kilims, Muhammad Thompson and Nasima Begum write that the weavers of Moroccan kilim rugs, "devout Muslim women, would not be so arrogant as to even attempt a 'perfect kilim' since such perfection belonged only to Allah. Consequently, they would deliberately break the kilim's patterning as a mark of their humility."

Indeed, breaking symmetrical patterns characterizes life itself. All living organisms exhibit the principle expressed by the renowned biologist Paul Weiss as "order in the gross with freedom of excursion in details." Every grape leaf, for example, is a unique variation of a general pattern. No two grape leaves on the same vine are congruent. Although a whole leaf gives the overall appearance of symmetry, a closer look at the details reveals a different venation pattern in each half of the leaf.

Peace can be achieved when the Islamic world recognizes that they need Israel to realize their own religious values. Israel provides the break in the contiguous Islamic world extending from Morocco to Pakistan. Accepting the Jewish State as the necessary counter-pattern demonstrates humility and abrogates arrogance before Allah, and honors the diversity evident in all of God's creations. The ingathering of the Jewish people into its historic homeland in the midst of the Islamic world is the fulfillment of Mohammed's prophecy according to the Koran (Sura 17:104): "And we said to the Children of Israel, 'scatter and live all over the world' and when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land."

The State of Israel needs to be drawn on Islamic maps as a small break in the continuous pattern running from the Atlantic Ocean to the borders of India. If the contiguous Islamic world were the size of a football field, Israel would be smaller than a football placed in the middle of the field.

Sheikh Palazzi quotes from the Koran, Sura 5:20-21, to support the Arab world's need to switch their viewpoint to recognize the sovereign right of the Jews over the Land of Israel as the will of Allah: "Remember when Moses said to his people: 'O my people, call in remembrance the favor of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the people. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and then turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'"

According to the Imam, Islam's holiest book confirms what every Jew and Christian who honors the Bible knows: the Land of Israel was divinely deeded to the Children of Israel. The Jews are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel who have continuously lived there for more three millennia despite the conquests of numerous imperialist empires. Jews are from Judea. Arabs are from Arabia. The Arabs are blessed with 22 other countries.

A paradigm shift can transform the perception of Israel as a blemish to seeing it as a tiny golden seed from which a lush green Islamic tree has germinated and spread its roots and branches across North Africa and the Middle East.

Professor Khaleed Mohammed, expert in Islamic law, explains: "As a Muslim, when I read 5:21 and 17:104 in the Quran, I can only say that I support that there must be an Israel. The Quran adumbrates the fight against tyranny and oppression, using the Children of Israel as an example, indeed as the prime example."

Tashbih Sayyed, Editor-in-Chief of Muslim World Today writes: "I consider the creation of the Jewish State as a blessing for the Muslims. Israel has provided us an opportunity to show the world the Jewish state of mind in action, a mind that yearns to be free.... The Jewish traditions and culture of pluralism, debate, acceptance of dissension and difference of opinion have manifest themselves in the shape of the State of Israel to present the oppressed Muslim world with a paradigm to emulate."

Peace will come from a fresh metaphor in which the Arabs see Israel's existence as Allah's will. A shift in viewpoint where Israel is perceived as a blessing, as the necessary counter-pattern in the overall pattern of the Islamic world, will usher in an era of peace. Peace will come when the Islamic world recognizes Israel as the realization of its own values and draws new maps that include Israel.


* The Hebrew language links art and angels in our digital age. The Biblical term for "art" M'LAeKheT MaKhSheVeT is a feminine term literally meaning "thoughtful craft." Transformed into its masculine form, it becomes "computer angel", MALAKh MaKhSheV. The spiritual concept "angel" and reshaping the material world by "craft" are united in the Biblical image of Jacob's dream of angels ascending and descending on a ladder linking heaven and earth.

We can learn from the Hebrew words for "angel", MALaKh, and "food", MA'aKhaL, being written with the same four letters that angels are spiritual messages arising from the everyday life. Before partaking of the Sabbath eve meal in their homes, Jewish families sing, "May your coming be for peace, angels of peace, angels of the Exalted One." The song begins with the words shalom aleikhem (may peace be with you). Shalom aleikhem is the traditional Hebrew greeting when people meet. It is akin to the Arabic greeting salam aleikum. Indeed, the word Islam itself is derived from the same root as salam (peace).

May the Hebrew Malakh Shalom and the Arabic Malak Salam be recognized as one and the same Angel of Peace.

Professor Menahem Alexenberg Menahem (Mel) Alexenberg is Professor of Art and Jewish Thought at the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel, Israel, and Emunah College in Jerusalem. He is former Professor and Chairman of Fine Arts, Pratt Institute, Dean of Visual Arts, New World School of the Arts, University of Florida's arts college in Miami, Associate Professor of Art and Education at Columbia University and Bar-Ilan University, and Research Fellow at the Center for Advanced Visual Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His artwork is in the collection of museums worldwide. He may be reached at malexenberg@beethoven.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Menachem Kovacs, October 26, 2004.

This 3 minute video made by the girls of the Ulpana in Nevei Dekalim was given to every one of the members of parliament. It is presented in Hebrew and is narrated by the siblings and children of the victims of terror in Gaza .It asks the simple question of Israel's parliament

"How can it vote to pry these people from their houses, synagogues and graves?

Even those who do not understand Hebrew will understand the message

Go to http://www.katif.net/pirsom/rega_03.wmv

To contribute to Gush Katif

In Israel:
Katif Region Development Fund
Neve Dekalim, D.N Hof-Aza, 79779
Tel: 972-8-6840846
Fax: 972-8-6840863

In the U.S.A:
Friends of Gush Katif
588 South Forest Drive
Teaneck, NJ, 07666.
Tel: 201-8951323

To Go To Top
Posted by Gary M. Cooperberg, October 26, 2004.
This was written by Gary M. Cooperberg

The one trait which Shimon Peres can be complimented upon is that of consistency. He has consistently maintained that peace can be achieved by Israel backing down upon any of its principles which may interfere with negotiations with our enemies. He is convinced that this policy will eventually result in peace. What he fails to take into consideration is the fact that, were his policy truly implemented, the peace we would enjoy would be under the rule of our enemies should they be kind enough to allow us to continue to live.

Ariel Sharon, on the other hand, has exemplified the quality of most politicians... the ability to become completely inconsistent. Who would have imagined, even a year ago, that Peace Now would be demonstrating in favor of Sharon? This fact is the clearest illustration possible of just how completely the Prime Minister's policy has changed. One would expect even a Sharon to take notice of the fact that the most vocal Israeli political organization dedicated to the self destruction of the Jewish State is now his new partner!

How ironic that, much like the thinking of Shimon Peres, Sharon has stated that one of the main reasons he wants to flee from Gaza is because there are so many Arabs there. Well the Arab population is growing faster than the Jewish one in Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and all over Israel. Perhaps we had just better make plans to abandon the entire country. That would be the consistent conclusion one would have to arrive at should we follow through on this faulty logic.

Arabs living in the Gaza Strip are not "innocent civilians". They are enemies of the Jewish State and they have turned their children into living bombs in the war to destroy us. How dare we even consider the well being of our enemies above and beyond that of our own country?!

It has been said that this tiny country cannot take on the entire world. The USA and the European nations will never accept the idea that Israel include Judea, Samaria and Gaza as part of our country. What country in the history of nations voluntarily abandoned parts of its own homeland owing to threats, real or imagined, on the part of world powers? The only way any self-respecting nation would agree to give up its land is as a result of losing a war. Our hapless leaders have decided, in advance, that we would lose should a war break out and thus have decided to surrender even before the war begins! With leaders like this who needs enemies? The only wonder is why our government hasn't come up with a plan to change the name of Israel to Palestine and just hand the keys to Arafat. That would be consistent with the current thinking of our leaders, and would certainly result in the real peace that Shimon Peres envisions.

Voluntarily fleeing from any part of our homeland is not only treasonous, but a clear message to our enemies that we are afraid of them. This will guarantee an increase in terror and encourage our enemies to believe that we can be defeated. In a war either you crush your enemies or they crush you. What kind of mentality would find a leader inviting his enemies to destroy his country by giving him the implements to do so? What country has ever voluntarily given weapons and training to those who clearly use them to destroy you?

If you need proof that G-d is protecting us there is no better proof than the very fact that we still exist despite the incredible efforts on the parts of our leaders to self destruct. The very fact that a Sharon, in the office of Prime Minister, is working so determinedly to aid and abet our enemies owing to his fear of the nations of the world, will result in even greater miracles taking place as our G-d steps in to rescue us even from him. But woe to us for the deserved punishments we will suffer as a result of our failure to stand up to this bulldozer.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 26, 2004.


The head of CARE operations in Iraq, who aided Iraqis for 30 years, holds Iraqi and European citizenships, and had complained about the sanctions against the Saddam regime. Nevertheless, terrorists kidnapped her (Robert H. Reid, NY Sun, 10/20, p.8).

The terrorists don't want foreign help for their country, at least if by discouraging it, the regime collapses and they can take over. What needless suffering they impose in the name of Islam! They call their religion a merciful one, but they do not practice mercy in its name.


Colleges that accept federal aid are obliged to provide an educational environment free of religious and ethnic discrimination. At UC-Irvine, Muslims often have harassed Jews without repercussion. ZOA has filed a complaint with the federal office of civil rights.

Among the many incidents were: (1) A group of Muslims followed a student with an Israeli lapel flag into a Dean's office, cursing and threatening him. He reported this to the university and to local police, but no action was taken. (2) As a student with a Jewish t-shirt passed by the Muslim Student Union table, a rock was thrown at him; (3) Muslim radical groups and newspapers liken Israel to the Nazis (with whom the Arabs are comparable in much of their ideology and methods); (4) The Society of Arab Students sponsored an anti-hate rally, to which it invited all groups but Jewish ones, and at which the Vice-Chancellor nevertheless was a speaker (as if he condoned the slighting of the Jewish groups as not entitled to be free from being hated for their ethnicity); and (5) Muslim students were permitted to wear sashes at graduation identifying themselves with Hamas suicide bombers, as they had announced they would (IMRA, 10/16).


A figure approached in a suspicious manner an IDF post that had taken enemy fire, and threw a package at the troops. They shot and killed her. She turned out to be a 13-year-old girl. The story was in the news for ten days, while the Army investigated. The investigation found that although other aspects of the soldiers' and commander's behavior was below standard, the shooting, itself, was not. The findings received only brief mention in the media. Thus in the media, the Army was on the carpet for ten days and off the hook for brief mention (IMRA, 10/16).

That is the way the media works. In itself, this practice is not anti-Israel. However, the credulity with which the media treats lying Arab accusations, and the incredulity with which it treats factual IDF explanations, is anti-Israel.


The Arabs demand that Israel withdraw from all territory acquired in 1967, and then they would normalize relations with Israel. (What has 1967 to do with it?) Problem is, that the normalization may never come or could be reversed, but the withdrawal could not be. If Israel were to withdraw at all, the proper sequence would be years of normalizations, to test Arab sincerity, before any withdrawal. UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not require total withdrawal.

The Foreign Minister of Jordan hinted a concern that unless the P.A. gains statehood, Arafat's Arabs would seize Jordan. (If the P.A. gained statehood, it would have greater means of taking over Jordan!) He depicts the Geneva initiative as proving that Israel has a peace partner (IMRA, 10/17). The initiative was for only Israeli concessions, not peace, the Arab signatories lack official standing, and the Arabs don't keep their agreements. They promote hatred and conquest of Israel, as they had before Israel acquired the Territories. How can fanatics make peace?


(1)Many US liberal religious, educational and journalistic leaders support the candidacy of Sen. Kerry partly because of Pres. Bush's perceived (but not actual) support for Israel. Nevertheless, because "the Israelis know more about terrorism than anyone else," Sen. Kerry cited favorably an Israeli study about terrorism that called the war in Iraq a diversion from the war on terrorism. (The study was by the Jaffee Center, which is appeasement-minded and foolish about terrorism.)

(2) Some Presbyterian, whose Church is divesting from companies that do business with Israel (but not from China that persecutes Christians), met with a Hizbullah terrorist leader. A delegate found Islamic leaders easier to dialogue with than Jewish leaders. "We treasure the precious words of Hizbullah and their expression of goodwill towards the American people." Hizullah, however, is dedicated to the murder of Jews everywhere and to the destruction of America.

(3) At UC-Irvine, a speaker told the Muslim Student Union meeting that Zionists control the Congress, the media, and the FBI. Arab students there greeted a Jewish one with, "slaughter the Jews." (I didn't know that the Jews control the FBI, too. That's a new one, to me.)

(4) The "NY Times" on 10/18 urged the US to be evenhanded between Israel and its enemies, as if it should be evenhanded towards terrorists (NY Sun, 10/21, Ed.).

I looked up that edition of the "Times," to see whether the "Sun" had exaggerated what surely seemed too pro-terrorist even for the "Times." The citation was correct. The "Times" editorial had other egregious statements and demands. The editorial denounced Israeli military incursions against the P.A. terrorists firing rockets into Israel. It suggested that the important issue is statehood for the P.A., requiring US encouragement for moderates there and the aspirations of the Arab masses, and diplomatic efforts to reach a peaceful solution.

How would Americans like it if "Haaretz" called for evenhandedness between the Baathists and Islamist insurgents in Iraq and the US forces? Should "Haaretz" denounce US military incursions into Falujah intended to root out terrorists who kidnap foreign aid workers? Why should the US fight, when it could encourage moderates there and lend diplomatic efforts to reach a peaceful solution?

There are moderates in Iraq, but they don't have military forces. No moderates in the P.A. are named; those named previously avowed a terrorist ideology. The aspirations of the Arab masses in the P.A. are for domination, dispossession, and death of the Jews. Their aspirations should go back to Hell.


The film, "Jenin, Jenin" accuses Israel of non-existent war crimes. The film, which has been shown to be fraudulent, is being shown in Israel. Someone suggested that the Israeli research film that debunks it be shown before it (IMRA, 10/17).

Why show the Arab propaganda film in Israel? (A dishonest, masochistic ideology impels this.) It would be like showing a Communist film in the US during the Cold War. The film has no legitimate viewpoint, it is just slander. Although the Israeli soldiers behaved with great restraint, and the Arabs gunmen committed war crimes, the Arab film pretends it was the reverse.


Just as their schooling advocates, P.A. children enter the battlefield in support of terrorists. In a Gaza camp under Israeli siege, the children report intelligence to the terrorists and fetch them water. Being in the midst of battle, children perish. (No loss, there. They are not functioning as children for whom we should sympathize, but like terrorists. Their casualties are chalked up against Israel, however, as if Israel were the ones committing the war crimes, when it is the Arabs who are.) The Arabs call their role "resistance." Aggressors don't admit to transgression.

To give the children's role legitimacy, P.A. textbooks deny the legitimacy of Israel by terming it "colonialist." (IMRA, 10/17 from Palestinian Media Watch.)


The Conference of Presidents was founded to support Israel. It is split on whether to support PM Sharon's abandonment plan. Those who support it suggest that because he heads the government, the Conference should endorse the plan. They said that not endorsing it would be hostile to Pres. Bush, who works with Sharon on policy (IMRA, 10/17). Not on the merits?

Poor reasons. It does not help Israel to support a plan that is anti-Zionist. They confuse supporting Israel with supporting the appeasement-minded PM. A pro-Israel organization should not distort its goals by siding with a US President who demands an anti-Israel plan.


Some leftists demonstrated in Tel Aviv against the security fence. They blocked the roads. Police who came to remove them, and charged them with resisting arrest violently.

A Tel Aviv magistrate criticized the prosecution for bringing charges, although he will allow them a second hearing to present them. He thinks that resisting arrest is permissible, but asked the Attorney-General to rule on it (IMRA, 10/18).

Violent resistance to arrest is universally banned. Does this judge have any doubts about it or is he seeking to get a rationalization permitting the Left to do what it wants? This seems to be another case of unjustifiable refusal to enforce the law against the Left. It condones leftist violence. Meanwhile, the Left is drumming up paranoia about anticipated right-wing violence.

The Attorney-General has become part of the ruling triumvirate of Israel: Prime Minister, Supreme Court, and Attorney-General. Anybody who doesn't like some legislation or governmental action or policy can complain to the Supreme Court, without having legal arguments. The Supreme Court then ignores the law and insinuates its policy preferences. When a right-wing politician becomes threatening to established left-wing dominance, the Attorney-General opens a case against him, even if flimsy, so the politician must step down. Here the judge is asking for a ruling against required enforcement of the law. Like the Supreme Court, the Attorney-Generals also legislate regardless of the law (and regardless of justice).

Democratic in form, Israel is not democratic in practice. Most people are taken in by the form and unaware of the undemocratic practice. The Establishment has the power to obstruct reform, starting by its control of the media, so that it becomes difficult to educate or rally that uninformed people. Most of us Westerners, whose own media and educational system is deficient and biased, suppose that Israelis surely understand their own problems. It is a questionable assumption by Americans whose own divided electorate does not understand its problems.


The EU plans a Euro-Mediterranean free-trade zone by 2010. The document that calls for it seeks "essential provisions in respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights, cooperation to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction, and their means of delivery, and anti-terrorism." Syria has just signed that agreement.

At about the same time, the Security Council rebuked Syria for continuing to occupy Lebanon. The US and France sponsored the UNO's "noted with concern." Syria replied defiantly.

So, on the one hand, the UNO rebukes Syria. On the other hand, the EU invites it into a pact with economic gains for it (NY Sun, 10/20, p.8).

Syria violates human rights, promotes terrorism, and builds weapon of mass-destruction. Its invitation to join the free-trade organization, whose charter forbids those crimes, indicates that the EU merely pays lip service to them. Thus the EU is an accomplice in dictatorship, violation of human rights, promotion of terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction with aggressive intent. Is this a case of money before humaneness? Or is it an alliance between an increasingly Arabized Europe and the Arab states, lubricated by Europe's antisemitism?

Based on the EU boon to Syria, how do you suppose Syria will gauge the seriousness of the UNO Resolution? Will anyone remember Syria's violation of UNO Resolutions, when next the Arabs accuse Israel of being a criminal state because, among other false reasons, it violates UNO Resolutions? Will people realize that the Arabs sign anything, without fidelity to 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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, October 26, 2004.

Ever wonder why the price of oil suddenly rose astronomically in this run-up to US elections? If you haven't, you should. I wondered, and what I found out is that there is may be a plot by the Islamists to influence if not overturn the US elections. And it is probably because of Israel.

The Islamist countries view Israel and America as the same thing. They say it often enough by calling America 'The Big Satan,' and Israel 'The Little Satan.' President Bush, despite his gross misstep in calling for a Palestinian State to be established (and I blame this partly on his trusting his Arabist-tainted State Department headed by Colin Powell), has been unswervingly supportive of Israel in the area of self-defense. This infuriates the Islamist countries who would like nothing better than to exterminate Israel and commit genocide on the Jews.

Keep this in mind: Not a single Islamist country has come out in support of Israel's right to exist free from terror. They all voted to condemn Israel's security barrier.

The Islamists, having experienced our reaction to 9-11, know that bombing us again will never get the US elections overturned the way it did in Spain. If we were to have another 9-11, the first thing we'd probably do is turn their homelands into wastelands. So they must do something else.

You see, they hate President Bush for his support of Israel and his unswerving determination to go after every terrorist entity, although he has as yet to call them Islamist terrorist entities. For one thing, many of the major Islamist groups such as Hizbollah, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are sponsored not by fugitive rogues but by legitimate OPEC countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And these Islamists and their supporters, aiders, enablers and abettors love Kerry.

"Last week, in a coordinated survey of opinions in 10 key countries in Europe, Asia and North America, Israel was one of only two countries - the other was Russia - where poll respondents favored Bush over Kerry (by 50 percentage points to 24)." (1)

Meanwhile, "A Pew Research Center poll has shown that vast majorities in predominantly Muslim countries continue to hold unfavorable opinions of the United States." (2)

And last week, Mr. Genocidal monster himself -- Yasser Arafat -- endorsed Kerry. (Recently, Saudi Arabia openly admitted to continuing to send money to the families of genocide bombers to pick up the slack when Saddam was arrested.)

Regarding the US presidential elections, Russian President Putin had this to say: "International terrorism aims at causing maximum damage to President Bush and to forestall his second term re-election." (3)

Because he is ostensibly part diplomat, apparently Putin himself is afraid to name the enemy -- Islamism --instead referring to it as 'terrorism,' which is merely a symptom. But I dare anyone to show me more than a handful of terror attacks in the last few years that were not Islamist-motivated and carried out.

So it is apparent that the Islamists hate President Bush. And they have a huge weapon in their arsenal called oil. With it they can ruin the American economy or squeeze the American voter until it hurts. And it seems apparent that they are doing it. They want Kerry to win in the worst way and they are desperately afraid of President Bush. And here's the Islamist weapon of mass distraction:

OPEC (Org. of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ) Members and Their Main Religions (4)

Iran September 1960 Founder Member .............................................Islam
Iraq September 1960 Founder Member .............................................Islam
Kuwait September 1960 Founder Member ........................................Islam
Saudi Arabia September 1960 Founder Member .............................Islam
Venezuela September 1960 Founder Member ..................................Roman Catholic
Qatar December 1960 Full Member ...................................................Islam
Libya December 1962 Full Member ...................................................Islam
Indonesia December 1962 Full Member ............................................Islam
United Arab Emirates November 1967 Full Member ......................Islam
Algeria July 1969 Full Member ..........................................................Islam
Nigeria July 1971 Full Member ...........................................................Islam
Ecuador* November 1973 Full Member ...........................................Roman Catholic
Gabon December 1973 Associate Member ......................................Christian 55%-75%, animist, Islam less than 1%
* Ecuador left OPEC in 1992

Some OPEC Members and How They Voted in the UN (5)

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time

(Statistics on several other Islamic OPEC countries were not available, but a cursory glance at their recent votes showed they voted against America at least 75% of the time.) .......................................................................

So the next time you have to gas up your car or heat your house, remember who is responsible for the obscene prices and what they are doing to the profits they make by stealing your hard-earned money: they are using it to fund more Islamists whose only goal is to convert America into an Islamic entity where you, the American public, will be forced into subservience.

This next quote says it all. It is by the co-founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) which is a group funded by Saudi Arabia and other Islamist countries. This quote explains our artificially high oil prices and the fact that in all likelihood, OPEC members are trying to overturn the American elections by manipulating our economy to get the voters angry with President Bush:

"The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." (6)


(1) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/19/95245.shtml

(2) http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1957.cfm

(3) http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page

(4) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/archives/oldindex.html

(5) http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp =%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200410%5CFOR20041018c.html

(6) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32341

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles. Read more of her articles on her website: http://hometown.aol.com/bgoodtree/

To Go To Top
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, October 26, 2004.

This essay was written by Leiah Elbaum lives in Modi'in. She can be reached at elbaum@actcom.co.il

Driving home from the Judean desert recently, we stumbled across an English-language oldies station calling itself Mood 92 FM. It didn't sound like any Israeli station we knew of, so we guessed that it was Jordanian. Jordan used to have an English language music station a few years ago. We stayed tuned out of curiosity.

Suddenly and without warning, another station cut in on the frequency. Strident, Arabic martial music blared out, with heavy male voices bellowing a defiant song. My Arabic is extremely rusty, but I could pick out enough words to figure out the gist: "our people", "revolution", and, finally, "Hamas".

We were tuned to a pro-Hamas radio station.

And then, just as suddenly, the mellow tones of Mood 92 returned: "All we are saying is give peace a chance."

We couldn't stop laughing. Half-seriously I looked around for the hidden camera. Surely this was someone's idea of a practical joke?!

We drove through the French Hill junction, with Arab Jerusalem neighbourhoods to one side, Jewish Jerusalem ahead of us, and heavily-guarded bus stops full of Jewish travellers by the side of the road.

Too soon, the Hamas station regained control of the frequency. More martial music, which faded to an enraged orator. I picked up the word "Palestine" over and over again, interspersed with assorted vocabulary words from my old Arabic newspaper reading homework: "homeland", "nation", "army". The speaker worked himself into a frenzy. Then a woman's voice came on, apparently identifying the station by the name Al-Manar - also the name of a TV and radio network run by Hezbollah in Lebanon, one of the organisation's propaganda vehicles against Israel. I wonder if they're connected.

And then it was back to Mood 92. Gloria Gaynor was belting out "I Will Survive". If only it were always this easy to get rid of Hamas.

We were returning home from a day trip to Ein Prat, just east of Jerusalem, a little Garden of Eden hidden away in the Judean desert, a refuge of water and greenery amidst the rocky barrenness of the desert cliffs.

The nature reserve is a narrow valley with a refreshing stream trickling through its floor, fed by springs which gush year round. Lush figs and shady eucalyptus trees grow here and there, seemingly from the middle of the stream. A hiking trail leads up to the rockier end of the wadi, towards the springs themselves. Emerald patches of natural grass - a rarity here - are dotted between sections of the streams.

Pools form between natural rock pavements, and agile fish glide and leap in the water, glinting and gleaming in the mellow gold glow of the afternoon autumn sun. They share their home with tiny black water snails and an occasional river crab, both creatures making their homes by the rocky ledges of the pools.

A gentle breeze stirs the luxurious foliage in the damp canyon bed, rustling the dried grasses on higher ledges, remnants of the fertility brought by last winter's rains. In a small meadow, white stalks of squill flowers wave meditatively, heralds of this year's approaching wet season.

It was Friday, part of the weekend for both Jews and Muslims. Several families, Jewish and Arab, were picnicking separately under the trees by the stream. Teenage Palestinian boys basked in the sun just beyond the glade, while a religious Israeli family found a shady spot right by the water under a huge fig tree.

Suddenly one of their young boys let out an excited cry, pointing to the water's edge: "Scorpion, scorpion! A big one! Here, here!"

It was, of course, a crab, desert scorpions not being especially fond of ponds. And with that settled, peaceful relaxation returned to the reserve.

I found my own personal paradise up by the flat stone slabs at the narrow end of the valley. Above I could watch hyrax, small furry brown mammals, nimbly scrambling over the rocks and grazing in the trees. Ravens soared overhead and small flocks of Tristram's grackles, a common local bird, congregated along the cliff, their characteristic whistles echoing down the canyon as they swooped across it in a flash of orange wings.

Below me, a religious Israeli family was enjoying one of the larger, deeper, rock pools, an odd elliptical shape caught between flat sheets of bare stone. The teenage girls climbed in to the water fully clad, trousers under billowing skirts to protect their modesty. The father joined them, leaving his gun on the bank within easy reach.

Above us on yet another ledge an Arab family had laid out a large picnic, and they nestled together on the small promontory, slightly too many of them to fit comfortably onto their scenic, breezy perch.

Some Israeli teenagers clambered over the steeper rocks at the head of the canyon, moving on from there to inspect one of the many caves in the cliff walls.

A young secular Israeli family ambled along the edge of the stream, the mother with her baby strapped to her chest as she negotiated the stepping stones.

In the distance, a black-robed, pony-tailed, Russian Orthodox priest made his way up the path with a bag of groceries, heading towards the steep stone steps where a small, ancient monastery balanced on a high vantage point, a relic of the many hermits who inhabited this region in the early years of Christianity.

On the hiking trail skirting the valley side, a pair of IDF soldiers in dusty combat fatigues and floppy army-issue sun hats patrolled the reserve, regularly pacing up and down the path, protecting the peace of this idyll, keeping watch for any sign of trouble.

For this is also a "seam" between Israeli and Palestinian areas. The Israeli village of Anatot is clustered haphazardly high above the reserve, while further along the road lies the Palestinian village of Hizmeh.

Walking back to the car I paused for a photograph, trying out my new digital camera. I suddenly found a small hand thrust into my face. It belonged to a smiling twelve-year-old girl clad in a red tracksuit, a short dark braid at her neck. "Hello," she greeted me with a thick Arabic accent, keen to shake my hand. Behind her another girl stood shyly looking over her shoulder.

Their eyes were focused on my head, just above my face. Ahhh, the hat. My trusty broad brimmed brown felt tiyul hat. It is a fraction on the cowboyish side. I'm not a John Wayne impersonator, but it does keep the sun off my easily scorched skin.

"Do you speak Arab?" she asked me. I don't know which was worse, my basic college Arabic or their rudimentary schoolroom English. They didn't know Hebrew. Somehow we managed a brief conversation.

They had hoped I was a "real" American. I was sorry to disappoint them.

They giggled and pointed to the stream: "Fishhhhh?" And then something I couldn't make out. "Yes, fish," I replied. "Fishhhh," they responded.

I asked where they were from. One of them pointed in the general direction of Hizmeh, though she might have meant to indicate Jerusalem, hard to tell. Then we shook hands again and bade one another farewell, as they frolicked off to play by the stream with their picnicking family.

Note to self: I must brush up on my Arabic. You never know when it will come in handy.

Judy Lash Balint (Gefen) is author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (gefen). It is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 25, 2004.

Dear Friends, How deeply ashamed the Jewish people must be of those such as so-called Justice Minister Tommy Lapid. I recall that there was once a meeting at Waunsee where a decision and a plan was made which was Hitler's own "Solution to His Jewish Question". Concentration camps, barbed wire, rounding up Jewish families.

Just because Lapid was a Holocaust survivor gives him no right to do this. He says herein: "The destruction of homes must be stop because it is inhuman, un-Jewish and causes us great harm around the world." Of course, he was speaking about Arab Muslim homes that were hiding Terrorists.

Read what Herr Lapid has made into a law for Jewish families who resist being forced from their homes...all at the orders of Arik Sharon.


What follows is an article by the Israel Insider staff, published yesterday on http://www.inraelinsider.com.

A ministerial committee led by Justice Minister Yosef "Tommy" Lapid has amended the compensation and punishment bill passed today by the Israeli government to allow for simultaneous arrests of parents and their children, which was not previously legal. Whole families resisting expulsion from their homes thus may be rounded up efficiently and deported to mass internment facilities prepared for them.

Those arrested will be liable to 3 to 5 year prison terms, the latter if they are found in possession of "hot or cold" objects which might be used as weapons, even if resistance is passive. It is not clear whether children and adults will have the same terms or whether they will be allowed to serve together in "family detention centers" or whether families will be split up and sent to different internment facilities around the countries.

The bill, which outlines compensation for settlers facing evacuation under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, as well as punishments for those refusing or resisting expulsion and deportation, won support Sunday from the cabinet and the ministerial committee on legislation, two days before the bill is due to be presented to the Knesset plenum. The bill was first approved in the cabinet by a majority of 13 ministers during the weekly cabinet meeting, while six -- five members of the Likud and the sole remaining member of the National Religious Party -- voted against.

The committee on legislation passed most of the clauses in the bill without changes, although several alterations were made, Haaretz reported, some regarding the authority of police and security forces in the event of resistance to the evacuation. Security officials believe that those detained for hindering evacuation will include whole families, and that it is unreasonable to separate children from their parents during an arrest, the newspaper reported. Thus the ability to round up whole families is conceived as a humanitarian measure.

Humanitarian considerations have been a guiding force for the current government.

Several months ago, Minister Lapid compared a Palestinian woman picking through the rubble of her home destroyed by the IDF during a mission to uncover arms-smuggling tunnels to "my grandmother who was thrown out of her house during the Shoah (Holocaust)," adding that "The destruction of homes must stop because it is inhuman, un-Jewish, and causes us great harm around the world," Lapid added. "In the end we'll be kicked out of the UN, we'll be put on trial in The Hague [seat of the International Court of Justice], and no one will want to have anything to do with us."

Under the plan approved by Sharon's cabinet, and due to be voted on this week by the governement, 1500 homes of Jewish families in Gaza, along with schools and other community structures, are to be leveled and the land turned over to Palestinian groups.

Families which do not accept compensation are to be forcibly deported and sent to mass incarceration facilities and internment camps which the Israeli Prison Services has been ordered to prepare. Graves of dead Jews buried in Gaza are reportedly to be dug up and relocated elsewhere along with synagogues which are to be dismantled.

At the start of the cabinet meeting, Sharon described the evacuation bill as "clear and thorough."

"The law will make things as easy as possible for the settlers who will be evacuated and I am certain that even those who oppose the disengagement plan will not want to make things difficult for the settlers," Sharon said.

Creative solutions for mass incarceration ordered

Ofer Lefler, spokesman for the Israel Prisons Authority (IPA), recently announced that the IPA had been ordered to develop "creative alternatives" for the mass detention of disengagement opponents.

Lefler noted that detained disengagement opponents would not be "security prisoners" and thus the IPA would have considerable leeway in modes of incarceration. He cited the incarceration of illegal workers awaiting expulsion in a hotel that was converted into a temporary prison as an example of a creative solution.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Batya Medad, October 25, 2004.

The latest headlines say that Arik Sharon will offer more money to the victims of his transfer program, and that the "lucky" recipients won't even be taxed on their "windfall." He expects them to be overjoyed.

Sharon totally miss-reads the situation and the minds and hearts of the Jews in YESHA. But even more revealing, is what he shows of his true self. There's a principle in psychology, projection, that a person demonstrates his true self, his inner self, in what he imagines in others. It is clear that Sharon believes that everyone has a price, like the story of the man who offers the woman a million dollars to sleep with him, and after she agrees, changes the price to a few cents. She, insulted, asks why he thinks her a whore, and he replies that she already established that. Now they're just haggling over the price.

Obviously Sharon has his price, and he was well paid. He thinks everyone is like him, so he's haggling. But we the Jews of YESHA aren't whores. It's not about money. Neither a nicer house, larger more fertile piece of land, nor a generous deposit in the bank can bribe the good Jews in Gush Katif to leave their homes and destroy their communities and educational institutions. We're in our Homeland, and that's where we want to stay. No amount of money can substitute for it.

There is no substitute for Eretz Yisrael and no justification for shrinking the tiny borders of the State of Israel. We didn't accept Uganda nor Birobijan, and we left Great Neck and Golders Green. We respect and value Israelis' rights to live in Tel Aviv and Kiryat Tivon. There must be Jews in all of Eretz Yisrael.

This "disengagement" business makes no sense. Not from a security, tactical, diplomatic, psychological, historical - you name the adjective - it's totally illogical. And "insulting" is the nicest word I can think of. It insults the integrity of every Jew.

People keep asking me whom we're supposed to follow, which politician should we listen to. These are tough questions in very difficult times. I'm just a "bubby" who teaches English. There are more questions than answers.

This week I started learning Kohelet in a Shiloh women's study group taught by Rabbi Nissan Ben Avraham. We learned that in "Masechet Shabbat" Shlomo HaMelech is considered a symbol of "irrelevent," "too smart for your own good" questions. Basically they mock him, though, it was King Solomon who was privileged to build the Beit HaMikdash, the Holy Temple.

Kohelet, like Shlomo HaMelech who wrote it is very controversial. It's very honest; he admits his doubts and faults. He was a man of many, maybe too many, talents and intelligences and doubts and contradictions. He did everything but fight in a war. That was his father's specialty. King David fought hard to prepare a peaceful world for his son, but it didn't give Shlomo personal peace.

King Solomon spent his entire life searching, experimenting. In the end he came to the conclusion that it was all hevel - nothing, air. It was like the air that could fill a balloon; none of the material riches were worth anything.

Ariel Sharon hasn't learned this. His haggling over the price is hevel. The Jewish residents of Gush Katif, of YESHA, understand what Shlomo HaMelech writes of in Kohelet. Ain chadash mitachat lashemesh - There's nothing new under the sun. It's all hevel, norishkeit (foolishness), vanities, air.

There is no material price, no payment that can compensate for what we won't give away. Let's just go on with our real life and continue settling Our Land.

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

To Go To Top
Posted by Tom Mason, October 25, 2004.

Thank you for the excellent articles on various aspects on the Middle East problems. Generally speaking there is a lack of understanding of the spiritual side of the problem.

It should be known for instance that the battle is not Jews against Arabs, but God and His chosen people, the children of Israel, against Satan and his anti Semitic hoards whom Satan has programmed to finish what Hitler failed to do, exterminate the Jews.

Arafat is a good exanple. Why did Arafat form the PLO in 1964 three years before there was a land problem? His constitution states to push the Jews out of the land.

Saddam Hussein had the same intent. Why did he fire 38 Scud missiles into an innocent bystander Israel during the Gulf War?

That the Jews are God's chosen people is well documented in the Bible and the fact that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel at the urging of Arafat and were defeated in six days is a manifestation of God's care for the nation.

Here are a few biblical truths. God speaking to Abraham.

Gen. 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee (USA?), and curse him that curses thee (Arab dictatorships? Palestinians?): and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

I think the world is blessed by Jewish Nobel Prize Winners.

The Jews often fell out of favor with God and were taken into captivity (the Babylonians) or driven out by the Romans. But God always relented. Scripture:

Jer. 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

23:7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt (Miraculously across the Red Sea). But, The LORD lives, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I (God) had driven them (He used the Romans 70 AD); and they shall dwell in their own land (Not Palestinian land). It was the land given to Abraham; it included Jordan, part of Iraq and part of Lebanon.

It is a sad fact there can never be peace in the Middle East until the Messiah returns.

Zech. 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Again God will step in and save Jerusalem, for all times. Something of note. The world needs to realise that Islam like Nazism is a scam. It is an evil spiritual force. Satan causing the people of Iraq to be killed to get his will done.

Eph. 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, (it is not a people problem per se) but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (we are in a spiritual war). 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day etc.

You should know that Muhammad the founder of Islam was born in 570 AD - that is 1500 years after Solomon built the temple. The Koran written in 600 AD states that Islam will dominate the world. The muslim population in Europe today is problematic. It is only Judaism and Christianity that stands in the way of Islam's aspirations.

The USA is perceived to be Christian and is fighting Islam and the hate the USA suffers is anti Semitic.

Apparently someone asked Bin Laden what would bring peace to the world. He wants us to get out of the Middle East and embrace Islam, confirming that Judaism and Christianity are the root cause of Islamic terrorists.

A leader who does not come out 100 % behind Israel and the war on terror should not be the President of the USA.

Tom Mason lives in Surrey, British Columbia

To Go To Top
Posted by Ted Belman, October 25, 2004.

PM Sharon, in continuing to push for disengagement, is flying in the face of the facts. What are they?

1. Likud voted, by a margin of 60 to 40, against bringing Labour into the governing coalition to enable it.

2. There is no money allocated in the budget to pay for uprooting the settlers and US has refused to pay for it

3. No financial model has been presented to the Knesset or to Israelis showing how disengagement saves money. But we are told the high cost of building the trench and the high cost of redeploying the IDF.

4. There is no security arrangement for Gaza that would prevent Gaza from becoming an armed camp or from attacking Israel after it withdrew. There is no doubt about it, Israel would be less secure. The rocket attacks will only increase.

5. It is far from certain that Israel will retain control of access to Gaza by land, sea or air.

6. Except for the letters from Bush, which suggested but failed to ensure that Israel could keep the settlements, the Bush Administration has continually taken the position that Israel must not enlarge the settlements and must dismantle certain settlements. They are against a "land grab" and in favour of Israel trading something in exchange for the large blocks.

7. Both America and Israel pay lip service to the Roadmap notwithstanding that there is absolutely no evidence, in word or in deed, that the Arab countries or the "Palestinians" are willing to live up to what is required of them.

8. The construction of the fence has been discontinued because the Israeli government is caving into world pressure. The ICJ said it was illegal, the High Court of Israel said it had to be less inconvenient to the Arabs and must not be a "land grab", the State Department is micro-managing where it will be built, the Vatican has also registered its objection to the proposed route and the IDF said that the proposed new route renders Israel defenceless.

9. The rational for the construction of the fence was that would save lives, which it has, but also that it would become a de-facto border, despite protestations to the contrary. This rational can no longer be sustained. Also, the fence cannot be routed through the minefields of Jerusalem. It is just too problematic.

10. There is nothing unilateral about disengagement as Israel has given the US a veto over everything Israel wants to do.

11. The insurgency in Iraq supported by Iran, Syria, Hezbolla, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Arafat, among others, serves to underline that these same groups will not allow Israel a moments peace or a permanent stay in the ME.

12. The US is preventing Israel from building the fence where it would serve to protect Ben Gurion Airport or to include many major settlement blocks.

Disengagement, of which the fence is a part, is an attempt to create a more manageable situation for Israel for the long haul. Whether it will achieve this is far from certain. In fact the contrary seems more probable. Disengagement doesn't save money because the trench, the fence, the IDF redeployment and the resettlement will cost billions. It doesn't make Israel more secure in the same way abandoning area A under Oslo didn't make Israel more secure. It doesn't ensure that Israel can keep parts of Yesha. It doesn't solve any of the problems associated with Jerusalem. In fact it doesn't solve anything.

The Roadmap, Oslo and Res 242 were all attempts to find a solution that the Arabs would accept. Sharon's Disengagement Plan is an attempt to find a solution the US will accept. They all involved a retreat by Israel from any idea of Israel retaining control of or sovereignty over Yesha. They were and are premised on the idea that the Arab world will live in peace with Israel. No sign of that. It is clear that the US has always tried to get Israel to disgorge almost all of Yesha. They certainly oppose a "land grab" as Powell puts it.

Just as the status quo was better before we entered the Oslo Accords then after, so the status quo now is better than what disengagement will bring. Israel should not give up the control it now exercises, not should it incur the costs that disengagement will entail, nor should it retreat from Gaza and parts of Yesha until there is a "New Middle East."

If Sharon wants Israel to retreat, the onus of proving that Israel will be better off is on him. He has failed miserably in satisfying this onus. If the US wants Israel to retreat, let it offer something worthwhile in return.

Instead Israel should develop a different paradigm. Benny Elon's plan is one such paradigm. It envisions the two state solution as involving Jordan and Israel rather than Palestine and Israel. To this end, Israel should abandon the Roadmap, destroy the remnants of Oslo and embrace the Jordanian solution.

Ted Belman is cofounder and cohost of IsraPundit, a pro-Israel strong activist website (http://israpundit.com).

To Go To Top
Posted by CAMERA, October 25, 2004.

An October 14th segment on NPR's "All Things Considered" typifies NPR's consistent pro-Palestinian news coverage.

Part of a pattern

In 2000, a two-month CAMERA study of NPR noted that "entirely one-sided programs were commonplace;" that there was "a disproportionate reliance on Arab/Palestinian and pro-Arab speakers compared to Israeli and pro-Israeli speakers;" and a "chronic amplifying of Palestinian grievances and perspectives" which paralleled a de-emphasizing of Israeli concerns. Another three-month study of NPR's reporting during the period Jan 1 - March 31, 2003 found the same tilt in favor of Arab and pro-Arab views as has been the case in every other time span CAMERA has reviewed.

The skewed Oct. 14, 2004 segment focused on the Palestinian mood in the fifth year of their intifada and despite serious accusations leveled against Israel in the piece, no Israeli speakers were included. NPR host Robert Siegel immediately set the tone, defining the so-called intifada as an "uprising against Israeli occupation." This is a distorted definition of the violence, one espoused by Palestinian advocates. It neglects the fact that much of the violence against Israelis is conducted by groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whose avowed aim is not an end to "Israeli occupation," but rather an end to Israel altogether. Likewise, Palestinian violence was launched in 2000 precisely at the moment Israel offered to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Deceptive Statistics

Reporter Julie McCarthy stressed the "disproportionate" nature of the conflict, focusing on Palestinian casualty figures that exceed those on the Israeli side:

"For Palestinians, the price of four years of fighting with Israel has been disproportionate. This year, for every Israeli killed, five Palestinians have died. It's a trend borne out in Israel's current operation in northern Gaza, where daily funerals are a mixture of militancy and mourning. Some 100 Palestinians have perished. The Israeli army reports that one of its soldiers has been killed.

"Since the second intifada erupted in September 2000, approximately 1,000 Israelis have lost their lives; 3,000 Palestinians have been killed. The unequal losses reflect the unequal strength of the two sides. The Palestinians deploy street fighters, suicide bombers and crude Qassam rockets; Israel deploys tanks, helicopter gunships and warplanes."

While McCarthy's monologue emphasizes figures that suggest Palestinians suffer more from the conflict, there is no mention that 79% of Israelis killed were non-combatants, compared to 43% of Palestinian fatalities that were non-combatants. (Breakdown of fatalities according to International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (http://www.ict.org.il/) figures, Sept. 27, 2000 through May 1, 2004.) The reporter also omits that 67 percent of Palestinians killed during the current Gaza operation were combatants (Breakdown according to Haaretz, 10/17). She doesn't note that four Israelis, three of them children, were killed in the rocket attacks that prompted Israel's Gaza operation.

She highlights that Israel uses warplanes while Palestinians deploy "street fighters," yet she conceals the fact that because Palestinian "street fighters" operate among civilians, Israel regularly forgoes warplanes and instead uses foot-soldiers. That is, Israel exposes its troops to greater harm for the purpose of minimizing collateral damage. This happened, for example, during Israel's 2002 operation in Jenin. The Jerusalem Post reported on this operation as follows:

"As of last night, 23 soldiers had been killed trying to take over the Jenin refugee camp. The IDF has suffered so many losses because it chose to fight the battle on a virtually one-on-one basis, without the benefit of all its advantages in artillery or fighter-bombers. A senior officer said the attack helicopters have also swapped their rockets for TOW missiles, which cause less collateral damage. The reason is the army does not want to cause civilian casualties" (Arieh O'Sullivan, "Soldiers' deaths won't affect Defensive Shield," 4/10/02).

National "Predictable" Radio and Palestinian grievances

McCarthy graphically describes Palestinian casualties:

"Gaza surgeons say the nature of the casualties in the past two weeks has been appalling: men decapitated, boys blown to bits, a bullet lodged in the brain of a teen-aged girl."

There is no graphic or emotional description of the gruesome effects of Qassam rockets that recently killed 2 young Israeli children and helped spur the Israeli incursion to eliminate rocket factories.

Instead, seven Palestinians expressed their views, often highly critical ones, of Israel. McCarthy translates the words of one woman who claimed that Israel "opened fire" at her family's house: "I wish that an Israeli family would suffer the same fate as mine." This declaration, which supports NPR's opening theme that Israelis don't suffer as much as Palestinians, is allowed to pass without comment from the reporter.

The reporter doesn't ask the woman if she is angry at the terrorists for launching rockets into Israel and causing a shutdown of the entrypoints into Israel and an end to economic development. Nor was she asked how she feels about the Palestinian Authority that encouraged children to become terrorists and spent donor money on bombs instead of improving schools, roads, plumbing infrastructure and/or health clinics.

Terror counter-productive -- not immoral

Palestinian politician Haidar Abdul-Shafti and psychiatrist Iyad Sarraj do briefly criticize the terror against Israelis and Arafat's corrupt mismanagement, but only because the terror has hurt their cause, not because killing Israeli civilians is immoral. They reflect on how it has hurt the Palestinians in world public opinion and has led to violence in their own society. McCarthy did not probe their critical comments and never asked whether, aside from considerations of self-interest, they thought terror was morally wrong in and of itself.

Dr. Sarraj then advances what turns out to be a central theme of the program: "The principle behind [suicide bombing]," he says, "is that it is better to die in dignity rather than to live in humiliation and shame."

McCarthy didn't ask the psychiatrist why murdering Israeli civilians is "dignified." She didn't interview any additional psychiatrists, Israeli or otherwise, who might have offered an opposing view of what influences suicide bombers. She didn't note that Palestinian incitement, societal glorification of suicide bombers, and religious fanaticism are often cited as factors that motivate suicide bombers.

Though NPR listeners are unlikely to hear about these factors, a PBS documentary about suicide bombers reported on incitement and religious fanaticism, presenting a bomb maker who said he wants to kill women and children because "it's the duty of every Muslim to liberate this land, every inch of it" (Wide Angle: Suicide Bombers, Dir. Tom Roberts, 2004). "Some observers claim that the older, more determined political activists manipulate the younger and more impressionable recruits," adds the narrator. The testimony of one failed suicide supports this observation. He states, "I already had hatred, and [my recruiters] added to it. They also spoke to me about paradise, where I would get all I want. They encouraged and excited me."

None of this information on the roots of terrorism is provided by NPR, where Palestinians are overwhelmingly exonerated of responsibility and the violence they perpetrate is blamed on Israel.

Camp David Never Happened

Another Palestinian interviewed, diplomat Mahmoud Ajrami, also blames Israel for the continuing violence, saying: "Give us a settlement, a real just compromise, you know, and all these radicals will be isolated in the corner and they will diminish."

Of course, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak did offer a generous compromise at Camp David. As Dennis Ross recounts in his new book, The Missing Peace, the Palestinian leader "said no to everything," and did not present "a single idea or single serious comment in two weeks". This attempt at compromise obviously didn't "isolate" the "radicals," but, again and predictably, NPR's reporter failed to remind listeners of this or to challenge the guest speaker.

In conclusion

McCarthy ends her segment underscoring the patently inaccurate claim that poverty and loss beget terror (rather than ideology and indoctrination). An unidentified Palestinian says, through a translator,

"What do you expect from a people who feel poverty, who lose their children, lose their brothers, their fathers? What do you expect from them who are losing everything?"

The answer: "They prefer to die, he says, than to live such a life. Julie McCarthy, NPR News, Gaza."

To read the transcript of the October14 segment, go to: http://tinyurl.com/3ovow

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in reporting on Israel. The website address is www.camera.org.

To Go To Top
Posted by Michael D. Evans, October 25, 2004.


Please ask President Bush today not to sign another waiver on these Acts, and allow them to become law. Nothing will bring the blessings of God upon our President and our nation more quickly than recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Ask President Bush to take this prophetic step, today.

Your help is urgently needed! Both Acts need to be allowed to become law!
Click here

NOTE: Dr. Ziad Asali of the National Council of Churches has proposed East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, with its own municipality in the extended 1967 borders; West Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel. Dr. Asali and the group for which he speaks, The American Committee on Jerusalem, speak of Jerusalem as "occupied territory", and believe and support the vision for Jerusalem as outlined by Professor Walid Khalidi.

According to Professor Khalidi, East Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine with its own municipality...West Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel.

This is unacceptable! Such a move would place all Christian holy sites under Islamic rule of law. Many, if not all, would likely be subjected to the same indignities as those holy sites in Bethlehem. Arafat would, most certainly, rewrite the history of Christianity in East Jerusalem as he did in Bethlehem, when he declared it the birthplace of the "first Palestinian Christian, Jesus Christ".

Jerusalem, David's City, must not be divided!

Please ask President Bush today not to sign another waiver on these Acts, and allow them to become law.

Your help is urgently needed! Both Acts need to be allowed to become law!

As I wrote in The American Prophecies:

The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995 called for the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and move our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by 1999. That has not happened. Each time the Act comes across the President's desk, a waiver has been signed due to security concerns. Here are a few of the basic tenets of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act:

* The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country excepting the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

* Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

As Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas said to the 2003 Jerusalem World Summit audience via satellite:

"This point is essential. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for three thousand years. Jerusalem has never been the capital for any state other than for the Jewish people...Our Embassy cannot remain in Tel Aviv while we claim to support and defend Israel's right to exist."

Professor Walid Khalidi and the National Council of Churches also want former East Jerusalemites to be allowed to return to East Jerusalem.

This "right of passage" back to East Jerusalem would inevitably include thousands of terrorists now barred from reaching the interior of Israel. It would most certainly result in a bloodbath for the Jewish people. West Jerusalem would become the target of rocket-lauchers armed with whatever is available to cause the most death and destruction, terrorists and suicide bombers with only one objective: The total annihilation of the Jewish people.

PLO terrorism is not about land. If it were, then the PLO would have accepted the Barak-Clinton Camp David proposal. It's about eradicating Zionism and the Jewish state. Its strategy of using terrorism as a tool to achieve its goals has never changed.

Please ask President Bush today not to sign another waiver on these Acts, and allow them to become law.

Your help is urgently needed! Both Acts need to be allowed to become law!

Read Title 22, Chapter 61, Section 5202, Prohibitions regarding the PLO, Now!

Michael Evans is the author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," and founder of America's largest Christian coalition praying for the peace of Jerusalem, www.JerusalemPrayerTeam.org.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ali Sina, October 25, 2004.
Dear Friend,

Madness has overtaken a portion of humanity and what they do is nothing short of insanity.

We are losing the fight against terrorism. That is because we are missing the target.

We must reach to the world and let everyone know that terrorism is the symptom and the real problem is the ideology behind it.

We need your help. Please read the following short "Letter to Mankind" and if you agree please forward it to all the people in your address book and request them to do the same. It is archived at http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40908.htm

Send a copy to your newspaper and politician too. Everyone must hear this message.

Sincerely yours
Ali Sina
Publisher, www.FaithFreedom.org

Dear fellow human,

Today humanity is being challenged. Unthinkable atrocities take place on daily basis. There is an evil force at work that aims to destroy us. The agents of this evil respect nothing; not even the lives of children. Every day there are bombings, every day innocent people are targeted and murdered. It seems as if we are helpless. But we are not!

The ancient Chinese sage Sun Zi said, "Know your enemy and you won't be defeated". Do we know our enemy? If we don't, then we are doomed.

Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool; but the terrorists kill for an ideology. They call that ideology Islam.

The entire world, both Muslims and non-Muslims claim that the terrorists have hijacked "the religion of peace" and Islam does not condone violence.

Who is right? Do the terrorists understand Islam better, or do those who decry them? The answer to this question is the key to our victory, and failure to find that key will result in our loss and death will be upon us. The key is in the Quran and the history of Islam.

Those of us, who know Islam, know that the understanding of the terrorists of Islam is correct. They are doing nothing that their prophet did not do and did not encourage his followers to do. Murder, rape, assassination, beheading, massacre and sacrilege of the dead "to delight the hearts of the believers" were all practiced by Muhammad, were taught by him and were observed by Muslims throughout their history.

If truth has ever mattered, it matters most now! This is the time that we have to call a spade a spade. This is the time that we have to find the root of the problem and eradicate it. The root of Islamic terrorism is Islam. The proof of that is the Quran.

We are a group of ex-Muslims who have seen the face of the evil and have risen to warn the world. No matter how painful the truth may be, only truth can set us free. Why this much denial? Why so much obstinacy? How many more innocent lives should be lost before YOU open your eyes? A nuclear disaster is upon us. This will happen. It is not a question of "if" but "when". Oblivious of that, the world is digging its head deeper in the sand.

We urge the Muslims to leave Islam. Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Stop dividing mankind into "us" vs. "them" and Muslims vs. Kafirs. We are One people, One mankind! Muhammad was not a messenger of God. It is time that we end this insanity and face the truth. The terrorists take their moral support and the validation for their actions from you. Your very adherence to their cult of death is a nod of approval for their crimes against humanity.

We also urge the non-Muslims to stop being politically correct lest they hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims. To Hell with their sensitivities! Let us save their lives, and the lives of millions of innocent people.

Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out! "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Do something! Send this message to everyone in your address book and ask them to do the same. Defeat Islam and stop terrorism. This is your world, save it.

The ex-Muslim Movement

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 25, 2004.


We are informed that few members of Knesset (with some exceptions) ever bothered to read Sharon's Retreat Plan or to ask questions about it.

We also understand that the settlers of Gaza/Gush Katif and the rest of YESHA (Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza) didn't bother to read the Plan (with some exceptions) and have never grasped Sharon's true intentions.

Therefore, few were prepared for Sharon's coup d'etat. They have ignored Sharon's change of loyalties and only wanted to remember his old statements, supporting the expansion of settlements.

In brief, they chose to delude themselves and are now in a panic.

Even those of Gush Katif have succumbed to using a foolish slogan from a PR agency to the effect that: "All of Israel should love them". That won't capture their love.

If the people of Israel and the members of Knesset really understood what Sharon's catastrophic "Plan" has created for all of Israel, they might resist it more effectively. This is the text of the Sharon Retreat Plan, with commentary by David Bedein of Israel Behind the News in caps in parens.

Sharon's Disengagement Plan - General Outline (18/04/2004)

1. General

Israel is committed to the peace process and aspires to reach an agreed resolution of the conflict on the basis of the principle of two states for two peoples, the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, as part of the implementation of President Bush's vision.

Israel is concerned to advance and improve the current situation. Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process. (IN OTHER WORDS, THE PLO REMAINS AT WAR WITH ISRAEL. IF THAT IS THE CONCLUSION FROM THE OUTSET, EVERYTHING SHOULD FOLLOW FROM THAT STATEMENT)

Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement, 9IN OTHER WORDS, RETREAT IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY) based on the following considerations:

i. The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. (NOT DEPENDENT? THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT DEMONSTRATES DEPENDENCY)

ii. The plan will lead to a better security situation, at least in the long term. (PROPHECY WAS NULLIFIED AFTER THE SECOND TEMPLE'S DESTRUCTION)

iii. The assumption that, in any future permanent status arrangement, there will be no Israeli towns and villages in the Gaza Strip. ("NO JEWS" IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT?)

On the other hand, it is clear that in the West Bank, there are areas which will be part of the State of Israel, including cities, towns and villages, security areas and installations, and other places of special interest to Israel. (WHO DEFINES THESE PLACES OF SPECIAL INTEREST?)

iv. The relocation from the Gaza Strip and from Northern Samaria (as delineated on Map) will reduce friction with the Palestinian population, and carries with it the potential for improvement in the Palestinian economy and living conditions. (WHY ARE THE 21 KATIF FARMING COMMUNITIES THE CAUSE OF FRICTION? (WHY ARE FOUR ISOLATED COMMUNITIES IN SAMARIA THE SOURCE OF FRICTION?)

v. The hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to break out of the cycle of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue. (AND IF THEY DO NOT? DIDN'T THIS TEXT SAY FROM THE OUTSET THAT THERE IS NO COOPERATION WITH THE PLO?)

vi. The process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. (WHY? THE RAISON D'ETRE OF THE UNRWA CAMPS IS THAT ISRAEL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REFUGEES FROM 1948 WHO CLAIM LAND IN ISRAEL)

vii. The process of disengagement is without prejudice to the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Relevant arrangements shall continue to apply. (WHAT AGREEMENTS? NONE WERE KEPT BY THE PLO)

When (WHY NOT IF? PROPHECY AGAIN?) there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue. (EVIDENCE? WHEN THE PLO CONTINUES TO RULE?)

2. Main elements

i. Gaza Strip:

1) Israel will evacuate the Gaza Strip, including all existing Israeli towns and villages, and will redeploy outside the Strip. (WHY?) This will not include military deployment in the area of the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt ("the Philadelphi Route") as detailed below.

2) Upon completion of this process, there shall no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or Israeli civilians in the areas of Gaza Strip territory which have been evacuated. (IN OTHER WORDS, NO JEWS FOR THE SAKE OF NO JEWS) 3) As a result, there will be no basis for claiming that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory. (SINCE WHEN DID ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE EXTREME ISRAELI LEFT CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE OCCUPIERS, AND WITH NO STATUS WHATSOVER. THIS ASSUMES THE PLO DEFINITION ...)

ii. West Bank:

1) Israel will evacuate an Area in the Northern Samaria Area (see Map), including 4 villages and all military installations, and will redeploy outside the vacated area. (IN OTHER WORDS, HAND OVER VILLAGES AND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO THE PLO)

2) Upon completion of this process, there shall no longer be any permanent presence of Israeli security forces or Israeli civilians in the Northern Samaria Area. (TO BE REPLACED BY PLO MISSILES?)

3) The move will enable territorial contiguity for Palestinians in the Northern Samaria Area. (JUST GREAT - THEY CAN THEN COORDINATE MILITARY ACTIVITIES EVEN BETTER)

4) Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation. (TO ENABLE THE PLO TO BE MORE MOBILE IN THEIR ABILITY IN THEIR WAR WITH ISRAEL)

5) The process will facilitate Palestinian economic and commercial activity in the West Bank. (NARCOTICS,ARMS, CARS, OTHER STOLEN GOODS)

6) The Security fence: Israel will continue to build the security fence, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the government. The route will take into account humanitarian considerations. (DOES 'HUMANITARIAN' MEAN THAT THE PLO WILL HAVE A VETO?)

3. Security situation following the disengagement

i. The Gaza Strip:

1) Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip. (WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE PLO TERRORISTS?

2) The Gaza Strip shall be demilitarized and shall be devoid of weaponry, the presence of which does not accord with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. (WHO IS GOING TO DISARM THE PLO?)

3) Israel reserves its inherent right of self defense, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Gaza Strip. (HARDLY A LICENSE FOR ISRAEL TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO DEFEAT AN ENEMY AT WAR WITH ISRAEL)

ii. The West Bank:

1) Upon completion of the evacuation of the Northern Samaria Area, no permanent Israeli military presence will remain in this area. (WHILE THE PLO ARMED FORCES WILL REPLACE THEM?)

2) Israel reserves its inherent right of self defense, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Northern Samaria Area. (WITH F-16'S?)

3) In other areas of the West Bank, current security activity will continue. However, as circumstances permit, Israel will consider reducing such activity in Palestinian cities. (WAIT A SECOND. ISRAEL MOVES OUT ITS FORCES AND WILL AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAIN ITS CURRENT SECURITY ACTIVITY? EXCUSE ME. HAVE WE MISSED SOMETHING HERE?)

4) Israel will work to reduce the number of internal checkpoints throughout the West Bank. (WHY? SO AS TO FACILITATE THE MORE EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND KILLERS?)

4. Military Installations and Infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria

In general, these will be dismantled and removed, with the exception of those which Israel decides to leave and transfer to another party. (TO ANOTHER PARTY? LIKE WHO? THE PLO?)

5. Security assistance to the Palestinians

Israel agrees that by coordination with it, advice, assistance and training will be provided to the Palestinian security forces for the implementation of their obligations to combat terrorism and maintain public order, by American, British, Egyptian, Jordanian or other experts, as agreed with Israel. (PREVIOUS SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLO WAS ABUSED TO TRAIN THE PLO TO MURDER JEWS) No foreign security presence may enter the Gaza Strip or the West Bank without being coordinated with and approved by Israel. (WAIT A SECOND!! THE PLO WAS TRAINED TO COMBAT TERROR IN 1993 AND 1994 AND USED THAT CAPABILITY AGAINST ISRAEL. WHY WILL THAT NOT CHANGE?)

6. The border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route)

Initially, Israel will continue to maintain a military presence along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi route). (WHY- "INITIALLY"? IS THE SITUATION EXPECTED TO CHANGE? This presence is an essential security requirement. At certain locations security considerations may require some widening of the area in which the military activity is conducted. (OF COURSE. AND WHO WOULD ALLOW THAT?)

Subsequently, the evacuation of this area will be considered. (SUBSEQUENT TO WHAT? THE PLO BECOMING A LADIES AUXILIARY ASSOCIATION?) Evacuation of the area will be dependent, inter alia, on the security situation and the extent of cooperation with Egypt in establishing a reliable alternative arrangement. (RELIABLE? YOU MUST BE KIDDING?)

If and when conditions permit the evacuation of this area, Israel will be willing to consider the possibility of the establishment of a seaport and airport in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with Israel. (ALLOWING A SEAPORT AND AIRPORT TO AN ENTITY AT WAR WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL? DIDN'T ISRAEL TRY THAT ALREADY?)

7. Israeli towns and villages

Israel will strive to leave the immovable property relating to Israeli towns and villages intact. (AND GIVE THE SOVEREIGN PRIVATE PROPERTY TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION?)

The transfer of Israeli economic activity to Palestinians carries with it the potential for a significant improvement in the Palestinian economy. (ARE YOU KIDDING? THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PLO WOULD TAKE THE PROPERTY FOR THEMSELVES.)

Israel proposes that an international body be established (along the lines of the AHLC), with the agreement of the United States and Israel, which shall take possession from Israel of property which remains, and which will estimate the value of all such assets. (TO CONFISCATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF JEWS!)

Israel reserves the right to request that the economic value of the assets left in the evacuated areas be taken into consideration. (TO REQUEST? ISN'T THAT NICE?WITH NO OBLIGATIONS OF ANYONE TO ADHERE TO THAT REQUEST)

8. Civil Infrastructure and Arrangements

Infrastructure relating to water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications serving the Palestinians will remain in place. (IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO "DISENGAGEMENT". ISRAEL MAINTAINS CONTROL OVER GAZA.) Israel will strive to leave in place the infrastructure relating to water, electricity and sewage currently serving the Israeli towns and villages. In general, Israel will enable the continued supply of electricity, water, gas and petrol to the Palestinians, in accordance with current arrangements. Other existing arrangements, such as those relating to water and the electro-magnetic sphere shall remain in force.

9. Activity of International Organizations

Israel recognizes the great importance of the continued activity of international humanitarian organizations assisting the Palestinian population. (EVEN THOUGH STAFFERS OF THESE INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS ARE DOMINATED BY THE PLO AND HAMAS) Israel will coordinate with these organizations arrangements to facilitate this activity. (HOW NICE)

10. Economic arrangements

In general, the economic arrangements currently in operation between Israel and the Palestinians shall, in the meantime, remain in force. AGAIN, NO "DISENGAGEMENT".

These arrangements include, inter alia:

i. the entry of workers into Israel in accordance with the existing criteria.

ii. the entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Israel and abroad.

iii. the monetary regime.

iv. tax and customs envelope arrangements.

v. postal and telecommunications arrangements.

In the longer term, and in line with Israel's interest in encouraging greater Palestinian economic independence, Israel expects to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel. Israel supports the development of sources of employment in the Gaza Strip and in Palestinian areas of the West Bank.

11. Erez Industrial Zone

The Erez industrial zone, situated in the Gaza Strip, employs some 4,000 Palestinian workers. The continued operation of the zone is primarily a clear Palestinian interest. Israel will consider the continued operation of the zone on the current basis, on two conditions:

i. The existence of appropriate security arrangements. (WHO DEFINES "APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS"?)

ii. The express recognition of the international community that the continued operation of the zone on the current basis shall not be considered continued Israel control of the area.

Alternatively, the industrial zone shall be transferred to the responsibility of an agreed Palestinian or international entity. (OH. ANOTHER TERRORIST ENCLAVE?)

Israel will seek to examine, together with Egypt, the possibility of establishing a joint industrial area in the area between the Gaza Strip, Egypt and Israel. (WHILE EGYPT FACILITATES MORE WEAPONS TUNNELS. ?)

12. International passages

i. The international passage between the Gaza Strip and Egypt

1) The existing arrangements shall continue. (WITH WEAPONS TUNNELS?)

2) Israel is interested in moving the passage to the "three borders" area, approximately two kilometers south of its current location. This would need to be effected in coordination with Egypt. This move would enable the hours of operation of the passage to be extended.

b. The international passages between the West Bank and Jordan:

The existing arrangements shall continue.

13. Erez Crossing Point

The Israeli part of Erez crossing point will be moved to a location within Israel in a time frame to be determined separately.

14. Timetable

The process of evacuation is planned to be completed by the end of 2005. The stages of evacuation and the detailed timetable will be notified to the United States.

15. Conclusion

Israel looks to the international community for widespread support for the disengagement plan. (WHY NOT? THE WORLD LOVES TO SEE ISRAEL RETREAT) AREAS This support is essential in order to bring the Palestinians to implement in practice their obligations to combat terrorism and effect reforms, thus enabling the parties to return to the path of negotiation. (AND IF THEY DO NOT? WHAT SANCTIONS? IS THIS NOT WORSE THAN THE OSLO ACCORDS)

U.S. obligations as part of the disengagement plan

1. On April 14, 2004, the United States, through a presidential letter, made the following commitments:

- Preserving the Government's fundamental principle, according to which no political process with the Palestinians will take place before the dismantling of terror organizations, (WHAT IS A TERROR ORGANIZATION, ACCORDING THE THE US? SINCE THE US ONLY DEFINES HAMAS AND ISLAMIC JIHAD AS TERRORISTS, EVERYONE ELSE WILL NOT BE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS), as requested by the roadmap.

- American commitment that no political pressure will be exerted on Israel to adopt any political plan, other than the roadmap, (THE ROADMAP IS BAD ENOUGH) and that there will be no political negotiations with the Palestinians as long as they do not fulfill their commitments under the roadmap (full cessation of terror, violence and incitement; dismantling terror organizations; leadership change and carrying out comprehensive reforms in the Palestinian Authority (NO MENTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND THE MEDIA - THE PRIME PROMOTERS OF INCITEMENT).

- Unequivocal American recognition of Israel's right to secure and recognized borders, including defensible borders.

- American recognition of Israel's right to defend itself, by itself, anywhere, and preserve its deterrence power against any threat.

- American recognition in Israel's right to defend itself against terror activities and terror organizations wherever they may be, including in areas from which Israel has withdrawn. (BUSH AND POWELL DENY THIS)

- Unequivocal American stand regarding the refugees, according to which there will be no return of refugees to Israel. (THEN WHY IS THE US FINANCING PA SCHOOLS AND UNRWA WHICH ENCOURAGE THE RIGHT OF RETURN?)

- American stand that there will be no return to the 1967 borders, for two primary considerations: major Israeli population centers and the implementation of the term defensible borders. (WHAT DOES "MAJOR"MEAN?)

- American stand, according to which the major Israeli population centers will be part of Israel, in any event. AGAIN, (WHAT IS "MAJOR") All the remaining areas in Judea & Samaria will be open for negotiation. (IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN MAINTAIN A CITY IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA AND NOT THE ROADS)

- The United States sets clear conditions for the establishment of a future Palestinian state and declares that the Palestinian state will not be created as long as the terror organizations have not been dismantled, as long as the leadership has not been replaced and no comprehensive reforms have been completed in the Palestinian Authority.(AND WHO DEFINES TERROR ORGANIZATIONS AND WHO DECIDES WHAT IS A REFORM?)

2. President Bush's letter to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's letter to President Bush constitute part of the overall disengagement plan, and these understandings with the United States will only be valid if the disengagement plan is approved by Israel. The exchange of letters between President Bush and the Prime Minister, as well as the letter by the Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to the U.S. National Security Adviser, are attached to this plan as an integral part of it.

3. According to the roadmap adopted by the Government of Israel, Israel has undertaken a number of commitments regarding the dismantling of unauthorized (UNAUTHORIZED BY WHOM? US AMBASSADOR DAN KURTZER?) outposts, limitations on settlement growth (REQUIRED BIRTH CONTROL?), etc. In the framework of the negotiations with the Americans, all of Israel's past commitments on these issues vis-??-vis the American administration, have been included in the letter by the Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to the U.S. National Security Adviser. (THAT SAME 'CHIEF' WHO UNTIL RECENTLY WAS THE LAWYER FOR THE PLO FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND THE PLO CASINOS)

CONCLUSION: A Program of Ethnic Cleansing and Recklessness

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Arlene Peck, October 25, 2004.

Lord knows how my three children got such rare blood. All three of them have AB Negative. It certainly didn't come from my genes. I should have known then, it wasn't a good match. Nevertheless, since they have the rarest form of blood known to man, the blood drives and Red Cross love them. All of them regularly donate their blood. My daughter, Dana however is one of their 'special one's'. Every three or four weeks, she makes the trip over to the Red Cross building and sits for a couple of hours with needles in her arms while they extract plasma. I don't know how many gallons she's donated but they like her so much they have her picture hung up in the room as a 'big giver."

She likes to go there she tells me because each time she goes, she helps in the saving of someone's life. Also, it makes her feel good. What a kid! What bothers me however, and has for a long time, is the reputation of the Red Cross. In fact, a while ago, I wrote a column about my perceived notions of their biased against the Jews and Israel. I remember being in Prague and visiting the concentration camps. They were horrible beyond belief but, somehow, they were able to deceive the officials of the Red Cross who came to check it out. As a result, when they wrote their report they almost made the place sound like a summer camp and people did not become alarmed until it was too late. It was impossible not to see what was going on there, yet, the Red Cross overlooked it.

It has bothered me for a long time how there has to be a separate organization for Israel, called Mogen David Adom as they refuse to have a symbol of the Jewish Star. Yet, somehow it's OK to let the Arabs use the crescent and the lion as their symbol. There are more reasons, but, you get the idea. I wondered how it got to be an anti-Semitic organization and never could find an answer. That is, until one of our readers was gracious enough to write to me and give some explanation of the background of this organization. He tells me the rest can be found in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Mr. Chernoff writes, "As a young man, scion of a wealthy Swiss Banking family happened to observe the aftermath of a battle in Italy, (Tinorretto I think) wherein wounded and dying were left unattained on the battlefield. So moved by the misery and horror that he returned to Switzerland and became the founder of the Red Cross. Thus reversals of colors of the Swiss flag to the emblem of the Red Cross." The part I found so interesting was that he was a close friend of Theodore Herzl and concurred with Zionist aspirations, sensitive to the plight of the Jews. He was also the co-founder of the YMCA.

So, this humanitarian, who's name was Dunant, spent his years and the family fortune in the pursuit of philanthropic works. Eventually, he lost his money and lived in poverty. His friends sustained him and his financial condition was reinstated by winning the Nobel Prize in 1904. Shortly after, Mr. Dunant died.

What Mr. Chernoff and I both question is how ironic it is that the founding of the Red Cross should now be the International Red Cross which is both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. He was a pro-Zionist, a friend of the Jews, a great humanitarian.

I know that they do good work but, for the same reasons I can't ever buy a Mercedes, I don't feel comfortable singing their praises. It bothers me that they can feel the way they do, as a governing body, yet covet my daughters blood. I wonder how much of other Jewish blood has been lost by their previous regulations and reports. I wonder, am I wrong when I tell her, "Why don't you go over to Cedars Siani Hospital. They're Jewish."

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Michael Freund, October 25, 2004.
This appeared in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com).

Saudi Arabia passed new regulations on citizenship this week that will benefit hundreds of thousands of foreigners living in the desert kingdom, with one exception: the "Palestinians."

Saudi Arabia's Council of Ministers passed a series of new regulations on citizenship this week that will likely benefit hundreds of thousands of foreigners living in the desert kingdom, with one glaring exception: the "Palestinians."

The new guidelines, which serve to amend Saudi Arabia's previous law on naturalization, entitle expatriates of all nationalities who have resided in the kingdom for ten years to apply for citizenship, with priority being given to holders of degrees in various scientific fields.

The rules are likely to help as many as one million foreigners living in Saudi Arabia obtain citizenship, said Nasser ibn Hamad al-Hanaya, undersecretary for civil status in the Saudi Interior Ministry. Another Saudi official, Shubaily ibn Majdoue Al-Qarni, who served as chairman of the security committee which supervised the amendment of the law, said that all foreign nationals working in the country would now be eligible to obtain Saudi citizenship.

But citing a report in the Al-Watan newspaper, the English-language Saudi daily Arab News notes that one group will in fact be excluded by the new regulations: the estimated 500,000 Arabs from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza living in the kingdom.

This select sector of Arabs will not be allowed to benefit from the new law, says the paper, because of Arab League instructions barring the Arab states from granting them citizenship in order "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland."

The amended law is slated to go into effect in four months.

Michael Freund is International Affairs Correspondent.

To Go To Top
Posted by David Wilder, October 25, 2004.


Next week Hebron will celebrate Shabbat Chaye Sarah - when we read in the Torah about Abraham's purchase of Ma'arat HaMachpela, some three thousand seven hundred years ago. Tens of thousands of Jews from around the world will arrive in Hebron for this festive event.

However, Hebron is not the only Yesha city to rejoice. This past weekend my family visited, with thousands of others, the Elon Moreh community in the Shomron. This past Shabbat we read in the Torah how Abraham, when he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, stopped first in Elon Moreh, before continuing south to Beit El, and later, Hebron.

Elon Moreh, situated just south of the holy city of Shechem, has a rich biblical history. But its legacy does not end in the Bible. Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza were liberated during the June, 1967 Six-Day War. A few months later the Israeli government officially okayed the renewal of a Jewish community in Gush Etzion, about 15 kilometers south of Jerusalem. Gush Etzion had fallen to the Jordanians on May 14, 1948, the day the State of Israel was declared.

In the spring of 1968 a group of families arrived at hotel in Hebron to celebrate the Passover holiday. That, in turn, led to the founding of Kiryat Arba in the fall of 1971. One of the early settlers was a young man named Benny Katzover. He studied at the new Kiryat Arba yeshiva, and took an active role rebuilding the land.

This past Shabbat I heard Benny Katzover, now a resident of Elon Moreh, speak about those formative years. He stressed that following the establishment of Kiryat Arba, he waited for others to take the initiative, to begin resettling and rebuilding Samaria, the Shomron. Years went by and nothing happened.

During the winter of 1974, under the spiritual leadership of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, a group of people, including Rabbi Moshe Levinger, Rabbi Haim Druckman, Hanan Porat, Katzover, and others, founded Gush Emunim (the Block of the Faithful). One of their first challenges was resettlement of the Shomron. Benny Katzover, seeing that no one had taken up the gauntlet, began to work. Plans were made, people were drafted, and then, it was time to move. It took eight attempts over a period of months, until finally, in the winter of 1975, over 2,000 Jews arrived at Sabastia, in the Shomron, and broke the government's resistance to a Jewish presence in the heartland of Israel.

Benny Katzover later became mayor of the Shomron region, and for many years was a leader in initiating, building and developing the Shomron.

One of Benny's children, Menora married Ariel Hazani, son of another Yesha pioneer, the late Yehuda Hazani. Hazani, a Torah scholar and student of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, was one of those rare individuals who knew how to implement spiritual ideas in a worldly manner. He was known for his legendary organizational ability, bringing thousands and thousands of people to rallies, demonstrations, and other such events.

Hazani, a true lover of Eretz Yisrael, was not bound by the borders of cities and neighborhoods, loved to travel the country and was an avid mountain climber. Unfortunately, during one these trips, Yehuda Hazani, while overlooking Eretz Yisrael from the peaks, slipped, fell and was killed. His death was a great loss, not only to his family and friends, but also to the continued movement to rebuild Eretz Yisrael.

This past Shabbat at Elon Moreh, I was one of the lucky ones who was able to experience a really special event. This past Shabbat we read in the weekly Torah portion how G-d commanded Abraham to walk, to leave his home, his country, and his family, 'to the land which I will show you.' This land is, of course, Eretz Yisrael. As I mentioned, Abraham's first stop in the Land was Elon Moreh, today a beautiful, thriving community with hundreds of families. We also read about G-d's commandment to Abraham to circumcise himself, an eternal covenant between himself, his offspring and the Almighty.

A week ago Saturday, Benny Katzover's daughter, Menorah Hazani, gave birth to their first son. So the brit milah, the baby's circumcision, was to be performed eight days later, in other words, this past Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat morning prayers, after reading in the Torah about Elon Moreh, after hearing of Abraham's willingness to perform G-d's commandment to circumcise himself when he was ninety-nine years old, Ariel and Menora Hazani's son was brought into the covenant of Avraham Avinu there, at Elon Moreh, and was named for his illustrious grandfather, Yehuda Hazani. It was quite an emotional event.

And I must not neglect to mention that Ariel and Menora live, not in Elon Moreh, but at the community of Homesh, in the northern Shomron, one of the four Shomron communities Sharon has threatened to destroy, together with Gush Katif.

People such as Benny Katzover, Yehuda Hazani, and many others, a number of whom participated in the special Elon Moreh Shabbat, were the initiators, founders, the builders. They laid the cornerstone for future generations and paved the path, thereby allowing their offspring to follow in their footsteps. However, as every parent knows, the future is always a question mark. A parent can lay out the roadmap, but whether or not the children will follow the marked route is up them, it's their choice. Ariel and Menora Hazani are perfect examples of traveling a straight line, following the map in the right direction. From Hebron and Kiryat Arba, to Sebastia and Elon Moreh, following in the footsteps of their father's and their father's fathers - all the way back to our Forefathers.

When visitors ask me to explain our faith, to explain our optimism, I can readily point to young couples like the Hazanis, who are carrying the torch, sparks of light amongst many shadows. Such sparks are so important and necessary, especially today, with all that is happening.

This is the trail followed by Abraham, still traveled by his offspring, almost four thousand years later. From Elon Moreh to Hebron, from Hebron to Elon Moreh - this is the heritage of our people; this is the eternity of our Land; this is the legacy of Elon Moreh.

With blessings from Hebron.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 25, 2004.


PM Sharon and his supporters have come up with one false "reason" for the plan after another. By now it is obvious that the only reason for the plan must be too shameful to admit. Someone is pulling Sharon's strings. Ask yourself who that may be.

Although there is no logic to the plan, just unrefuted criticism of it, some polls claim popular support for it. Either the polls or the people are being manipulated.


After WWII, Western antisemites found the atmosphere too frosty, so they went into hibernation. A generation later, they have emerged from their dens, encouraged by the moral meltdown. They are hungry for prey, and the Arabs provide them with excuses for damning Israel and its Jews.

Some people pretend that the moral frost still protects the Jews. For example, they assert resentfully that anyone may berate their ethnic group, unlike the Jews, whom one may not berate without being slapped down. The truth is, political correctness makes it difficult to berate any ethnic group, regardless of cause, except the Jews! Thus it is that antisemites complain that one may not raise legitimate criticism of Israel without being accused of antisemitism. Those antisemites are not frank about their phobia.

Jews are both picked on and said to be immune to being picked on. They get it coming and going.

Is criticism of an ethnic group ever reasonable? Yes. Ethnic societies have risen and fallen. All nationals have the potential for greatness. At times, a group's culture is evil, like the Arabs and WWII Germans, in general.

Is it fair to generalize like that? A popular belief is that one may not generalize. But of course one may generalize! Generalization is a basis for logic, science, and progress. What I stated about the Germans was not true of every last individual, but it was true, in general, by the time the Nazis had purged the democrats in their country. About the Arabs, whose society is more collective, the generalization holds firmer.


How we human beings take things for granted! Politicians cocoon themselves in circles of advisors and favorite media, too satisfied with their positions. Considering themselves possessors of Truth, they seek only to put their policies over and be placed in perpetual power.

Israeli leaders are particularly pig-headed about what they think they know. As they stumble into foreseeable blunders, former generals, such as Rabin and Sharon, blurt out, "Nobody can teach me anything about security!" The ex-generals imagine themselves experts on all aspects of the Arab-Israel conflict, and that there is no wisdom outside their coterie of fools.

The stubbornness extends among these leaders to the post-failure period. Thousands of their countrymen become victims of their failure, but they hold on to their wrongful policies. They know no humility, when they should be guilt-ridden. Their people vote them out of office, but they stand recalcitrant. It isn't too late for them to learn, but all they want to do is return to office and repeat their mistakes. People's lives, national security, public resources, and the Jewish patrimony mean nothing to these politicians. They don't realize or don't care that their ignorance and arrogance are harmful. Their lack of values is bringing down the nation, and they want to bring down the Judaism that offers values that could save them.


Sec. of State Powell advised the Arab world to end the P.A. war on Israel, because it was not working. He pointed out that it has not defeated Israel nor moved forward P.A. statehood.

The implication is the same one that the Arab enemies of Israel make. They imply that if the Arabs had achieved some goals from it, then their murdering and wounding of thousands of innocent Jews would have been justified.

An American Sec. of State should have condemned both the terrorist methods of the P.A. war and the Arab launching of the war after having agreed to a peaceful process of resolving conflict. Shame on Powell! (NY Sun, 10/18, letter). Let the US stand for decency, not expediency.

The letter writer is right, but Sec. Powell would offer the patronizing excuse that he was talking in terms the Arabs would understand. That would mean they don't understand decency. Why not press them to be decent? More Arabs are amenable to criticism, these days.


You may recall that Arab terrorists murdered three US aid workers in Gaza last year. The P.A. immediately and periodically asserts that it knows who committed the murders. However, the P.A. neither prosecutes them nor investigates further. The State Dept. complains that the P.A. lacks the will to pursue justice (IMRA, 10/16).

Does the State Dept. think that the P.A. involves itself in the pursuit of justice? It was Arafat, head of the P.A., who ordered the murder of two US diplomats, years ago. The P.A. exists for terrorism and graft. Hence it obstructs justice. Why not? The State Dept. falsely advises the President to certify that the P.A. is in conformity with Oslo, and he keeps sending it US funds. OSLO: IDEOLOGICAL OR CULTISH?

If the land-for-peace movement, embodied in Oslo, were just a failed ideology, it would have been halted before the disastrous results spread. It wasn't.

If Oslo were meant to be an instrument of peace, it would have been tried out in stages. When a stage failed, the experiment would be ended. Stages failed, but Oslo continued. A stage would be considered successful if the PLO/P.A. met its commitments under that stage, and cooperated fully. That would be peacemaking.

If designed rationally, the planners would have left Arafat the terrorist leader in Tunis, turned over a small area, and required that the police be unarmed. If the P.A. police needed help taming Hamas, they would have been able to call on Israeli police.

A further stage would not be started, if the Arabs did not acknowledge repeatedly to its own people, Israel's right to exist. P.A. textbooks would have to promote co-existence. They don't.

The next stage would not be started until the Hamas and Fatah terrorists were extradited to Israel, and the Arab towns in the territories were tranquil. No further territory would be turned over if Arabs threw rocks at Israeli cars and did not preach non-violence. The P.A. preaches violence non-stop. First the Arabs threw rocks, now they shoot guns.

If the Arabs attacked Jewish communities in Yesha, a mature Left would conclude that the Arabs do not intend peace and Israel would retake control over autonomous areas. Although the Arabs preach conquest and make war, the Left does not reevaluate its (neurotic) assumptions.

Part of the problem is the political culture in Israel. Israeli politicians don't seem to have the educated person's understanding that one doesn't know everything, that propositions require testing, and that they should weigh what critics have to say. (PM Sharon's reply to expert criticism was, "Shut up." I do not bow down to experts, but I would have to be able to rebut them, before dismissing their criticism.)

Oso was not undertaken rationally. Being fanatical about land-for-peace, Peres and his clique trusted the (demonstrably untrustworthy) Arabs absolutely. They promised but imposed no tests. They plunged right into a baptism of fire. That is the way of a religious cult.

Arafat was given full respect. His thousands of thugs were imported at once (and imposed upon the local Arabs). Israel gave them rifles. Israel made concessions despite Arab lack of compliance. The Arabs have not complied with any major requirement of Oslo. Instead, the Arabs still demand full Israeli withdrawal in return for the same promises made in return for earlier concession, promises unfulfilled for 12 years, now. Persevering in his cultish faith, Peres now asserts that the Arabs need not comply. If it is irrelevant to the Left whether Oslo is working, then the Left is advocating Oslo as if it were sacred dogma.

Oslo has taken a heavy toll on Israeli society. The: (1) Left is filled with anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred; (2) Left is trying to hamstring the Army; (3) Number of widows, orphans, and cripples is growing; (4) Israelis often are afraid to leave their houses or go to certain parts of their own country; (5) P.A. is a giant terrorist base, arms manufacturing center, and launcher of rockets; (6) EU denounces Israelis as war criminals and endorses Arab genocide against them; and (7) Peres is likely to regain power (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/16, e-mail).

Case proved, but there is more to it. Other influences are Israeli leaders eager to please the gentiles, and submit to blackmail and bribery. Israelis are poor at long-range planning. Once the leaders committed themselves, they were reluctant to acknowledge failure, even though it was the Arabs' fault. The people were war weary and not well informed by the leftist-biased 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 ricshulman@aol.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 25, 2004.

What a strange and demented "security establishment" we have. In the midst of planning and preparing for the extermination of Jewish life in Gaza they are worried that if something goes wrong later with the Arabs they might just punish the wrong Arab. "If that happens {attacks against Israel}," an Israeli security official asks, "what can Israel do? Who is there to punish?" This is from the DEBKAfile (http://www2.debka.com/article.php?aid=923)

The bill grading compensation rates for evacuated Jewish settlers scraped past its first hurdle at the cabinet meeting Sunday, October 24, by a vote of 13 ministers to 6. That was the prologue to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. But at least five of the ayes were halfhearted, cast by ministers fearful of burning their bridges into government by throwing in their lot with the Likud anti-evacuation rebels.

The split in Likud is deepening as the pro-Sharon and anti-evacuation camps pull hard against each other in the 48 hours running up to the Knesset vote Tuesday, October 26, on the main body of the plan to remove 8,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip and eliminate four West Bank settlements. The prime minister is counting on 65-66 supporters in the 120-member house. A large portion will come from the left-of-center opposition that will plug the hole left by the 17+ rebels of his 40-member Likud and their right-of-center supporters.

But even if a Knesset majority favors disengagement, the Likud rebels will fight on. They are preparing steps to topple the Sharon government complete with his disengagement scheme by defeating the 2005 national budget when it comes before parliament in the next week or two.

The danger is real. Before the rebellion, the Sharon government rested on a parliamentary minority of 58, which the rebels threaten to shrink. The opposition Labor and Yahad are committed to supporting disengagement. But their safety net is not large enough to spread out under the budget. The 21-member Labor is divided on many of its clauses while Yahad (6) is flat opposed.

On the right side of the spectrum, the call by the spiritual leader of ultra-religious Shas, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, to oppose disengagement as a danger to national security, is eroding support even outside the 11-member Shas party.

After Sunday's cabinet vote, pro-settlement social welfare minister Zvulun Orlev of the National Religious Party buttonholed three likeminded Likud cabinet members - finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu, education minister Limor Livnat and foreign minister Silvan Shalom. He urged them to climb down off the fence and accept his formula which he said gave the government a chance to last full term until 2006. Their would promise their votes for the disengagement motion (minus the removal of settlements, which will be put to the vote separately) at the crucial Tuesday show of hands, in return for the prime minister's pledge of an immediate national referendum on the entire disengagement-evacuation package.

Orlev may hope the Likud trio will put his suggestion before Sharon as an ultimatum on the lines of: if you don't accept a referendum we'll cast our votes against disengagement and wipe out your majority.

Even if the Sharon government weathers the disengagement storm, it will continue to skate on extremely thin ice. The irreparably fissured Likud poses an invitation to opposition parties to wait at every corner for a chance to bring the ruling administration down.

Sharon is further vexed by the circumstances under which he first came up with his plan to throw the Gaza Strip overboard sliding out from under him - mostly as a result of Yasser Arafat's machinations. If Arafat is able to exploit his health crisis and escape his three-year confinement in Ramallah to a supportive overseas haven, he will bequeath Israel a territory in shambles and a dysfunctional Palestinian Authority and security mechanism. The Palestinian leader has gone to great pains to transform the Gaza Strip into a furious hotbed for terrorists and warring gang leaders.

Two unpublicized developments demonstrate the hopeless situation in the territory:

1. Communications have broken down completely among the chiefs of Palestinian security and intelligence services, Hamas, Jihad Islami and the Popular Resistance Committees. They are all in hiding in well protected havens or working underground - in fear of one another. Amin al Hindi, head of Palestinian General Intelligence, for instance, sleeps, eats and lives in his closely guarded office at intelligence headquarters for fear of assassins. Mussa Arafat, commander of Palestinian armed forces in the Gaza Strip and chief of military intelligence, never moves across the shortest distances without a 20-vehicle convoy and 100 armed bodyguards, who clear the streets of cars and pedestrians ahead of his passage.

According to DEBKAfile's intelligence sources, the Strip's heads of services and gangland chiefs are preparing for all-out war against their rivals. A wholesale war of reciprocal liquidations is around the corner and could rage for months. Israel and its army would find themselves in an impossible situation. All the groups and gangs are deeply involved in the machinery of terror against Israel and will resort to attacks, including Qassam missile barrages, to score points in their feuds.

"If that happens," an Israeli security official asks, "what can Israel do? Who is there to punish?" The preferred arena for this brand of warfare is densely populated urban areas. This battleground was forced on Israeli forces when they fought terrorists in the Zeitun district of Gaza last May, in the subsequent Rafah operation to seal smuggling tunnels and, more recently, in the 16-day offensive in Jebalya, Beit Lahiya and Beit Hanoun, to eradicate the Qassam missile launchers besetting Israeli towns. The terrorists lurked behind women and children. Much of the death and destruction suffered by the Palestinian population during these incursions was caused by the booby traps and mines which the terrorists packed closely in and around civilian homes and street corners. Yet the international outcry for the damage was directed against Israel - as it will be in the future, whether or not Israeli settlers and forces pull out.

2. In the last few weeks, Arafat's headquarters has been a hive of activity to duplicate the mayhem of the Gaza Strip in West Bank towns. The disintegration of governance, law and order, and military and intelligence frameworks, well advanced in Gaza has begun in West Bank too. DEBKAfile's Palestinian sources report that Arafat's objective is to create a roiling, formless mass in place of organized authority, so that not only Israel, but the United States, Arab governments - primarily Egypt, and the Europeans have no one to engage on the Palestinian side in any diplomatic process.

The calculated breakdown of the Palestinian administration begat diplomatic impasse in two incidents in as many weeks.

Israeli and Palestinian security officers came together informally last week at a secret overseas venue. Under the American aegis, they were supposed to explore ways of synchronizing the various stages of Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip, including the orderly handover of Jewish residential locations and public utilities after the settlers' evacuation. The Israelis presented an organized time table for the pullout; the Palestinian side had nothing coherent to contribute to make their side of the process go smoothly because, they admitted, no organized steps were possible in the current state of anarchy governing the Gaza Strip.

The meeting broke up without results.

While that rendezvous did at least take place, a second more high-profile encounter was called off altogether. Our sources reveal that a mini-conference organized by British premier Tony Blair was scheduled to open in London on the same day as Tuesday's Knesset debate on disengagement. Israel and Palestinian Authority representatives were due to have gone to work on the security arrangements for putting in place in the Gaza Strip after Israel's withdrawal. Late last week, the event was cancelled. British intelligence agents who had spent months in the territory informed 10 Downing Street there was no point; the Gazan Palestinians were incapable of putting together a proper delegation. Egypt, which has meanwhile backed out of any role in disengagement, also advised London to cancel. Officially, the conference was postponed until after the US presidential election on November 2 for better results.

Yasser Arafat, who initiated the lawlessness and abuse of Palestinian security and intelligence in the service of terrorism against Israel, is the only one with enough authority to put a stop to the distortions and the violence. Even he will not find it easy to put the genie back in the bottle at this late date. However successfully Sharon pushes his plans past the formidable opposition at home, he will come up hard against this reality when the time comes to pull out of the Gaza Strip. Under international law, Israel may not disengage unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. Its responsibilities as occupying power remain in force for as long as there is no legitimate recipient willing to take over. By making sure that no one will touch the unruly territory with a barge pole, Arafat has cut Sharon's disengagement plan adrift. Whoever attempts to bring it to life will discover that the withdrawal of every last settler and military post is no panacea for Israel's security woes at the hands of Palestinian terrorism. Israel will find it has no choice but to send the army back into the Gaza Strip again to hold in the violence and anarchy and prevent it from spilling across the border.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 25, 2004.
1. The Beilinization of the Likud is now complete. Yesterday the Likud government cabinet ministers voted in favor of the Mitzna capitulation plan for Gaza, in which Gaza will be turned over to the Islamofascist terrorists and its entire Jewish population expelled. The vote was 13 to 6. Netanyahu and his people voted in FAVOR of the plan. There will be no national referendum.

The Likud showed its contempt for its own voters, who rejected the same plan last spring by 60% to 40%. Those expecting Netanyahu to be "rewarded" by Sharon, who promised to support Netanyahu's structural reforms of the economy as quid pro quo for Netanyahu endorsing Sharon's "plan", should not hold their breath. The plan will evict the entire Jewish population of the Gaza Strip. There will be no offsetting movement of Arabs. The plan does not, for example, specify that the entire population of Jenin will be moved to the Gaza Strip as part of the lowering of confrontation and tension in the Middle East. 2. There have been moves in recent years for victims of PLO atrocities to try to sue the Palestinian Authority in Israeli courts and place liens on PLO funds. But the PLO now has a new White Knight who is protecting it from all such moves to place attachments and liens against its wampum. The White Knight is the leftist Attorney General of Israel appointed by Sharon but a longtime associate of Beilin, Manny Mazuz (Haaretz Oct 25).

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 24, 2004.

Israel is sliding into a democratic dictatorship as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon orchestrates the Knesset (Israel's Parliament) vote on his "Disengagement Plan" scheduled for Tuesday, October 26th.

Sharon has threatened anyone from his Likud Party with being fired if they disagree and vote against him. I guess they are lucky Sharon isn't following the typical methods of removing legislators, followed by their Middle East neighbors.

Sharon's plan is to have the "Disengagement" document accepted without review and with no questions asked.

Sharon's key trick will take a first vote out of three readings as a mandate to do pretty much as he pleases to the settlers. Sharon wants to give new life to centuries of "Wandering Jews". His threats and plans to attack the settlers are similar to those used against attacking Arab Muslim Terrorists. Using a vote in the Knesset in concert with the Left, he will declare he has a mandate to use the most cruel methods to make Gaza/Gush Katif Judenrein.

But, to achieve this he must first force through a first vote with no substantive review or questions.

The "Plan of Disengagement" seems to be almost the same plan Ehud Barak prepared for the negotiations with Arafat at Taba with the assistance of the pro-Arab State Department. With some modifications it is loaded with technicalities, making it extremely difficult to read and understand by the average Knesset member. (Deliberately so.)

Normally such a document would go to a Committee of Experts in Law, Defense, Intelligence, etc. so they could analyze the risks vs. the benefits. Then, they would present their questions to the government for answers or rebuttal. Something like the Americans' 9/11 Commission - only before the event.

This is definitely NOT what Sharon wants.

Sharon does NOT want open discussions about the arming and training of Arab Muslim Palestinians.

Sharon does NOT want to answer why the World Bank is to be given the territories and built-up property assets of the Jews - to be parceled out to Palestinian Chieftains (aka Muslim Terrorist Leaders).

Sharon definitely does NOT want the question of Egypt's involvement and the invitation to first insert Egyptian Intelligence agents on the Israel's southern border - to be followed by a deployment of Egyptian forces, including armor, in the supposedly demilitarized Sinai.

Sharon does NOT want discussion about Gaza becoming a superior launching base for rockets and long-range missiles which will easily reach Israel's heartland including the cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beersheva, Beit Shemesh, Tel Aviv and even Jerusalem.

Sharon does NOT want to raise the question of UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Authority) being given some jurisdiction, lest the matter of 'the lost cash' which has been filtered through UNRWA to various Muslim Arab Terror organizations (as in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program). If you thought that the U.N. embezzlement in the Oil-for-Food scandal involved a lot of money, the UNRWA scandal will make those stolen Billions of dollars look like peanuts.

Sharon does NOT want the Weisglass-Arafat connection to be questioned. It has been revealed that Dov Weisglass (Sharon's chief of staff) is Arafat's 'consultant' and that Weisglass has a deal to build a Casino in Gaza. This could blow up to scandal proportions much like the Greek Island affair.

Sharon does NOT want open discussion on the specifics of his "Retreat Plan" to force the settlers to leave and, therefore, the specifics are not specified in the lengthy, almost unreadable document he has given over to the Knesset to vote on.

Sharon is counting on the Knesset members to throw up their hands in confusion, afraid to admit they can't read it and don't understand it. (This aspiring Emperor really has no new clothes!) Sharon hopes they will simply vote for a "Plan" they cannot read or understand. Sharon and Peres know the Knesset very well and calculated the members lack of ability to read and comprehend lengthy documents, infused with language so technical that only (some) lawyers and other specialists could possibly understand.

Solution: Press for a three month (at least) delay, during which a Committee of unbiased experts in International Law, Military Intelligence, Secret Service Intelligence, Real Estate evaluators and Water experts can read and question the government.

Also question the World Bank about their plan to implement the disposal and distribution of Jewish properties, namely, homes, farms, factories, businesses, schools, synagogues, cemeteries, electrical grids, water and new drilling rights to already depleted aquifers, etc.

What is the role of such foreign entities as NATO, (North American Treaty Organization), the E.U. (European Union) and the U.N. (United Nations) in terms of sending in so-called "Peace-Keeping Forces" and denying Israel the right of hot pursuit when missiles are fired at Israeli cities?

What will have become of Israel's sovereignty and security when she is further cut to pieces?

These are only some of the questions Sharon and the U.S. State Department do NOT want discussed in the Knesset or the Media or in any open forum.

Recall that Rabin, Peres and Beilin did the very same thing to create Oslo. There were no experts brought into their secret discussions with Yassir Arafat, lest the Israeli public learn the true details of a similar "Disengagement Plan".

When Yossi Beilin was asked the question at a symposium held at Bar Ilan University: Why did he, Rabin and/or Peres NOT inform the Israeli people about the Oslo negotiations with Arafat, he answered honestly: "They would have stopped us."

Therefore, now the Israeli public from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Golan Heights to Eilat, regardless of political affiliation, have the right and the time to hear the entire "Plan" and its predictable ramifications. Tuesday's vote should demand a postponement of the vote, subject to the review by such a Committee of Experts and only then should such a life-and-death vote take place.

Finally, such a Committee of Experts must investigate the involvement of the European Nations of France, England, Switzerland, among others, who assisted and funded the Beilin Geneva Plan as their involvement in Sharon's "Disengagement Plan" to ethnically cleanse Israel's ancient homeland of Jews.

While the other questions of Security, Sovereignty, Intelligence, Missiles are vitally important, the question of European and State Department involvement in re-partitioning Israel must expose the bedrock of Sharon's withdrawal/retreat as a prerequisite for another Arab Muslim Palestinian State.

Please forward (in Hebrew) to the Knesset - particularly those most influential such as Uzi Landau, Ruby Rivlin and all others of the Knesset.

Rabbi Avraham Shapira calls on soldiers to refuse orders In a surprise move today former Chief Rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of Mercaz HaRav, Avraham Shapira issued a halachic rulung that forbids soldiers from participating in the dismantling of settlements and even assisting those who will do so in any way. He called on soldiers and police to tell their officers now that if such an order is given they will not carry it out and that soldiers are even required to sit in jail if necessary. He equated the dismantling of settlements with Sabbath desecration or eating non kosher food which of course no religious soldier would agree to do. This ruling caused quite an uproar and is especially important as Shapira is considered a mainstream Rabbi and a Halachic Authority for the National Religious community. His opinion carries much weight and hopefully several "smaller" rabbis will follow suit and issue concurring rulings.

Israeli Major General Aharon Ze'ev Farkash, chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, estimates that Hezbollah has 13,000 rockets in its arsenal. Israel's unilateral retreat from southern Lebanon has left Hezbollah free to produce and stockpile rockets.

What stands between Hamas and the 'Fajr' rockets is the Israeli presence in Gaza. Right now, the Israeli navy can intercept boats trying to smuggle weapons to the ports of Gaza. The Israeli Army can uncover weapons-smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. Israeli intelligence can pinpoint rocket-producing factories, and Israeli troops can shut them down.

If Israel leaves Gaza, its intelligence-gathering capabilities in the area will be severely reduced. Its troops will not be free to chase and destroy terrorists and their arsenals. The Palestinian Arabs will be able to import Fajr V rockets, or to develop their own deadlier and longer-range rockets to fire at Israeli cities. In short, withdrawing from Gaza is not only bad for the Jews of Gaza, but is equally dangerous for the rest of the Jews in Israel.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 24, 2004.
This essay was written by Jonathan Pollard from FCI Butner, Butner, NC, USA. Next month, on November 21, 2004, Jonathan Pollard will enter his 20th year of a life sentence for his activities on behalf of Israel. This article is distributed by Justice4JP and appeared in Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA, http://www.imra.org.il).


Nadia Matar, leader of Women for Israel's Tomorrow, is being persecuted by the Government of Israel for being a good Jew.

Nadia did not foment a rebellion. She did not incite the People of Israel to revolt. Neither did she call for insurrection or political subversion. She did not commit any crime. All that Nadia Matar did was to call upon a fellow Jew to do tshuva, to give up his involvement in an immoral enterprise and return to the appropriate path for a G-d fearing Jew.

Nadia did so in the finest tradition of our holy Prophets. Our Prophets' powerful messages exhorting errant Kings to desist from "doing evil in the eyes of G-d" and to return to the correct path is an important part of our history, and an integral part of our national consciousness. Calling upon a public figure to do tshuva was not a crime then and it is not a crime now.

Nadia and I wrote separate but like-minded open letters to Yonatan Bassi, head of the Disengagement Authority. We both called upon Bassi to give up his immoral position as head of the Authority and implored him not to become the chief liquidator of Jewish homes and communities in Israel. It is ironic: Nadia is now being interrogated, threatened with indictment, and intimidated by the possibility of unlimited administrative detention for writing her letter to Bassi. I, on the other hand, sitting here in an American prison, have suffered no repercussions. My right to freedom of speech is guaranteed. Nadia's is not.

My wife and I make many sacrifices in order to make my voice heard outside of prison walls. We endure the hardship because Esther and I are determined never to give up the one freedom I do have. Even as a prisoner in America, I have the right to freedom of speech. As long as I refrain from discussing classified information, I am free to express my thoughts, opinions and ideas. Nadia and our fellow countrymen on the right side of the political spectrum, are not.


What is it that the government and security establishment see in Nadia Matar which makes them fear her so? Why are the authorities so determined to silence her? It is not because of anything she has done. It is because of what she represents.

Nadia is the head of one of the most effective citizens' advocacy groups in Israel. She is among a handful of natural leaders today, who have the will, the talent, and the strength of character to galvanize popular protest against undemocratic actions by the current Government of Israel.

Nadia represents everything a repressive regime fears in its citizenry. Her idealism and her enthusiasm are infectious and her determination is unyielding. She is a G-d fearing woman and a fierce nationalist, not easily threatened or intimidated. She is a thinker and resists following blindly. What is more, she is a powerful model and source of inspiration for others. In short, she is everything a dictatorial regime cannot tolerate if it is to retain complete and unquestioning control over its citizens.

Desperate to curtail Nadia's activities as a leader of one the most effective protest movements in the country, the Government seized upon her letter to Bassi as an excuse to take action against her. She was quickly hauled in for police interrogation and grilled for hours on end.

Eager to charge her with a crime - any crime - the authorities zeroed in on one part of her letter to Bassi. Nadia referenced a letter that Bassi had sent to citizens of Gaza urging them to cooperate with their own expulsion, and she compared it to a similar letter by the Judenrat during W.W. II urging Jews to cooperate and go quietly to the trains (which would take them to the death camps). Nadia wrote that Bassi's letter was worse than the Judenrat's since the Judenrat had no choice, whereas Bassi had accepted the immoral task of expelling Jews from their homes of his own free will.

The Israeli authorities decided that there must be a way to criminalize the insult of comparing Bassi's letter to the Judenrat's. Searching the law books, they came up with a law - totally unrelated and absolutely relevant - under which to prosecute Nadia.

The law they invoked - insulting a public official in the course of his official duties - was designed to protect policemen, firemen and other public servants from being abused in the course of their work. For example, this law protects a traffic policeman from being verbally abused by a person who has just received a traffic ticket. In their zeal to incriminate Nadia, the Government reinterpreted the law, stretching its application far beyond its intended purpose.

Why? Because even if they cannot make a case against Nadia, the public furor that they have created over this incident will make it easy to take other actions to silence her. For example, administrative detention is a far greater threat hanging over Nadia's head than any judicial proceeding that the Government may take against her.


It is more than possible that the Government plans to use its twisted interpretation of the "insult to public officials law" in a way reminiscent of America's infamous Internal Security Act of 1950. That law not only limited citizens' freedom of speech and freedom of association, but also permitted the President to lock up potential subversives indefinitely in concentration camps during times of perceived national emergency. Fortunately, there was a public outcry and this law was never implemented in the US.

However, the immoral use of administrative detention, without formal indictment and with no possibility of judicial review, still exists in Israel and it is routinely utilized. If the Government does indict Nadia, it can still lock her up in administrative detention before she is brought to trial. In other words, she can be placed in administrative detention indefinitely pending a trial - a trial which may be deliberately delayed for months, weeks, or even years.

Even worse, if the Government refrains from indicting Nadia, it can still lock her up in administrative detention indefinitely, without judicial review.

Any attempt by the Government to place Nadia in administrative detention must be met with unlimited and overwhelming public protest. If the Government of Israel is permitted to lock up Nadia Matar before, during or after trial, on trumped up charges of insulting a public official, the country is headed for the kind of judicial authoritarianism that Senator McCarthy attempted to unleash in the US. This poses an immeasurable threat to all of Israel, including the cancellation of freedom of speech and the abrogation of Israeli civil rights.


According to the law, freedom of speech ends where its exercise threatens the public good. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a crime. But this is only true if there is no fire!

If there is a fire, it is unforgivable not to cry out.

For those of us, like Nadia, who cherish Israel and seek to protect and defend the Land, it is glaringly obvious that the House of Israel is on fire. The flames are threatening to engulf us all! Now, more than ever, Jewish lives are at risk, and Jewish homes and communities are in mortal danger. Every day the enemy grows bolder and bolder in its attacks upon a beleaguered civilian population. The Government not only allows the flames to rage out of control but is also feeding the fire by offering up chunks of our homeland to our sworn enemies.

By orchestrating a very public campaign of intimidation against Nadia Matar - who dared to cry "Fire!" - the Government is attempting to silence all dissention. It is using a pinpoint precision attack on Nadia to intimidate the entire nationalist camp. As it demonstrates its willingness and its ability to crush this popular leader, the Government is sending a strong message to all. It apparently believes that in this way it will succeed in breaking the back of the citizens' protest movements which bitterly oppose the Government's plan to uproot Jewish homes and communities in Gaza and Samaria and turn the land over to our enemies.


The Government is mistaken in its aims and in its calculations. All that it has accomplished is to destroy its own legitimacy and its right to govern. In democratic states, a government derives its power from the consent of the people. A government cannot replace consent with coercion and still be considered a democracy.

Nadia Matar represents the voice of legitimate dissent in Israel. If she is silenced through intimidation and harassment, any pretense that the State of Israel is a democracy is unequivocally dispelled. Every distinction between Israel and her non-democratic neighbors in the region is effectively blurred.

Moreover by relentlessly persecuting those who exercise free speech to express legitimate dissent, the Government is deliberately creating an atmosphere of fear and repression - the kind of atmosphere that invites rebellion. Thus, by taking Draconian action against selected individuals, such as Nadia, the Government is actually fomenting the very insurrection it claims it is trying to prevent; and which it will use to justify the use of even more repressive and dictatorial measures.

The imprisonment of a nation begins with the unjust incarceration of one citizen. As Israeli citizens, our right to live freely in the Land and our freedom of speech depend on how we as a nation respond to the Government's unwarranted persecution of any one citizen.

By going after Nadia Matar publicly, interrogating and harassing her; threatening her with indictment and arrest; holding the specter of administrative detention over her head, the Government is effectively threatening all of us. It is striking out at the heart of all that Jews hold dear: our right to live and act in harmony with G-d and Torah; our right to be a free People in our own Land; and our fundamental right to freedom of speech.

All of The House of Israel must unite to vigorously protect and defend Nadia Matar; to prevent the Government from singling her out for malicious persecution. We must fight this injustice as if our very existence were at stake. As G-d fearing Jews who love the Land, it is.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by David Ben-Ariel, October 24, 2004.

The hypocritical and accursed EU has stated that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's plans to forcibly uproot law-abiding Israeli citizens from their biblical territory of Gaza still isn't enough.

Israel's failure to physically remove the threat to the Jewish homeland, to expel their sworn enemies (who daily vow genocide against the Jews) and immediately annex the liberated lands, as courageously called for by former Israeli Parliament Member, Rabbi Meir Kahane, has invited the fascist EU's criticism and entanglement in Judah's sovereign affairs.

Unless Israel repents and immediately acts in their own best interest, taking every security measure they deem necessary to insure Israel's survival in a hostile world, the German-Jesuit dominated EU will pollute the holy land with their abominable armies posed as "peacekeepers." (Such an invitation for disaster would be agreed upon by such treacherous vultures as Shimon Peres and cohorts).

The EU - emerging as the final revival of the unholy Roman Empire of the German Nation - will never be satisfied until they seize the crown of Jerusalem for their corrupt Crusader-Kingdom.

David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall". He can be reached at http://www.pushhamburger.com/david.htm

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, October 24, 2004.

The Jerusalem Post and Minister of Justice Tommy Lapid have at least one thing in common. Both are critical of Rabbis who they think should not be advising IDF soldiers to refuse to obey orders relating to removing residents of Gush Katif and Northern Samaria from their homes. In the case of Lapid, he wants the Attorney General to prosecute such trouble making "rabbis".

Rabbis have traditionally played the role of spiritual leaders in Judaism. They are not only well versed in the Torah, but in addition are supposed to guide ordinary Jews on how to behave morally. A Rabbi thus should be acting, as he has always acted in accordance with our tradition, to spiritually uplift his People. The Rabbi has the duty and obligation to draw everyone closer to the Almighty and to guide his fellow Jew to achieve this goal. Thus, Rabbi Avraham Shapiro, former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, was actually fulfilling the traditional role of rabbis when he advised soldiers not to partake in removing Jews from their homes in their own Promised Land. Such an action by a soldier would be immoral. So says the Torah of the Jewish People and their Hebrew Prophets, according to Rav Shapiro.

It should be stressed however, that a rabbi is not mixing in "politics" when he morally advises his constituents on how the Torah expects us to behave. Judaism encompasses every aspect of life, which includes "politics"! A Jew is required to make the values of Torah and its teachings, an integral part of his daily existence in all areas of life. That is the reason the Torah has survived for over 3700 years.

It is incumbent on any spiritual leader to speak up on such a vital matter. It goes to the very core and essence of our belief in the G-d of Israel, and His Biblical promises to our People. It also affects the lives of the residents of Gush Katif and their families. Certainly, the removal of Jews from their homes in Israel, requires a Rabbi to express his views on how the Torah deals with such a vital matter.

There may be Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shapiro. However, his scholarship and learning are outstanding and well recognized by fellow scholars in the Torah world. Moreover, his devotion to his People is unparalleled. His views should be respected by all who value the Torah as a means of providing a direction and purpose to our lives.

So the editorial in the Post and Lapid are both totally off base when they claim that Rabbis should not be advising our soldiers how to act. It is the duty of the Rabbis and their obligation to fulfill this spiritual need of the soldiers. Soldiers as well, are supposed to act as Jews, and to observe what the Torah demands of us. Sadly, it shows how far the editorial writer in the Jerusalem Post, and Minister Lapid are lacking in the knowledge of what the spiritual role of the Rabbi always has been throughout the ages. The failure of some rabbis to speak up on important matters is what is sorely lacking in our Israeli society today. It should be encouraged and not criticized as has been done by Lapid and the Jerusalem Post.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Voice of Judea, October 24, 2004.


Labor MK Ofer Pines is complained that he is being forced to dine a member of the Dutch parliament in strictly kosher restaurants. According to Pines, the Foreign Ministry is coercing him and others to be religious against their will and to suffer by eating inferior kosher food. (NRG online, Israeli Radio).

Voice of Judea Commentary:

Israel is a Jewish state that maintains some level of Jewish character. While Pines might personally prefer lobster or pig, he is meeting with a foreign diplomat at the expense of the state of Israel. Most anti-Semites have more respect for Jewish tradition than some of the self-hating morons who occupy space in the Knesset.

The anti-Jewish trash espoused by Pines will yet gain him entrance into Justice Minister Tommy Lapid's hall of jesters. Lapid's recent diatribe against IDF action in Gaza to secure Sderot will surely be remembered as the quote of the month, "Military action will not help defeat the kassam rockets, tell the Jews in Sderot to build stronger roofs."


A series of bizarre comments were made by Israel's National Security Advisor Giora Eiland who announced earlier this week before the Knesset Foreign and Defense Committee that following the implementation of the Gaza Disengagement Plan, Israel might likely invite foreign troops to patrol and defend the Philadelphia Route that connects southern Gaza to Egypt.

Voice of Judea Commentary:

It is unclear which specific strain of strange weeds Mr. Eiland has been smoking however we must hope and pray that the ideas proposed by this Eiland unto himself are not shared by the other wise-men-of-Chelm and jokers who decide Israeli policy. As it is, the Israelis are having a very hard time preventing their Egyptian "peace-partners" from aiding in the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. All we need is to place our faith in and live at the mercy of international troops. UN troops repeatedly are caught aiding Hamas, Hizbullah and Fatah terrorists.


The heads of the "settlement" movement reported having a horrible meeting with PM Sharon earlier this week. In the meantime, Sharon refuses to agree to hold a national referendum over his controversial "disengagement" plan. And he has threatened to fire any ministers in his government who vote against his "disengagement plan", in next week's Knesset vote. While Shas leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was not convinced by Defense Minister Moufaz to support Sharon, he will announce at his Saturday night Torah class if Shas MKs should vote against the Sharon proposal or abstain.

Voice of Judea Commentary:

What is needed is a true referendum that offers two clear alternatives.

The Yesha council has a serious dilemma. They would like to bring the disengagement issue to a national referendum. However, this will do little more than buy time, for it is presumed that the majority of Israelis wish to separate from the Arabs of Gaza. Sharon has embraced the leftwing non-solution of surrendering Jewish land with large Arab population centers and in this way separating large Jewish population centers from densely populated Arab population centers. For this reason, one can only assume that if posed with a question whether or not to disengage from Gaza, most Israelis might support the suicidal Sharon plan, for lack of another alternative that would detach them from a significant portion of the Arab menace.

However, this premise and the presentation of the issue in this format is based on absolute fraud, because Sharon's disengagement plan will not separate the Arabs from the Jews. There will still be a million Arabs in Israel. And in fact, it will bring Gazan Arabs closer to Sderot, Ashqelon and all of Israel. Everybody knows that the Arabs will take over the positions and towns surrendered by the Israelis and use them as a springboard to attack Israeli cities from closer range.


Every Jew has a right to determine their fate and a responsibility to cast their vote on the following critical questions.

1- Should Israel disengage by surrendering parts of the land of Israel to the Arabs, and expel the Jews living in those parts. (A move that would unlikely be sufficient to appease the Arabs and the Americans. And a move that would not succeed in separating Israeli Arabs and other Arab population centers from densely populated Jewish cities. Various such proposals have been made by Beilin, the United Nations, Bush, Barak, Peres and Sharon.)


2- Should Israel annex the territories, expel the Arabs living in Gaza and other parts of Israel. (A move that might anger the nations but that would clearly distance the domestic Arab threat - The Torah option as brought down in Numbers 33).


If such a Referendum was privately sponsored and launched first in Sderot the results might be quite amusing. How many Jews would vote to bring the Gazan Arabs closer to their town and bring more kassams on their heads, as Sharon's disengagement proposal guarantees?

If Yesha convinces Sharon to agree to a referendum in the format they are speaking of, this might be catastrophic for Israel and for their cause. The question is not whether or not to disengage from Gaza?


If only the leaders of Yesha had the wisdom and the courage to finally offer a true alternative to the Jewish people - it would be a sweeping victory for the Jews of Israel. It is not enough to speak of status quo and to speak of retaining "settlements" without addressing the issue of the huge Arab demographic and terror threat. If the Yesha Council presented a sound alternative, most Jews would support retaining the land and driving out our enemies. There is not a Jew in Sderot who supports the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the dismantling of the buffer zone between them and the Arabs. There is a hardly a Jew in Sderot or in Ashqelon who would oppose building a security belt in Gaza and pushing the Arabs and their Kassam rockets back, out of range.

This is the information campaign that needs to be launched now and this is the real referendum that needs to be presented to the nation of Israel.

To help sponsor the spearheading of such a campaign send a check now to Referendum to Save Israel - Rehov Jaffa 210/14 Jerusalem Israel.

4- Arab-Muslim Extremist Leaders Back Kerry

Palestinian Authority Expresses Support For John Kerry. "The Palestinian Authority made its first open statement Monday expressing support for US democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said that the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is unsure if George W. Bush is re-elected to office." ("Shaath: US Election Stalling Peace Process," The Jerusalem Post, 10/18/04)

"Meanwhile, Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has also urged Muslims in America to vote for US Senator John Kerry in an open letter dated October 15 to America's Muslim community saying President Bush has been 'the cause of the tragedies' across the Muslim world. Mohamad retired last October mired in a controversy after telling a summit of Muslim leaders that 'Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.'" ("Shaath: US Election Stalling Peace Process," The Jerusalem Post, 10/18/04)

Voice of Judea Commentary:

Duh. Muslims don't love Bush?


The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 20 reports: Two weeks ahead of the anniversary of the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York 14 years ago, Kach activists launched a campaign Wednesday to restore the legality of their right-wing extreme movement.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Kach members called on the government to reverse its decision that Kach is a terrorist group.

"Declaring Kach a terror organization is a sin," the letter states, "since it is clear to everyone that Kach members do not espouse terror and none of our leaders have ever been convicted of terrorist activity"

"As far as we know, Kach was outlawed due to political considerations, and now that the people are divided over fateful questions there is a need to allow for maximum freedom of speech," the letter continues. and now that the people are divided over fateful questions there is a need to allow for maximum freedom of speech," the letter continues.

The letter quotes "a known French philosopher who said that 'if mouths are shut then hands begin to work,' and when a movement is outlawed undemocratically it is no wonder there are people who choose to use thei hands and act violently."

Kahane was elected to the Knesset in 1984. His party was later banned from running in the 1988 elections following the passing of an amendment to Israeli law which disqualified any candidate whose platform contained incitement.

Two years later, in 1990, Kahane was assassinated in New York by an Egyptian national.

The letter coincides with the publication of a survey in Ma'ariv on Wednesday according to which a third of the Israeli public thinks Kach should be legalized and that Kahane was right in proposing to deport all Arabs from the land of Israel.

Kach activist Itamar Ben-Gvir, who signed the letter to Sharon, said dozens of events will be held in the coming two weeks to celebrate Kahane's legacy.

"There is no better time than now to reinstate our legal status since, as seen in the survey, a third of the public believes that Kahane was right and they are with us," Ben-Gvir said.

He added that activists plan to hang posters across the country calling for the movement's return to politics

In the meantime, former activists of the Kahane Chai movement are launching a Referendum in the city of Sderot, to prove that a majority of Israelis do not support Sharon's plans to surrender Gaza and expel the Jews of Gaza. The referendum, unlike the one that has been proposed by Yesha, offers a clear alternative to the Sharon disengagement plan.

Moshe Ben Israel, Director of the "Referendum to Save Israel" said, "Even if Yesha was to get the disengagement plan to a referendum, and even if they could win, this would be a very temporary victory, because the fact is that most Israelis wish to create maximum separation from the major Arab population centers. The problem is that no one on the right ever offers a sound alternative that would bring about such separation. The only one who ever had the courage to do this was the late Rabbi Meir Kahane."

"We hope to prove to everyone, once and for all, that there is an alternative to the suicidal madness proposed by Sharon. There is a way to retain the land and distance the Arab threat at the same time. In fact, according to the Biblical proposal that was raised by Rabbi Kahane, we could have a complete separation from the Arabs and at the same time retain and annex the land. The Sharon plan, would bring the Arabs of Gaza closer to Ashqelon and Tel Aviv and offers no solutions to Kassam rockets that will continue to fall over the and beyond the wall. Additionally the Sharon plan offers no solution to the Arab Israeli demographic threat within the Green-line. The only solution is the Torah-Kahane solution. The options are between Kassam or Kahane. There is no other alternative. And this is a position which would win a national referendum unlike the one being proposed by the Yesha Council which is destined to fail and which would not offer any sound alternative to Sharon's plans or to the present catastrophic status quo."

There are approximately 12,000 adults, of voting age in the Sderot town of 27,000, where hundreds of Kassams have fallen resulting in several deaths and many more injuries. Moshe Ben Israel, Director of the "Referendum to Save Israel" says that he hopes to get a majority of voters to sign a ballot to help mark the beginning of a new era in which the people of Israel will decide their own fate. The time is ripe for the nation of Israel to oust the politicians who represent a minority view. "If they want democracy, democracy they will get. If we have the necessary resources to launch this referendum then we hope to show the world by the results of the Sderot-Referendum that not all Jews are willing to walk like sheep to the slaughter. Our goal is to increase voter participation amongst disenfranchised Jews in Sderot who have become increasingly inactive with regards to national Knesset elections. This should be a very, very important lesson about true democracy to some leaders in Israel, who seem to think that the Knesset is their private little domain where they could dictate policies against the will and the interests of the majority."

Anyone wishing to volunteer or to support this endeavor can email back to ReferendumForIsrael@Yahoo.com. Checks can be sent to Referendum For Israel Jaffa Road 210/14 Jerusalem, Israel


Perhaps the most valuable affect of this referendum would be showing the Yesha leaders and the leaders of the right-wing nationalist camp that there is an alternative which would enjoy popular support that could yet save Gaza and all of Israel, and that they need not be frightened to stand tall and offer a real solution. They would enjoy greater public support if they would address the issue of the Arab demographic threat. However, they need to offer a comprehensive and honest alternative to win that support. The little Sderot-referendum can do this and thereby change their whole mindset and direct the national discourse.

To subscribe to the Voice of Judea email commentaries, write jsid@dorsai.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Communaute-Juive-France, October 24, 2004.
This was written by Farid Ghadry and appeared on IsraelInsider (http://www.israelinsider.com) October 17, 2004. Farid Ghadry is President of the US-based Reform Party of Syria - http://reformsyria.org/.

The news this week that two Israeli scientists, in addition to an American, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, should be read with interest in the Arab world.

This win says a lot about the state of affairs of the Middle East.

While Israel builds its future with Nobel laureates, the Arab world fills its future with suicide bombers.

Ever since the inception of the State of Israel, Arabs have had this romantic notion that through wars and revenge we can return to our past glory.

Of course, they don't tell us which past they are referring to.

Was it when we were governed by the Ottoman Empire or by England and France?

Or was it more like 1,300 years ago when spears ruled the battleground?

Ever since 1967, Arabs from all countries -- but especially Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt -- have lived this fantasy that we can throw the Israelis to the sea.

With the 1973 near-win against Israel, Arabs concluded that one more loss is not reason enough to stop and think.

One more loss, with so many lives lost on both sides, is not enough for us to understand that the continued struggle is destroying us from within.

Even after Anwar Sadat came to understand the value of peace and co-existence, it seemed that more and more of our energies were diverted toward destruction.

The downfall of the Soviet Union, the longtime ally of the Arab world, seemed to spur us to seek justice with the barrel of a gun rather than through pragmatic understanding.

The Oslo Accords produced a willing Israel and exposed fraudulent Palestinians. Again, we watched as Arab leaders mounted a campaign of deceit to divert our attention away from our own oppression. We, the obedient Arab sheep, followed. We carried banners, objected, revolted and in the end, we created a new cadre of school children with strong arms to throw stones but without the education and discipline no brains to produce Nobel prizes.

Ever since the Intifada, a term that truly spurns our sense of justice, we have achieved the lowest point of our self-esteem. Arab children that throw stones seem to feel an invisible power that is not available to the children of the State of Israel.

That power to revolt consequently pre-disposes to a low self-esteem, which inevitably helps to build the mentality of a suicide bomber.

Suicide bombers feel nothing, understand little, and cannot see the future.

They go on automatic pilot with the brain functioning as a guiding tool to self-destruct literally, as a person and against the society that developed them. Suicide bombers represent the lowest of our self-esteem as people of Arab descent.

We are in an Intifada, but it is one that is seen through the eyes of the Israeli Nobel laureates.

We, as people of the Middle East, are dying and we cannot even feel it. We have reached the bottom and we do not even know it.

Because of oppressive regimes that give us no chance to think for ourselves, we have no hope, no future, and certainly no Nobel prizes in science awaiting us.

What very few people know is that an Intifada is also attributed to the last movement by a human body upon death.

Could that be this understanding of Intifada that is the true symbol of a struggle that should have ended long ago? All Arabs are in an Intifada, still moving yet not truly alive as citizens of the world.

Every time the Syrian Ba'athists call for armed resistance, secretly support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and propagandize Arab unity, we fall further and further into oblivion. The funny thing is that very few Arabs care to understand why we do not have Nobel laureates.

They blame it on Imperialism and Zionism. In their minds, absent these two forces, we could be raking in those Nobel prizes.

So while Israel survives Intifadas, wars, hate, and oppressive Arab rulers, we, the Arab people, must wake-up.

If we pursue the same policies that drove us to the lowest point in our history (Asr al-Inhitat or Era of Despair as opposed to Asr al-Jahyliah or Era of Ignorance that preceded Prophet Mohammed), only we lose.

If we listen to our rulers, we will always be kneeling on the sideline watching Nobel prize winners produced by the Middle East -- but not by us or for us.

Contact the Jewish Community of France net by writing communaute-juive-france-owner@yahoogroupes.fr

To Go To Top
Posted by Communaute-Juive-France, October 24, 2004.
This was written by by Michel Zlotowski and appeared in the Jerusalem Post, October 18, 2004.

The news director of the state-run radio network Radio France Internationale (RFI) resigned on Monday after he was accused of making anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist statements in the promotion of his new book on Israel's separation fence.

Alain Menargues, speaking last week on Radio Courtoisie, an extreme right-wing Catholic radio station, said, "I was very shocked by the wall. Read Leviticus in the Torah. What is it about? Separation between pure and impure. To pray, a Jew must be pure and whatever comes in the way of this purity must be separated. Where was the first ghetto? It was in Venice. And who built it? It was the Jews themselves in order to be separated from the rest. After that, Europe put them in ghettos," he said.

Menargues, who has written several books on the Middle East, has been doing interviews to publicize his latest book, Le Mur de Sharon (Sharon's Wall).

Following the broadcast, the journalists' union of RFI, the French equivalent of the BBC world service, issued a statement reading: "We protest with indignation and we reject Alain Menargues's remarks on Jews and the State of Israel. It is now up to the president of RFI, Antoine Schwarz, to draw conclusions and take the appropriate measures."

RFI's spokesman announced on Monday that Menargues had submitted his resignation as news director.

The resignation followed another controversial statement by Menargues on September 30. Speaking on LCI, a French cable television network, Menargues said, "You say Israel is a democratic state? Let me also say Israel is a racist state".

The RFI journalist union immediately condemned the statements: "Alain Menargues, the author, has every right to state that Israel is a racist state. However, Menargues is head of news at RFI and was presented as such on LCI. He thus expressed his opinion on behalf of our station. This is unacceptable."

CRIF, the umbrella organization representing French Jewry, raised the issue at the time with French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

The Foreign Ministry's spokesman said in response that Menargues's statements were "unacceptable." The management of RFI did not comment on the incident.

"Once again, the associations protecting or defending Israel are getting confused. They are presenting [criticism of] Zionist political law as being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic," Menargues said last week.

Menargues spent over 12 years in Beirut as a correspondent for Radio France. He subsequently became director of France Bleu, a state-run radio network for senior citizens. He was appointed head of news at RFI last July.

France's Foreign ministry provides 55 percent of the annual budget for RFI. The network claims to have 45 million listeners around the world.

RFI President Antoine Schwarz said Menargue will stay with the station in a position to be announced in the near future

Contact the Jewish Community of France net by writing communaute-juive-france-owner@yahoogroupes.fr

To Go To Top
Posted by Beth Goodtree, October 24, 2004.

I am neither an 'end-timer' nor a messianic, but these groups do have the most accurate way of describing recent events. And who knows, maybe they're right. This week, a group that does not follow the core precepts of Christianity yet call themselves 'Christians' had a friendly meeting with one of the most heinous Islamist terror groups on the planet. Those people who call themselves 'Christian' yet ignore a very core belief of that religion are the Presbyterians, and the group they had a comfy sit-down with is Hizbollah.

Before we talk about cozying up to serial mass murderers, let me explain the theology behind the leaders of the Presbyterian Church. Oddly enough, they follow the teachings of a dead apostate Catholic.

St. Augustine lived in the 4th century AD and was, in many ways a radical of his times. He declared the Jews to be a "fallen people" condemned to wandering, humiliation and slavery to others, thus trying to negate any Jewish influence on the then emergent original Christian movement. What was to become official Catholic, and some Christian's group's doctrine took hold and is called 'Replacement Theology or 'Supersessionism.'

This Catholic distortion of biblical teaching said that the surviving Jews were not descended from the original Jews of Palestine and/or they were no longer representatives of the 'Israelites' mentioned in biblical prophecy. Said prophecy includes the establishment of a Jewish homeland once again as well as the heritage of the Messiah to come.

Although Replacement Theology/Supersessionism was strongly condemned by Vatican II (1965) and subsequent documents, it maintained a warm welcome among certain Christian sects. The Presbyterian Church, is but one example, the Anglican Church another. (Notice how a push for divestment in Israel goes hand in hand with this flawed doctrine?) They have reinterpreted, in fact, rewritten the bible to conform to the wild ideas of a dead apostate Catholic. And here is where Replacement Theology rises high as an Islamist tool. Replacement Theology has re-determined who is really a 'Jew' and who represents, in the theological sense, the House of Israel. The Islamists like nothing more than someone else doing their evil work for them.

Replacement Theology calls into question this very concept of lineage and who is really a Jew and who is not. According to Replacement Theology, the Jews of today are not real Jews. Replacement Theology teaches that the 'real' Jews died out and today's Jews are nothing more than converts whose ancestors were converted after the Diaspora began. (Of course this is illogical, since if all the 'real' Jews were dead, there would be no one left to do the converting.) And this illogical philosophy has nothing to do with how many Jews practice their religion today, or how many have genetics to prove they are a unique group such as the Cohains. But it has everything in common with an Islamist desire to deny the fact that the Hebrew people living today are the descendants of the ancient Hebrews described in the Bible.

The Islamists want nothing more than to destroy the state of Israel and exterminate every Jew on the planet. This is an undisputed fact. Meanwhile, the very existence of a Jewish State of Israel proves that Replacement Theology is invalid, since the Bible clearly states that Jews would reestablish their aboriginal homeland. And this, of course, infuriates the Replacement Theologists no end. Here are a bunch of people living out unaltered Bible prophecy by establishing the State of Israel and proving the Replacement Theologists wrong. So it is no wonder that the Presbyterian Church is suddenly all warm and fuzzy over a group committed to destroying the very thing that proves their religion to be a false doctrine.

Meanwhile, the Islamists ignore (for now) the Jewish roots of Christianity, siding with the Replacement Theology sects who call themselves 'Christian' to bolster their (Islamist) war on Israel and Judaism itself. What is not understandable is the Presbyterian Church's ignorance of the terror perpetrated by Hizbollah against Americans. (I am assuming here that the Presbyterian Church considers itself to be true and patriotic Americans).

Apparently the suicide bombing of the US embassy in April of 1983, which killed 63 including 17 Americans, or the USMC barracks in Beirut which killed 241 American servicemen, or the attack upon the United States embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984 which killed 20 people including 2 Americans, means nothing to the Presbyterian Church leaders.

Nor does the fact that they are embracing a group committed to the genocide of an entire group of people, and doing it as official representatives of 'God.' What would Jesus say?

Even the Islamist's plans for the Replacement Theologists themselves seem to have passed them by. Hizbollah, which means 'Party of God,' aspires to turn whatever it can into an Islamist State. They say so openly. Under an Islamist State, even their buddies the Replacement Theologist Presbyterian Church would not be safe. The Islamists have a saying: "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people." And if I remember, even the Presbyterians keep a Sunday Sabbath.

Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer who lives in the NYC metro area. She writes political commentary/analysis, and the occasional science and humor articles. Read more of her articles on her website: http://hometown.aol.com/bgoodtree/

To Go To Top
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, October 22, 2004.

Through some sort of serendipity, I just ran across this article by the great Rabbi Meir Kahane, imminently politically incorrect activist who happened to be right in every prediction he made concerning Arab behavior as he watched Israelis and Diaspora Jews continue to embrace their own inane, self-destructive policies. Rabbi Kahane wrote this May, 1990 - and nothing has changed.

I wait for the first Arabs of Guilt to do unto their people what the Jews of abberation do unto theirs. I patiently stand and wait for the first Arab "Peace Now" group to dedicate itself to protesting against "intransigence": "refusal to compromise": and "atrocities against the Jews"

I wait for the first Arab "Women in Black" to condemn the actions of the Arab armies against Jewish civilians; to bitterly protest and picket every Friday the murder of Jewish civilians, women and children, in bombings and attacks on buses and marketplaces. And I wait for the first Arab counterpart of Richard Cohen.

Ah, Richard Cohen. Richard Cohen is a Jew by birth. Richard Cohen is the resident Jewish self-hater and Israel basher in the Washington Post, a newspaper that has quite a sizable non-Jewish contingent of its own. Cohen stands for everything that is unJewish and his ignorance of the faith with which he was unfortunately burdened is exceeded only by his arrogance in pontificating about it. Above all, he is a liberal whose very elixir of life is composed of all the ingredients that run counter to authentic Jewish concepts. He is liberal and his brand of liberalism and democracy and values run counter to all that Judaism and true Zionism preach and so, week after week, Cohen contributes his voice to all the enemies of Judaism, Jews and Israel as a Jewish state,

And recently he spread his wings and his disturbed views and, behold, an article by Richard Cohen appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News - one which must assuredly make him a candidate for the King Feisal or Abu Jihad Award of the Year "for the journalist who has written the most effective column of Araby, if surely not a pillar of wisdom."

In the article, Cohen bashes and consigns Israel to the outer reaches of what passes for liberal Hell. He rails against Settlements as a "thumb in the eye to the Palestinians" (Of course, Tel Aviv and the rest of the Jewish state is not a thumb in their eye before the fanatical setttlers begun their evil designs. The "Palestinians" in 1948 reached out to the State of Israel with only warmth, love and brotherhood.)

He belches forth his wrath against the settlers for daring to live in East Jerusalem's "Christian Quarters" saying that this feeds Arab fears that the Jews threaten their sacred holy places, (of course, the Jewish holy places were always treated by Moslem and Christian Arabs with nothing but the deepest of respect and religious devotion)

But above all, Richard has a wonderful solution, He gazes with anger upon his fellow Jews who do not live in Israel and demands ot them the following: "Maybe, its time for American Jews to do two things at once: Open their mouths and close their checks books."

Clearly this is a thing that Cohen has done all his life. As Bilaam's donkey, his mouth is perpetually open, braying and heehawing against the state of the Jewish people, the state his great-grandfather and his, before him, dreamed of as a Jewish State for the Jewish people. As some Jewish version of Scrooge, his checkbook never finds his pen drawing funds from it for Israel. Cohen is the classic phenomenon of our time; "the kind of creature that one could never find among the Arabs or among any other normal people."

Can anyone even begin to remember an Arab who called upon Arabs to cease helping an Arab cause? Can one search his mind and memory and emerge with the name of any Arab counterpart to Richard Cohen who demands that Arabs cut off funds and condemns their brethren because they "Oppress Jews"? Does any one know an Arab "Richard Cohen"? Could there ever be one?

Of course, Cohen is not a person. He is a concept. Just as not one Arab "Richard Cohen" can be found, so can one never escape the Jewish ones. They abound and they flourish, and they multiply and they fill the land. They hate their Judaism that is such total contradiction of the generalized values they embrace. They hate themselves for not having the courage and honesty to reject that Judaism and that Jewishness and choose to be human beings instead. Above all, they hate themselves and seek destruction of Judaism and their own self-destruction.

That Israel will survive the "Richard Cohens" of the earth is clear. But there is an irony in this that transcends even that. The same "Cohen" who cries aloud for a policy that would allow the Arabs to destroy Israel will, some day, seek out that Israel in frantic desparation, as the gentilize land he sought to make his own burns beneath his feet And we the normal Jews will be at th airport to meet and greet and welcome him, this incredible and rare creature.

We will receive him, take him into the Jewish state that survived both the Arabs and the "Richard Cohens" efforts to have them adopt the policies of madness that would have destroyed her.

And he who called for Jews to open their mouths and close their checkbooks to Israel will come with mouth closed in shame, and no checkbook - a refugee who came to the land he so condemned and to which he never wished to come. And the Jews of Israel will come to see the phenomenon that one can never find among the Arabs. The Jew who joined the enemies of the state and the people to which he belongs: the Jew for whom no conceivable counterpart could ever be fiound in all of Arabia or Islam.

"Richard Cohen." I wait to see if any other pcople could produce one like him. I wait for him come home, to the home he did his best to pervert arid destroy.

Jerome Kaufman is host of the http://www.israel-commentary.org website, which specializes in essays and commentaries of importance to events in Israel. Contact him at jkaufman253469MI@comcast.net

To Go To Top
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, October 22, 2004.

Let us praise the many good Jewish organizations and activists who came to Duke (or were already at Duke) to infiltrate and protest last week's Palestinian Solidarity Conference.

We must also praise Rabbi Zalman Bluming, the Chabad Rabbi at Duke, who decided to bring the terrorist-destroyed bus #19 to campus for two days. He estimates that at least 4,000 students and community members came to see it. Rabbi Bluming said: "When Jews stand up for Israel with clarity, without apology, the world respects this." Rabbi Bluming also provided kosher food for the Jewish activists who came from both coasts.

Rabbi Avi Weiss came from NYC and had the most heartbreaking and chilling encounter with Duke graduate student Ran Bar-On, the Israeli-South African Jew who invited PSM onto the campus (more about this in a future column). Rabbi Weiss also sent about 30 activists from Amcha who, under the responsible and soft-spoken leadership of Rabbi Etan Mintz, stood moral vigil outside the PSM conference. They sang peace movement melodies. In Rabbi Mintz's words: "We had come to honor the souls of the thousands who were murdered by terrorist attacks... (not only were they slain), it was as if now they were being re-murdered." At the PSM conference, "their murderers were being exonerated, even extolled."

We must also praise four Jewish organizations who also heeded Rabbi Hillel's first question and paid for two full-page ads that appeared in the Duke student newspaper several days before the PSM conference began.

StandWithUS, American Jewish Congress, Hasbara Fellowships and the Zionist Organization of America paid for the ads. The first ad showed nine graphic, color photographs of terrorism against Israeli civilians on buses, at religious events, at universities, at restaurants, at nightclubs, at bus stops, at shopping centers, at synagogues, and at cafes.

According to Roz Rothstein, of StandWithUs, this ad's purpose "was to stop the whitewashing of suicide bombing because it is mass murder." The second ad showed thirteen graphic photographs of the Ku Klux Klan-like masked Palestinian indoctrination of children into hatred and martrydom. Its purpose was "to show that the indoctrination of children to hate and murder Jews and to destroy the state of Israel is a crime against humanity."

These groups, StandWithUs, Camera, and American Jewish Congress, also provided the brave activists who infiltrated and documented what went on at the PSM conference. Lee Kaplan was an independent infiltrator (He will be publishing his own report). Through their dedicated, inspired, and combined efforts, we now know the following:

The PSM/ISM speakers proclaimed that Zionism is a "disease" and that Israel is an "Apartheid" state. They viewed "Palestine" as the "epitome of freedom" and terrorists as freedom-fighters. They called for the abolition of the Jewish state through the use of suicide-homicide terrorism and through the adoption of a "one state" solution in which Jews would be demographically overwhelmed, marginalized, persecuted, and ultimately driven out.

The PSM conference again specifically recruited for the International Solidarity Movement. But they also proposed some startling new strategies.

For the first time, they suggested that PSM's Jewish supporters "hijack" Project Birthright, and use it to get free trips to Israel. Upon arrival, they could slip into "Palestine" to assist Israel's enemies. They taught a session on how to lie to Israeli authorities and to the Birthright people.

The PSM/ISM announced a plan to use left-wing Jews, Christians, and Muslims to infiltrate and "take over" campus Hillels--precisely because they are, commendably, democratic--as a way of further indoctrinating American students with their ideology of hate.

They called for a program whereby they would use American public schools and libraries as ideal places to disseminate their "educational" propaganda.

The PSM/ISM also announced the need for a boycott of Jewish companies such as Estee Lauder, Clinique, and Bobby Brown because they donate money to Israel and do business there as well.

In addition, the PSM conference called for the co-optation of mainstream Christian groups like the Presbyterians and the Episcopalians to further the various divest-in-Israel movements.

Who came to hear this message? An activist from StandWithUs told me that the approximately 400 people who attended the PSM conference "did not seem like students. They were people of all ages, on tight budgets."

An activist from the American Jewish Congress provided some more answers: "The conference was made up of mostly white, middle to lower class racists. Supporters of various left-wing groups such as Answer, Sustain, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, Rukus.Org were there. Many seemed like flower children gone wrong. In their passion for the Palestinians and for 'human rights' they seem to have lost their way and become anti-Semitic. They hate President Bush, the American governent, large corporations and Israel. They blame Israel for ALL the world's problems. One middle aged African-American woman, a gray panther, said "If Israel ceased to exist the world's problems would go away."

Another activist described the PSM conference-goers as "lost, uneducated, almost-street people who seem to have found new life by supporting the PSM. Many from the Bay area seem to have missing links. Many were members of Brit T'Zedek, and they came with shaved heads, pierced noses, lips, and tongues. Many were older women. They seemed to have no idea that gay women would be killed in the disputed Palestinian territories but not in Israel. They wore keffiyas, political buttons, and tee-shirts that said "We are all Palestinians."

A third activist remembers this sight: "A small number of Arabs, African-Americans, and good old southern white 'boys,' joining members of Aryan Resistance. Seeing white racists support African- and Arab-Americans in support of Hamas and Fatah was a strange sight."

The Freeman Center for Jewish Life, the Hillel affiliate on campus, consciously chose not to infiltrate the PSM conference or to protest peacefully, but to put on alternative programming throughout the time of the conference. This, too, was important. They were trying to respect the feelings of the local Jewish communities, the Duke administration, and the Arab students with whom they were trying to work. They were also trying to honor the "politically correct" views that have come to dominate our campuses.

The Freeman Center held a concert and anti-terrorism rally which was seen, via webcast, around the country. Four survivors of terrorism from Australia, America, the Sudan, and Lebanon spoke out. They also sponsored speakers such as Israeli leftist Avram Burg, author Mitchell Bard, and Rachel Fish from the David Project.

The Conservative Student Union at Duke chose to protest the PSM conference by inviting Professor Daniel Pipes to speak. His talk was also co-sponsored by The Freeman Center.

Brigitte Gabriel, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon--a righteous Gentile if there ever was one--spoke for the Freeman Center about how she survived Palestinian terrorism in Israel and how she was rescued, quite literally, by Israeli soldiers and physicians. (She prepared a special 45 minute video which I have mounted on my website. You may see it at www.phyllis-chesler.com). Sadly, she angered some people at Duke for naming the terrorists clearly and accurately.

Rabbi Hillel asked three questions. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"

At Duke, Jews and our Christian supporters, actually answered and honored all three of Hillel's questions. May we all continue to do so.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., is the author of twelve books including her latest, "The New Anti-Semitism. The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It." She may reached through her website www.Phyllis-Chesler.com.

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Roz Rothstein of StandWithUs, Jerome Gordon, and all the organizations and individuals quoted above.

To Go To Top
Posted by Gush Katif, October 22, 2004.
Rachel Saperstein and her husband, Moshe, live in Meve Dekalim, Gush Katif, Gaza.

Nineteen mortars have fallen on Gush Katif since midnight and have continued through the morning. I am sitting in my office and I hear the sounds of the explosions.

Einat, a co-worker, tells of her night of terror. Seven of the mortars fell near her home. Last week her car was damaged by a mortar. Her mother-in-law called and said "You're being punished because two terrorists were killed. Leave now!"

The army makes a feeble response. Rifle fire and occasional tank fire. The people of Gush Katif are expendable. We are now being described as people whom the army should not defend, who waste taxpayers money, who train our children to fight soldiers, who are planning the assassination of the prime minister.

Once we were quiet farmers, teachers, rabbis, housewives, Zionists. Today, every day, the Israeli media have turned us into pariahs. Why? Because we dare to resist our expulsion.

All we wanted to do was live our lives on this small piece of land. Land that belongs to the Jews and which successive Israeli governments encouraged us to settle and develop. Now we are a most prosperous area. We have lovely homes, friendly communities, beautiful synagogues, Torah lessons, highly developed chessed programs, an active community center enriching our lives with music, lectures and plays. We have schools, yeshivas, a rehabilitation center for seniors as well as for children with special needs.

Our girls in Ulpana Neve Dekalim, a religious junior and senior high school are sought after for national service in Israel and abroad. Our young men are officers in the IDF. Our farmers provide 95% of the world's kosher bug-free vegetables.

And because of Mr. Sharon's plan to expel us we have become a cause celebre here in Israel and in the world.

Each day I receive calls and e-mails from friends around the world. Many weep as they ask the same question, "Why is Sharon doing this?"

The world media has descended on Gush Katif. My husband and I are volunteers with the Gush Katif Information Service and we are asked to speak with the media. The world is looking at tiny Gush Katif and how this story is being played out. Here is a story of ordinary people living in a war zone who refuse to allow their Prime Minister to forcibly remove them from their homes. Our story has captured the imagination of people in the USA, Europe, Japan, Russia and even small Slovenia. Television crews, reporters, radio announcers, photographers are all here. One question is asked over and over again: "Why is Ariel Sharon ready to give this beautiful place to terrorists? We thought you were a few tin huts on sand dunes. Now we see how developed this community is. We don't understand what he?s doing, do you?"

We have just received our letter from Yonatan Bassi, head of the Committee overseeing payments to the soon-to-be-expelled Jews of Gaza and the northern Shomron. Like everyone else here we brought our letter, unopened, to the town council to be "returned to sender."

On Tuesday of this week, October 25th, the Knesset will vote on the expulsion plan. The media say it's a done deal. With the Arab votes Mr. Sharon will have enough votes to pass the plan on its first reading. On Tuesday all of the children of Yesha will be standing in their distinctive orange t-shirts. One thought will be in their minds -? What have we done to deserve this?

This Shabbat we will pray for the Almighty to perform his miracles for us. Pray with us.

To Go To Top
Posted by Women in Green, October 22, 2004.
This was written by Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, Rosh Yeshiva.

Thank G-d, we are again beginning from Bereishit. On Simchat Torah, we finished the yearly cycle of weekly Torah portion readings and we are happy to begin again from the beginning. We must always return to the beginning of our roots. We must be reminded again who we are and what we are doing here in Eretz Yisrael. And so we begin again with "Bereishit barah...In the beginning ..."

Abraham who taught us the power of faith creating the energy of life, showing us the way and inspiring us with the responsibility of bringing a blessing to all the world. All of this dynamic movement stems from the words Lech Lech, Go forward, and creates the driving force pushing us forward and giving us the strength to overcome all obstacles along the way. This faith obligates us to be constantly aware of the divine blessing flowing within this process of Lech Lecha, going forward, as the Almighty promises Abraham: "I will make you into a great nation ... and I will bless those who bless thee" (Bereishit:12:2)

Ever since this G-dly command to Abraham, which paved the road towards Jewish destiny, the Jewish people have been on the go. This process of more than 3000 years has taken us into slavery in Egypt, ultimate redemption, to the spiritual heights of hearing G-d's words at Mt. Sinai, accepting His Torah and mitzvot which have implanted within us an eternal substance of life. This eternal power of life has kept us going through many generations of trials and tribulations both in our homeland and in exile. Ever since the destruction of the second Temple we have been dispersed among the nations of the world who were bent on annihilating the Jewish people. All these powers of evil and hatred could not suppress Jewish faith and determination to continue the long trek towards our divine destiny of complete Jewish life in our ancient homeland.

Our beliefs and prayers have finally been realized in our generation. The driving force of redemption has brought about the miraculous process of the ingathering of the exiles and re-establishment of Jewish independence in the Land of Israel. As the closed gates of our holy land were opened again, multitudes of idealistic Jews restored new life to the desolate hills and plains of Israel. This pioneering spirit came to the peak of practical settlement activity, inspired by the divine words of our prophets being realized before our very eyes. This is the profound significance of the stirring movement of Jewish settlement in the hills and sands of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan. Boundless energy, drawing from the depths of faith in divine redemption, has been invested in rebuilding our ancient towns and cities in this heartland of Eretz Yisrael. This has been accomplished in face of the most difficult pain and suffering wrought upon us by Arab terror, whose goal has always been the destruction of the Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael. The continuous flourishing of Jewish life in Jerusalem, Hebron, Beit El, Elon Moreh, Shilo, Eli and Gush Katif is the most glorious expression of eternal devotion to the words of G-d to our father Abraham, "Go forward and I will make you into a great nation and you will be blessed."

In our wildest dreams, we never could have imagined that a Jewish Zionist government would even consider such a distorted and evil plan of uprooting Jews from their homes in Eretz Yisrael, and bringing destruction upon so many synagogues, schools and other fruits of Jewish labor in the towns of Gush Katif and northern Samaria. The tragic absurdity of this wicked plan is that it will not bring us any closer to peace, but instead will stimulate the Arab terrorists to chase after the fleeing Jews who are yielding to terror. All the more so it will serve as a legitimate precedent for further destruction and uprooting of Jews from their homeland, as is desired by many world leaders. If such a diabolical plan would be suggested with regards to any Jewish community in the world, it would surely arouse an outcry of condemnation by the Jewish government of Israel.

The divine process of Jewish redemption in the Land of Israel has reached the point of no return. The very thought of Jews uprooting thousands of fellow Jews from their homeland is a disgrace, and contradictory to the very essence of the ideological roots of the Zionist process.

Let us declare openly and clearly: we Jews living in the heartland of Yesha for 3 generations, will do everything within our power to prevent such a crime to be committed against the Jewish people and our homeland. We will rally all of our loyal brothers and sisters in unity against this twisted and heinous plan. We have no doubt that multitudes of Jewish people abroad and in Israel will unite around the proud banner of building and renewing life and will never join the humiliating banner of uprooting and destruction. We draw our strength of belief and determination from the divine words "Lech Lecha - Go Forward." This is the only direction which has an ensured blessing inherent within it. I turn to our Israeli government and especially our Prime Minister: your responsibility to Jewish destiny can still be returned to the true Zionist focus of confronting terror instead of yielding; courageous building and not destroying, fearlessly going forward and not cowardly fleeing. Remember, a nation cannot escape its destiny.

We still hear the words of the Almighty reverberating throughout the hills of Yesha: - "Go forward to the land I will show you...I will make you into a great nation ... you will be blessed and I will bless those who bless thee. And all the families of the earth will be blessed through you." (Bereishit 12:1,2)

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by TheRaphi, October 22, 2004.
This was written by Itamar Weisbrod, who is a student of Political Science and War Strategy at Bar Ilan University. He will be the head of the new Student Political Think Tank at Bar Ilan in the coming school year, and works for the Magshimey Herut Movement. It appeared in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNN.com) October 21, 2004.

David Ben-Gurion, at the 1937 Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland said:

"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel. It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country - exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realised."

David Ben-Gurion made this statement even before the State of Israel was established. However, I feel his strong words are more applicable today than ever before. There have been many arguments made in favour of expelling the Jews out of Gaza. I would like to once and for all spell some of them out and address them as well as I can.

Let it be known right now that Jewish presence in Gaza is not causing the deaths of any soldiers or civilians. This is a myth, meant to blame someone other than the actual terrorists for terrorism. The settlement block of Gush Katif is further away from Gaza City (where 1 of the 1.2 million Arabs of Gaza live) than are major Israeli cities such as S'derot and Ashkelon. Between Gaza and these cities and Gush Katif is the same protection: fences, army and space.

When S'derot is rocketed from northern Gaza and when Gush Katif is rocketed, why is one met with a call to defend and one met with a call to retreat? Is the blood of S'derot residents redder than the blood of the settlers? It is because of the myth that the settlements are at fault - a myth even some Jews choose to pass off as truth. Blaming Israel's security problems on settlements is buying into one of the biggest lies the Palestinians have sold to the world. It is unfortunate that it was bought by many Jews, too.

When any Jewish city is attacked, whether it is Gush Katif or Ashkelon, it is because they are Jewish cities, not because they are settlements. Top army officials have even supported certain settlements, citing security reasons. They argue that having a Jewish presence in areas like Gaza makes it easier for the Israeli army to operate and do their job.

There is also a very widespread belief among the pro-disengagement camp that giving away Gaza and expelling the Jewish residents will cause a US policy change to allow Israel to keep the larger settlement blocks in the West Bank.

First of all, George Bush's implicit stance on the issues raised remains just that - implicit. As Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post pointed out, at no time did Bush explicitly state that Washington's official policy will be that Israel can keep certain settlement blocks. Moreover, this is not the first time that a US president has made such statements. Even Bill Clinton stated that Israel would not be expected to withdraw to its 1948 borders.

And not only is it incorrect to believe that if we give Gaza to the terrorists, then the US will allow us to keep large settlement blocks, it is an insult to any independent country to have a foreign government try to dictate to them where they are or aren't allowed to be in their own homeland. Israel is an independent country, and no country has the right to "allow" her to hold onto parts of her land. It should be irrelevant what the US "allows". And to all those who would jump on that and accuse me of implying we should ignore the world, let it be known that is not what I mean. I was not implying we should ignore the US and be isolated in the global political arena, but rather that we should draw the line when the US violates its mandate and attempts to control our local politics.

Then, there is the demographic argument. Disengagement supporters claim that if we don't pull out of Gaza, Israel will cease to exist as a "Jewish and democratic state". Countless times, I have heard this ridiculous statement, even in more mainstream press like the Jerusalem Post. This argument makes no sense, because the implication is that if we stay in Gaza then we would have to absorb and give full citizenship to all the Arabs living there. Therefore, the argument goes, because we cannot do this, we have to pull out of there and separate ourselves.

First of all, staying in Gaza obviously does not mean we have to give all the Arabs living there citizenship. With that logic, there is a problem with Jewish sovereignty in the Galilee and Negev, because soon enough, the demographic problem will be so bad there that we will have to "disengage" from there, as well. Obviously, one would not apply that logic to the Galilee and Negev; therefore, it should not be applied to Gaza.

As a colleague of mine pointed out to me, Jewish presence in parts of Biblical Israel is no cause or reason alone for Arabs to be unable to live there also. The extent to which a "Jewish presence" causes 'difficulties' for the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not due to settlers, to Jews, living there, it is due to their society's and religion's embrace of terrorism. It is due to their savage murder of Israelis. It is their responsibility to take charge of their society. If they didn't kill and murder and steal and hurt us, if their imams didn't call for jihad, if they didn't send 13-year-olds to blow themselves up, then they would have all the same civil liberties that we do. Our right to life, our right to exist as a Jewish People in the Land of Israel, supercedes their 'civil right' to freedom of movement when they abuse that right and become murderers.

For true equality, they need to take responsibility for their actions. 'Noble' liberals such as Yossi Beilin threaten true equality. For them, the belief that Arabs can actually be held responsible for their own society, that Arabs could actually live peacefully with us, is a myth. Therefore, we must separate ourselves from them to ensure 'peace'. We must make sure there aren't too many Arabs in Israel, because, aside from the problem of the vote, who wants to live next to an Arab? That is the 'liberal' thinking in Israel. This double standard, this hypocrisy, is deplorable. For them, the conclusion is that the Jews abandon their Biblical homeland, so they are separated from the Arabs. This should not be. Jews will stay in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs better just get used to it and accept it, and learn how to get along with us. And if they can't, we shouldn't be the ones who have to leave. These 'liberals' are confusing the arsonist with the firefighter.

Ripping Jews out of their homes simply because they are Jewish is discriminatory and racist. It is fascinating that many no longer even feel the need to cloak this discrimination, with many explicitly referring to the need to dismantle "Jewish settlements" and not even bothering to veil the term by referring to them as "Israeli settlements". What bothers many so much about "settlements" isn't the settlements, but it is the idea of, the horror of, having to have a Jewish neighbor.

For the Arabs, this is out of pure hatred; and for others, especially 'leftist' Jews, it is the fear of the empowerment and strength that may be given to the Right and to the religious sectors of Israeli society if Jews are allowed to maintain their roots and attachment to such historic and religiously evocative areas. Michael Freund, a former advisor to Binyamin Netanyahu, stated this point powerfully in his op-ed in the Jerusalem Post on February 4th, 2004. He explained that the desire to expel Jews from Gaza because of their religious or ethnic identity is pure and simple racism. If there were Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims, or American olim of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim origin, all would be allowed to stay and live in the "Disputed Territories" except for those that are Jewish. The only identifying mark that is of consequence is their religion, and if you are Jewish, then you aren't allowed to live in certain areas.

If Israeli settlers are expelled from Gaza, Israel will not be able to defend herself efficiently, as is pointed out by top army personnel and even by the Chief of Staff himself, Moshe Yaalon. Yaalon came out against the plan for security reasons, claiming that withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will only encourage more terror and make it easier for Arab terrorist groups to perpetrate attacks. Aside from many other top army officials sharing this opinion, the thoughts of the Chief of Staff should make it clear enough that it is completely incorrect that expelling the Jewish residents of Gush Katif would in any way improve Israel's security.

One of the most ridiculous pro-disengagement arguments I have heard is that if Israel pulls out, Hamas and other radical terrorist groups will lose support, because the Arabs will finally want to live in peace, what with the settlements gone. This is nothing more than a pipe dream. Israel has offered to compromise before and give up far more than Sharon is putting on the table now, and that has only resulted in increased terrorism. Additionally, under the Road Map and the Disengagement Plan, the areas destined to be under Palestinian autonomy will be completely demilitarized. Israel would retain control of the air above them, the sea and the land around them. I can think of no better excuse for Hamas and the PA to use after an Israeli withdrawal to continue their terror war against us than the fact that we are controlling everything around them.

Believing such a ridiculous idea - that the Arabs would give up their jihad against Israel after an Israeli withdrawal - shows a complete lack of understanding of the Palestinian Arab culture and their history. Never once in the Arab-Israeli conflict has compromise on the Israeli side been met with Arab acceptance and a decrease in Arab terror; in fact, it has had the exact opposite effect. There has been terrorism by Arabs against Jews before the state was even created, long before the current settlement enterprise. To deny this is denying factual history and ignoring the lessons from the past.

It is wrong to demonize a sector of the nation and blame them for Israel's security problems, when the exact same issue - terrorism - was on the agenda long before 1967. This, too, shows a complete lack of understanding of Israel's history and ignores decades of Arab terror against Jews.

So, let's call a spade a spade. I encourage every Zionist to oppose disengagement with all their might. It is time to direct the blame in the proper direction, and away from innocent settlers, who are the very ones fulfilling the Zionist dream. Any plan that will cause a rift in the nation and is based on rewarding murderers of Jews must be rejected vehemently. Let us stand strong together against division, and in favour of a unified people in our unified land.

TheRaphi (http://www.theraphi.com/archives/oldindex.html) is a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist site; it provides news articles and essays.

To Go To Top
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, October 21, 2004.

Contrary to former Chief Rabbi Avraham Shapira, the leader of the religious Zionist camp, other rabbis have signed an open letter expressing opposition to soldiers disobeying orders to evacuate Jews from Gaza.

One signatory is Shlomo Riskin, rabbi of Efrat. Although he opposes Prime Minister Sharon's "disengagement" plan, he believes that refusal of soldiers to evacuate Jews from Gaza would endanger the future of the state.

I wonder if Rabbi Riskin has seriously weighed the no less obvious danger of an Israeli retreat from Gaza? I wonder whether he sees, as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin sees, that withdrawing from Gaza is but a step toward withdrawing from most of Judea and Samaria, in order to create the Palestinian state to which Mr. Sharon is seriously committed - as is Washington?

Would not this abandonment of some 220,000 Jews east of the "security fence" cause a fatal rift in the nation and lead to Israel's demoralization and disintegration?

I wonder if Rabbi Riskin has studied the Sharon plan? Clause 5 requires further training of Gaza terrorists. Training for what? Answer: to become "policemen." But didn't Israel, under Oslo, train terrorists to become "policemen" - at the cost of many Jewish lives?

Clause 5 makes "disengagement" worse than Oslo, since Sharon has proposed that Egyptians perform the task of transforming Gaza's terrorists into Gaza's "policemen" - as if Egypt has not been Gaza's primary arms supplier! No wonder high-ranking officers of Israel's security and intelligence services have warned against repeating in the Gaza the folly of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon.

Turning to the religious issue, Rabbi Riskin says, "There is no absolute prohibition against giving up parts of the Land of Israel, if the need for this arises, to strengthen other parts of the country. Yonatan Ben-Zakai gave up Jerusalem and requested that the sages of Yavneh be brought to him [for that purpose]" (my italics). Two comments.

First, not even Sharon has ever said that evacuating Gaza will "strengthen other parts of the country." Second, to regard Yonaton Ben-Zakai's plight as relevant to Israel's current situation is palpably absurd. Jerusalem was surrendered to a powerful Roman army, not to gangs of terrorists, which can easily be eradicated by the Israel Defense Forces. There is more to Riskin's folly.

To further justify "giving up parts of the Land of Israel," Efrat's rabbi says, "King Solomon ordered that 20 towns be transferred to King Hiram of Tyre.? Did I miss something? Does this reference to King Hiram of Tyre make Hamas and Islamic Jihad irrelevant, along with their godfather, Yasser Arafat? Pardon my ignorance, but I thought King Hiram of Tyre, unlike Arafat, was a friend of King Solomon, that he even supplied materials for construction of the First Temple. Efrat's rabbi must also be living in Alice.

Turn, therefore, to Rabbi Yehuda Amital, former leader of the religious Meimad movement, who signed the letter alongside his colleague Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, head of the Har Etzion yeshiva in the Gush Etzion settlement of Alon Shvut.

Rabbi Amital believes that it is not legitimate to employ Halakha (Jewish law) as a tool for preventing disengagement: "Halakha states that one must think of the good of the country and that is defined by different people in different ways, so that the argument is political, and halakha has no status here."

In other words, Jewish law has no relevance to the Jewish State so far as political matters are concerned, since all such matters involve diverse points of view. It seems we don't need Tommy Lapid to separate religion and state and thus render Judaism, like Christianity, a purely private matter; Rabbi Amital has done this for us!

Turn, finally, to Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun, another signatory. Although he opposes disengagement, he opposes soldiers' refusal to obey evacuation orders. He writes: "Even undemocratic decisions by recognized leaders of the people of Israel must be observed if they do not oblige the individual to commit a crime."

So the question is: would a soldier be committing a crime if he obeys an order to expel Jews from their homes? Rabbi Bin Nun says no. Not so simple. Like his colleagues, Bin Nun ignores the fact that Sharon's plan to uproot Jews from their homes is illegal in its very inception.

Professor Eliav Schochetman, Dean of the Shaarei Mishpat Law College, has said, in a lecture preceding the Likud referendum on the issue, that any Israeli government decision to expel people from their homes, even in the context of a diplomatic move, would represent a wanton violation of basic human rights and civil liberties protected under Israeli and international law.

Expelling Jews from Gaza would violate Israel's Basic Law: Freedom and Human Dignity, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that it is illegal for sovereign governments to expel their own citizens from their homes or from their farms. A soldier expelling a Jew from his home and farm in Gaza may very well be committing a crime, as eminent Israeli attorneys contend.

Yes, there is reason for concern should soldiers refuse to obey evacuation orders. But there is far more reason to be concerned about Israel's morale and safety if they obey orders to retreat from Gaza, since this can only encourage terrorism everywhere, while making Gaza a base for rocket attacks on all Israel.

Now ponder this: In the name of the "Laws of nature and of Nature's God," the signers of the American Declaration of Independence - citizens of England - violated the laws of their king and parliament. Indeed, they took up arms against soldiers - fellow citizens - who tried to enforce those laws. I am not suggesting that Jews take up arms against soldiers ordered to evacuate Jewish communities. I do say, however, that rabbis have a right and even a duty to advise soldiers not to obey such orders.

Now suppose that the Americans of 1776 were like Rabbi Shapira's critics? The United States would never have come into existence, and the world today would probably be steeped in tyranny - Israel's direction under its current prime minister.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, who writes on Israel's need for a constitution as substrate for government. He is founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached at: eidelberg@foundation1.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 21, 2004.


*Fact: The deeper the disengagement the larger the production, upgrading and smuggling of weaponry, ammunition, explosives and missiles of enhanced range and precision. A year ago, Palestinian missiles hit Jewish communities in Gaza, this year they hit Sderot and the northern Negev and very soon they will be able to hit the power station of Ashqelon and the port of Ashdod.

Fact: The disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria will transform Afula, Hadera, Netanya, Jezrael Valley and Heffer Valley into the "daily-bombarded-Sderot of the north".

Fact: The cut & run and the uprooting of Jewish communities will expand the missile arena into Judea & Samaria and will plague Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport, Kfar Saba and Ra'anana.

Fact: Two years ago, Israel apprehended the missiles, weaponry and ammunition loaded "Karinne-A" boat. The disengagement would facilitate many "Karinne-As", would severely erode Israel's intelligence and will provide the PA and Hamas with Hizballah-style capabilities.


Dahlan: "The disengagement constitutes a key achievement of the Intifadah" (February 22, 2004).

Muhammed Dief: "The disengagement signifies the beginning of the end of Israel" (March, 2004).

Hamas: The disengagement will lead to the return of the 1948 refugees. It will bring an end to the occupation of the entire Palestinian land [including Jerusalem, Galilee, Negev, Haifa and Jaffa]" (August 15, 2004).


Fact: Egyptian hostility, as revealed during the Oct. 2004 Taba Massacre, attests to Cairo's attitude toward Israel and toward Islamic terrorism.

Fact: Egypt's education system features anti-Jewish hate-education, and its school books are used by the hate-mongering Palestinian Authority. Egypt is has poisoned Israel's relations with the UN, Africa and Persian Gulf States.

Fact: Egypt considers Palestinian terrorism a cost-effective means to erode Israel's tenacity, and has facilitated the smuggling of weaponry, ammunition, missiles and explosives to Gaza. Poverty-stricken Cairo has launched a military procurement campaign, designed to become a potent threat to Israel.


Fact: The US would not finance the disengagement.

Fact: Uprooting Jewish communities in northern Samaria would require a multi-billion Shekel investment, in order to develop alternative water resources (Israel's Water Commissioner, "Globes", September 27, 2004). Exploiting the Samaria Aquifer, by the PA, would increase salination, would destroy the agriculture and would dismantle the Jewish communities of Israel's northern valleys. The resulting need for desalination facilities would deepen Israel's dependency upon importation of expensive energy and would exacerbate security risks.

Fact: The intensified missile and terror threats would require more large scale costly military operations in Gaza and northern Samaria, would drive away tourists and airliners, would escalate reparation to victims of terror and missiles, would freeze infrastructure projects, would decrease human services budget, would aggravate unemployment and would raise taxes.

Fact: Disengagement resembles a bottomless keg, financially, militarily and politically ("Globes, Oct. 11, 2004).

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 21, 2004.


Israeli political discourse about the Arab-Israel conflict has changed, finds the July magazine of the American Jewish Congress. Political groups no longer behave as labeled; people are confused. True, but the author, Ron Skolnik, takes at face value groups' rationalizations and past reputations, and misinterprets or exaggerates the changes.

His wording may indicate bias. The author fashionably refers to Arabs in the Territories as "Palestinians," as if they were a separate nationality, with one exception. When he discusses Israeli withdrawal from the Territories, he uses the expression, "give back." "Back" to whom? Bear in mind that modern control of the Territories was Turkey, the Mandate, Jordan and Egypt illegally, and Israel. The author is not proposing to cede the area to the Arab aggressor states that had seized them by war of aggression. Therefore, the term, "give back," is a tendentious inaccuracy. Perhaps his use of the term has no significance. Inconsistencies are commonplace, and logical treatment of facts, rare.

Another euphemistic term is the description of the Far Leftist Peace Now as "pro-peace." Peace Now engages with Arabs in violent demonstrations against Israel. That is not peaceful behavior. Peace Now criticizes Israeli self-defense and not Arab aggression. That stand is not for peace. It shouldn't take much to perceive that conceding more to the Arabs, as Peace Now urges, won't work, since it has not worked and under jihadist ideology, cannot work.

There is an underlying misunderstanding of labels, reputations, opinionated polls, and the value of public opinion. Labels may be misapplied, reputations unearned, polls manipulated, and public opinion transitory.

Labels are devised as shorthand definitions. Like my peanut butter jar, the label may stick long after the content is emptied. The article makes the point that the old labels of "Right" and "Left" do not apply to Israel's major parties. That is not accurate. The old labels were more rigid than were the parties. That the heads of the major parties received foreign financial subsidy and act as if also blackmailed and intimidated both by foreign powers and by the Israeli justice system, does not mean that their parties have changed that much.

Reputations tend to become generalized. Because Ariel Sharon fought hard in war and helped establish settlements, he was considered rightwing. But he once formed a leftwing party. He is under the shadow of the leftist Attorney-General, who is considering, and considering, and considering whether to prosecute him for more than one instance of corruption. In Israel, "Left" and "Right" seem to refer just to one's position on the Arab-Israel conflict and not, as in the US, on economics. Likud favors government spending, though Netanyahu tries to slowly privatize.

Polls often are worded so as to provoke a sponsor's position. They are described to favor it. Many polls assert unfairly that the electorate wants to make major concessions to the Arabs. Actually, the electorate usually is asked whether they would if the Arabs behaved as directed by angels; under heavenly conditions, the electorate would. But the electorate does not believe that the Arabs would keep a peace agreement. Hence they do NOT approve of concessions.

Many newspapers these days, including the major Israeli media, pursue advocacy journalism. Under this practice, the publishers slant the whole paper so as to mould public opinion their way, without so advising the public. Some people may perceive what position the paper takes, but not realize that the news, headlines, and pictures, as well as editorials and columnists, indulge in that bias. To some extent, public opinion is molded. Then pollsters invoke the counted and extrapolated opinions solemnly, in an exaggerated notion of democracy, as binding. Admittedly, it is a delicate balance for democratic representatives when to lead the public and when to follow. The danger is when the government breaches the national interest in behalf of personal, foreign, or vested interests, and when public opinion is misinformed. Representatives of the people may, themselves, be misinformed. After all, they watch the same TV news presentations.

There are tectonic shifts of political orientation now, though I believe that an informed and rational debate would pull many Israelis back. Problem is, they remain war-weary, are becoming more hedonistic when not more religious, still don't realize they are the butt of unrelenting jihad, and are losing touch with their own great heritage and instead are being influenced by other cultures. In addition, my fellow Jews feel a neurotic compulsion to please the gentiles, without paying careful attention to which ones they can work with in their own behalf. Add a dash of political correctness and excessive humanitarianism, and a dollop of an undemocratic European heritage, and Israelis are stuck in their bitter stew.

The article grapples with the phenomenon of the last three Prime Ministers proposing or allowing major territorial concessions to the Arabs. Those Prime Ministers were supposed to be nationalist. They were opposed by those supposed to be appeasement-minded. Puzzling.

The Left reacted with suspicion of Sharon's motives. Naturally -- he stated them as seeking to keep the rest of the territory. Did he state that to mollify critics, or because he believed it, or because there were any chance of succeeding at keeping them after his weak opening bargaining position of giving away many of his chips and suggesting he would give away more? I mistrust him from a right-wing perspective. Much of the Left has become Far Left. The Far Left opposes these plans because they are not for 100% withdrawal at the outset. Somehow, they have settled upon the Green Line, a mere armistice line in the Arab war of aggression, as sacred, and upon a second Palestinian Arab state in the Jewish homeland as ordained. Ordained by whom? They don't believe in God. They pretend there weren't already an Arab Palestinian state, Jordan, formed from within the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home. They think in terms of parallelism, as if having two states, one for Arabs, the other for Jews, would embody justice. They conveniently forget that the Arabs have a score of other countries, and that all the Arabs consider the Palestinian Arabs as of the Arab nation.

Layers of historical fiction and misunderstanding pile upon layers. Our contemporaries start with misinformation and then decide what is just. The ignorant become indignant.

Some of the leftists, we are told, dispute Sharon's contention that there are no Palestinian Arabs with whom to make peace. Decades of evidence and experience in a jihad to the finish fail to dent their ideology. They are fanatics. They fail to recognize that, for they are busy accusing of extremism Jews who have a normal desire for self-preservation, a reasonable suspicion of jihadist enemies, and sufficient sensibility towards their religious and national heritage and sense about the need for the Territories as a source of water and for secure boundaries." Name-calling and false labeling impel much of Israeli policy. At least they intimidate much public opposition. Hence the current campaign to arrest critics who warn of the existential danger of appeasement of the Arabs as inciting to violence. It doesn't matter how peaceful the critics are. The purpose of this campaign is not to prevent violence but to stem opposition.

Israelis, the author finds, believe that the P.A. Arabs: (1) Accept the existence of Israel within its pre-war area. Hold off terrorism and construction in settlements, and negotiate a peace deal based on Israeli withdrawal. (2) Reject Israel, based on the Arab refusal to accept most of the post-war territory offered. Israel would be unwise to relinquish the territories. Adherents propose doing this via: non-citizen residency, local autonomy, Jordanian citizenship, encouraging relocation, or combining the Territories with Israel, leaving both nationalities to live happily ever afterwards. (3) Land-for-peace, eventually. Sharon is of this view. The author's analysis is keen. We need an analysis of those viewpoints.

The various proposals misunderstand the Arab-Israel conflict. They assume that it is a boundary dispute. Actually it is a religious dispute. The Muslims want the whole area, cannot abide Jewish sovereignty or equality, negotiate for temporary advantage until they can gain greater advantage, and do not believe in peace. The Arabs do not accept the existence of Israel, they cannot live in peace with the Jews in a combined state, and doe not keep prior peace agreements.

Land-for-peace is an oxymoron. Territorial concessions would deprive Israel of secure borders, hence invite war by the jingoist Arabs. Local autonomy was tried before and during Oslo. It failed, because the Arabs seek hegemony. Non-citizen residency do not work with Jerusalem Arabs, and does not solve the problem for the Muslims.

We are left with getting the Arabs out. If Israel stopped subsidizing them, most would have to depart. If Israel enforced the laws and required of Israeli Arabs national service of several years, the rest would follow. The author calls that far-fetched. Is ceasing subsidy far-fetched? Is barring Arabs from entering Israel to work not within its purview? Why can't Israel annex now areas that are unsettled or populated by Jewish settlement, as it has the right to do under the Mandate, which the Territories still are under, legally? It can, it should, and it must. All it takes is understanding and fortitude. And that was my tendentious analysis.

Sorry I mistitled the previous article.

LEBANON: This was published on 10/20 as my letter to the editor

The NY Sun presented a useful piece of news via The Daily Telegraph, by Anton LaGuardia ("Iran Believed To Be Taking Control of Fatah Cells," October 15, 2004). But I think his assertion inaccurate that Hezbollah "successfully drove the Israel Defense Force out of south Lebanon."

The statement implies that Hezbollah was winning. Actually, it was losing. The problem was lack of Israeli political resolve.

The UN and world public opinion restrained the Israeli war effort (as it still does), because Israel often lacks sufficient resolve to stand up for its national survival. Israel was suffering some casualties in Lebanon, in order to prevent greater casualties in Israel. The immediate risk to the troops in Lebanon was more than some mothers of soldiers could bear. They mounted a withdrawal campaign that received funds from foreign sources that favor the Arabs. They were joined by the powerful, appeasement-minded Left. The Prime Minister buckled.

Illustrating the Israeli lack of resolve, PM Barak turned the withdrawal into a panicked rout. His troops abandoned heavy weapons and forts. Not consulted in advance, his S. Lebanon Army allies had to leave their possessions behind, try to bring their families out, and run to the border penniless and dependent upon charity from an Israel that had made no plans for their aid.

Barak might have given the S. Lebanon Army sufficient arms to hold off Hezbollah and perhaps declare and expand a Free Lebanon Zone. That is speculative, of course, but it was not even considered.

Also not considered by the withdrawal campaign, but suggested by the Right, having little access to the Israel's mostly leftist media, was the aftermath. The terrorists would be heartened -- indeed, the example in Lebanon led Arafat's terrorists to redouble their efforts. Enemy forces would be emplaced on the border - indeed, Hizbullah now has about 13,000 rockets ready to blanket northern Israel with who knows what types of explosives! Israel still is taking casualties from Lebanon, though not as many now, but with a greater potential when Iran and Syria give the green light.

Another factor in the withdrawal, besides timidity, may have been Barak's military incompetence. He was the most decorated Israeli soldier, largely for combat in the lower ranks. As a general in the earlier War in Lebanon, however, his lethargy undermined his mission that would have rolled up Syrian forces and gained a strategic victory. Instead, forgetting to reconnoiter first, he led his troops into a deadly ambush.


"The New Anti-Semitism," by Phyllis Chesler, is based on discussions with antisemites. They pose as merely anti-Zionist, when they repeat antisemitic canards. "Their self-righteousness is frightening, as is their deliberate ignorance of history an current events." They ignore the relative "differences between Western tolerance and third world rigidity." Their ideology is unrealistic.

Demonstrating against McDonalds opening branches in Israel, people carry placards, "Queers for Palestine." In the P.A., homosexuals are tortured and murdered or flee (sometimes to Israel). Likewise, feminists ignore Islamic repression of women. In the P.A., women whose sexual purity is suspect, just suspect, are murdered. Humanitarians ignore Arab brutality but call Israel the threat to peace. Western "intellectuals" blame Israel, the Jews, and the West for foreign poverty and racism. The Arabs commit murder without being rebuked, but the UNO pressures Israel to make dangerous concessions to them. People are not analytical (Lisa Harbatkin, American Jewish Congress, "Congress Monthly," p.21).


A reporter suggested that the situation in Gaza is not getting better. Five Arabs were killed there, that day (IMRA, 10/15). What would be "better"? Thousands of terrorists eliminated.


The butt of EU ill-will, the Sharon regime publicly contends that the abandonment plan would restore better relations with Europe. Privately, the regime's Foreign Ministry contradicts that forecast. Its secret report predicts worsening relations. Increasingly, Europe will deem Israel racist. (The Arabs are bigoted and discriminatory to the point of murder.)

The report states that the US came to its policy on its own. This indicates that Israel has little influence with the US, though it boasts of frequent contact with its top officials. ("On the carpet," to explain themselves and to get instructions?) The report shows that there is nothing clever, no secret strategy, behind Sharon's foolish-appearing plan.

The plan would gamble with Israeli security, via territorial or military concessions, in the hope of improving foreign relations. The same was true of the misguided Oslo gamble with Israeli security. Under Oslo, Israel thought it had seized the initiative, Arab insincerity would become apparent, and international pressure upon Israel would abate. That didn't happen. There is no reason, to suppose, as Sharon does, that abandoning Gaza and part of Judea-Samaria would have the such effects. The Foreign Ministry doesn't think it would. It anticipates rising pressure.

Europe doesn't respond to Israel, but scapegoats it. It responds to its imports of oil and of Muslims and to low Christian birth rates. Why should Israeli foreign policy revolve around the opinions of a hostile Europe? (IMRA, 12/16 from Madeline Glick, Jer. Post.)

Since the abandonment plan has no rationale, and since it cedes an Israeli advantage, why the steamroller for it? Let us not confuse Sharon's excuses with what he believes or is forced to do. Perhaps Europeans will rise up against the Islamist excesses.


Some Arabs suggest that Israel is behind the terrorist attack in the Sinai. The purpose alleged is to divert attention from Israeli actions in Gaza (IMRA, 10/16 from al-Ahram).

Not by evidence do Arabs decide who perpetrates clandestine attacks. They go by who benefits. They determine that according to their notions of conspiracy and who are their enemies.

If Israel feels it gets unfavorable publicity from defending itself, then it has failed to properly explain the need for self-defense. It should learn how to explain itself so as to take the offensive in public relations. That long has been an Israeli problem.


Without condemning P.A. rocket-launching against Israel, that invoked Israeli raids to silence the rockets, the Intl. Federation denounced Israel for "disproportionate" raids, obstructing medical personnel, and willfully killing, injuring, or destroying (IMRA, 12/16).

Out of millions, a few dozen Arabs were killed. Seems minor, to me, considering that weapons manufacturing is the major industry of the P.A., which began to rain down rockets upon Israel. Or is killing Jews now a human right? Israel doesn't obstruct medical personnel, but seeks to make sure no terrorists are disguising themselves as such, as they do, which is a war crime.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by NGO Monitor, October 21, 2004.

Although Christian Aid claims to be a charitable and humanitarian organization, the main focus of its activities on Arab-Israeli issues is almost entirely political. In its latest publication, "Facts on the ground: The end of the two-state solution?", (http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/410israelopt/index.htm, October 21 2004), the facade of humanitarian objectives has been dropped entirely in favor of a blatantly political and highly partisan position that is entirely outside of this NGO's competence.

Like many previous reports by Christian Aid (http://www.ngo-monitor.org//editions/v2n10/v2n10-1.htm), this report ignores the complexities of the conflict and its history, while its authors examine a single element, out of context of the broader picture. Thus, they have failed to consider the role of incitement to hatred, and extremist Palestinian demands on issues such as refugee claims, which have been manipulated since the 1948 war in order to block agreement. Christian Aid's latest venture into the complex politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict also fails to consider Palestinian rejection of all proposals regarding shared access to Jerusalem, which was another critical factor in the collapse of the permanent status negotiations. And although the history of Palestinian terror in the service of rejectionism receives limited attention, Christian Aid's claim that "the issue of land - which is both the problem and the solution in the conflict between Palestinians and Israel", reflects a very narrow and largely uninformed perspective.

Instead, by isolating the single issue of land, and examining this exclusively from the perspective of the Palestinian leadership, Christian Aid has produced a highly biased and counterproductive political publication, which will add more fuel to the fire and hostility.

The emphasis on a "single state solution" also repeats reflects the current political position of the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Yassir Arafat. Under Arafat's guidance, Michael Tarazi, of the PLO's Negotiation Support Unit (which is funded by the British government as a "development" project) has recently written a number of newspaper columns on precisely the same themes as those that are the subject of this Christian Aid report.

Thus, the claim that this report reflects the "Facts on the ground" is highly misleading - these facts are highly selective and filtered through a pro-Palestinian political lens. Although emphasizing political assertions (i.e., "the strangulation of the Palestinian economy, as more land is taken from the West Bank for settler roads and settlements"), the impact of terrorism and corruption among Palestinian leaders receives scant notice. The exposed politicized objectives of Christian Aid's "Palestinian and Israeli partners" (http://www.ngo-monitor.org//archives/infofile.htm) have been substituted for professional and unbiased analysis of these complex and controversial issues.

As a result of these and other serious deficiencies, the claim that the recommendations that flow from this report are likely to somehow resolve a conflict that has continued for 75 years (long before "occupied territory") is simply not credible.

The NGO Monitor organization (www.ngo-monitor.org) promotes critical debate and accountability of human rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict. The Monitor is produced by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute of Contemporary Affairs.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 21, 2004.
This appeared in http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=9768

"Invoking academic freedom, the heads of Israeli academe defend venomous expressions against Israel. But the Rector of the Hebrew University has mustered his authority to silence criticism of the venom spreaders." - Anat Perry

In August 2001, I published an article in Haaretz dealing with the political and ideological use that Europe does in comparisons between Israel and the Nazis. Inter alia, I argued that Germany, which cannot make such comparisons herself, provides financial support to every Israeli entity that makes such comparisons. By way of an example, I mentioned Professor Moshe Zimmermann, who, several weeks earlier, in a letter to "Musaf S'farim" (book supplement) of Haaretz, likened the Eichmann Trial to the burning down of the Reichstag trials that the Nazis staged.

Zimmermann then sued Haaretz and myself for libel. The suit was repelled, and Zimmermann has appealed the ruling. In her ruling, Justice Yehudit Shevakh determined that Zimmermann has indeed received support from German sources, and that he has indeed likened Nazi entities to Israeli entities. Based on the evidence, the judge also found that Zimmermann has admitted to doing so.

Several weeks before the court ruling was handed down, the erstwhile head of the Berlin Jewish Community, Dr. Alexander Brenner, received a letter from Prof. Zimmermann, typed on Hebrew University stationary, which read: "On January 27, 2004, you referred (on the Israeli Broadcasting Service) to professors of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who likened the conduct of the SS troops to that of Israeli soldiers. I was also informed by other sources that you have made similar statements in other contexts. Since the faculty of the Hebrew University might infer that you were alluding to me ... I must demand of you to either apologize for your allusions in writing to the Rector of the Hebrew University, or to explicitly name the professors to whom your expression referred.

Brenner ignored Zimmermann's demand, but then received a letter from Professor Haim Rabinowitch, Rector of the Hebrew University [in Israel, a rector is a faculty elected provost]. In his letter Rabinowitch wrote. "In consultation with the Hebrew University legal counsel, we drafted a short sentence that suggests an apology, Words were said in error, without an intent to harm any of the Hebrew University Professors. I hereby apologize before the Rector for any offense, if committed, against any of the professors of the University ". Brenner declined to respond.

An assault of Zimmermann on Brenner is likely to increase even more the formers popularity in Germany. The German public is often angered by the leaders of the German Jewish community, who protest displays of anti-Semitism, and who criticize the Germans' propensity to gloss over their nation's history, preferring to try and present it as victim rather than perpetrator.

But the grave matter in this case is the behavior of the Hebrew University Rector. There have been past protests over Zimmermann's proclamations, and, for that matter, over Professor Van Krevelds vulgar, sexist declarations. However the University itself abstained from intervening, citing freedom of expression and academia.

But are only boorish anti-Semites and sexists entitled to freedom of speech? Should a Jewish leader, who has fought anti-Semitism, including the kind that Jewish professors inflame, be apprehensive of maltreatment by the Hebrew University? Can the universities absolve themselves of censoring venomous expressions of Israeli academics against Israel on account of academic freedom, and simultaneously also muster their authority to silence their own critics?

The Hebrew University Rector's letter is a disgrace to Israeli academe and yet another manifestation of its moral bankruptcy.

The author is a researcher of anti-Semitism

The Hebrew University response: The letter stems from a misunderstanding. The Rector surmised, in light of information that he received, that Dr. Alexander Brenner was interested in apologizing to professors of the Hebrew University. Therefore, a wording of a letter was suggested to Brenner to enable him to retract his comprehensive accusation against them. Post factum, the Rector thinks that there was no room for his intervention in this matter.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, October 21, 2004.

You wouldn't arrest a Yiddishe mamma would you? I'm not taking chances, so I'll hide all green baseball caps. I'll gird myself with an apron and arm myself with a rolling pin, while I prepare Shabbat, review the headlines and give mussar simultaneously (note: this is something only a Jewish mother can do)....


Justice Minister Yosef (Tommy) Lapid, I understand that when you see pictures of old women searching through the rubble of their homes that were used to aid and abet terrorists, that you're reminded of you grandmother (I don't know who your grandmother was, but if she was helping the enemy then I'm glad we never met).

Does the image of octogenarian rabbis being hauled off for questioning by the authorities jar that historically sensitive memory of yours? Think, Tommy, think.... Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome; Inquisitors, Czars, Pogroms, Bolsheviks etc...etc...etc... (notice how I cleverly avoided mention of the word "Nazi" or any allusion to the Holocaust -as that could get me in trouble).

Rabbis (at least those outside of the political realm) grapple with profound moral and ethical issues. It takes tremendous time, scholarship, effort, concentration and soul searching to render a proper interpretation of our eternal laws, and to decipher the truth and consider the consequences. These Rabbis also possess an intense devotion to the land and people of Israel, as well as an appropriate allegiance and dedication the state.

It is worth noting that the original founders and framers of democratic doctrine also put forth similar efforts and possessed wisdom that comes from penetrating study, reflection and fear of G-d. This is something that a Justice Minister of your standing could never understand, so why do I even bother? My advice: perhaps you should stop talking so much, and start thinking.

and speaking of octogenarian...





Now it must be noted that a day after Shimon the Prophet's words made local and international headlines, security officials stated that, "There are no concrete reports of intentions of Jews to hurt Sharon." (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=70736) Public Security Minister Gideon Ezra, a former senior Shin Bet official told Army Radio that, "If there were specific threats - we would deal with them."

But, the damage was already done.

According to my husband, "Peres always has to be the man to predict the future." He'll do his utmost to make sure that his predictions come true, because he hates to be wrong. Peres is a visionary and creates the future. Peres knows all. So if, G-d forbid, someone happens to come along and assassinate a government official, I think the investigators should knock on Shimon's door, because Peres claims to know everything.

Shimon! You're not G-d. You're over eighty and the Harvard speaking circuit needs you. I hear Luxembourg is nice this time of year - it's a small country and your nanotechnical plans would fit-in well there. Or perhaps you can head to Palm Beach and sip Slim-Fast while you listen to old Streisand tunes at pool-side with your buddy S. Daniel Abraham. Just leave us in Israel, and your talk of assassination, alone. We've had enough! I'm a visionary too, and one day ...



JERUSALEM Those opposing Ariel Sharon's plans for territorial withdrawal say they are "very fearful" that loyalists to Sharon, the left-wing media and the so-called peace camp are deliberately creating a provocative and hateful atmosphere with the intent of slandering and inciting those Israelis residing in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and their supporters Many here feel that rather than encourage civil, democratic debate, the verbal attacks and threats of indictment have become more vociferous and may be intentionally planned to coincide with the anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

The Israeli Left have used these tactics before - most notable was the scandal of September 1995 when the media and General Security Services cooperated and staged a "swearing in ceremony" of the pseudo-fanatic Eyal organization. That filming was supervised by agent provocateur Avishai Raviv and was aired on Israeli state-controlled television, in additon to being disseminated to the international press. At the time, the intention was to make the very broad public opposition to the Oslo Accords appear to look like it comprised of small bands of extremists. In addition to working for Israeli intelligence, Raviv was also a well-acquainted with Yigal Amir, the alleged assassin of then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

The plan back-fired and in spite of the accusations against the national camp and big question marks that surrounded that period of upheaval, the right-wing parties won the 1996 general elections.

In light of that history, national camp activists are puzzled as to why the government and left-wing factions would repeat this failed formula and employ these provocative tactics again...


Tommy and Shimon,

Come Friday evening, hundreds of thousands of Israelis are going to turn off their television and radios, and settle-in to a place where the thought-police will no longer effect them (ladies, use your Friday's JPost for the fish bones and vegetable peels, as new editor David Horovitz is going to get trashed in my next article).

We will sit down with our families over Kiddish and a good meal, and we will discuss and debate the current crisis. We will explore various means of bringing down the government and its leaders (democratically, of course) and ways to effect change in this beloved country of ours. We will also allow our soldier sons and daughters to openly grapple with their national duties and moral obligations. It's what being a Jew is all about.

Then a lot of us are going to pray that our thoughts, dreams and efforts come to fruition.

Shabbat Shalom, Gentleman.

Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter and columnist for Israelnationalnews.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Arlene Peck, October 20, 2004.

Like most of you, I'm a pretty basic person. When my kids were little, I didn't let them play at places where there might be danger. "Bad kids" never made it into our realm of existence. I wish it were that easy for the Jewish State.

Israel is a beautiful country. Unfortunately, it's in a very bad neighborhood. Its leaders somehow have the mistaken impression that releasing its captured Arab-Palestinian "bad boys" into the street are going to solve the problem of co-existence. Personally, I'd rather see Israel counter with a demand that wanted terrorist leaders be turned over to the IDF. That might end these ludicrous prisoner release demands by the Bush government.

More importantly, is the need for "transfer" or "emigration" of the enemy out of the Jewish nation. Because, without that, I truly believe that the state of Israel is in dire straits.

When I was a kid growing up in Atlanta, if someone had a baby out of wedlock, it was a family shame. That folks, is what the discussion of "transfer" has become. Something to be whispered. Jews, by their very nature, are supportive of the 'underdog'. So the discussions of this topic are never brought into the mainstream. It's just too "politically incorrect" to talk about any solution that may prevent the demise of Israel. Everyone automatically associates transfer with thinking it means, "Forced eviction."

Instead, I see it as the solution. To me, it's far better to transfer these people out of Israel completely. I'm talking about the thousands of vicious terrorists who have wreaked havoc on the Jewish people.

The way I see it, at the moment, there is a tremendous influx of Arabs, including Palestinians from Israel, into the United States. Mosques are springing up at many corners. But, we're not calling it "transfer". It's called "immigration". They've immigrated so much in France that the country has totally lost its identity. I wouldn't be surprised to see the women in Paris wearing the latest styles of burkas soon.

The only "human rights" the Palestinians want are for their fellow terrorists. The Arabs may kill each other on a regular basis but the one thing they can agree upon at any given time is the demise of the Jewish State. After that, they'll tackle the "Great Satan" Israel is only the canary in the tunnel.

I fail to understand why memories are so short that people have forgotten that the Palestinian Arabs themselves never saw themselves as distinct "nation" apart from the Greater Arab Nation. It is only recently that they have had the very vocal push for their right of self-determination. Yet, while they call for self determination, they play up the fact of "collective punishments" from the Israelis who are no longer employing them. It confuses me why it's expected that the Jews in Israel be their source of income and success. This is something that is beyond me.

The logical thing, to me, is to not employ Arabs. American money should not continue to be provided to the Palestinian Arabs, and these terrorists inclined should be encouraged, however disguised, to move to George W> Bush's Crawford Texas as the land of new opportunity. Their Arab brothers sure as hell don't want them. We know, all too well, how Arafat's generation has been carefully raised and nurtured the past fifty years on hate, death and destruction. These people are definitely not good neighbors. And, after their track record in Lebanon and Jordan no Arab country is going to bring these terrorists into their fold with their bombs and rockets.

I don't give a diddly-squat about Oslos, Camp Davids, Madrid's, Sharm-el-sheiks, interim agreements, Aqabas, "goodwill gestures", truces, or Road Maps, Israel is going to be forced to trust no one but itself. Despite the fine print of what is supposed to happen in these agreements the Arabs have never accepted, and I doubt that they ever will, accept Israel's right to exist. So, knowing that, I believe that Israel has to do what is in its best interests as a sovereign country. It doesn't need pats on the head from George Bush or whoever follows him. She needs the will, and the power to do what is necessary to keep her people safe.

I wonder, how Bush, Rice and Powell would react to the question of more liberal immigration laws, in order to enable there to be greater population diversity in the United States, and to correct past racism in our country? After all, Bush was pushing for the amnesty of three million Mexicans who had crossed the border in order to give him few more voters. Why not from a new Palestine? Hey, after all the aid he's been pushing their way, for sure he'd have built- in votes. Truthfully, we all know the reason why they shouldn't come to America. But, how about Jordan? After all, it is the true Palestine. They came from there and elsewhere. They should return there.

The same way that Brasilia in Brazil was built as a solution for the extremely overcrowded conditions in Rio, Jordan is the ideal spot for their officially-acknowledged Palestinian homeland". Jordan is a poor nation and it can build an emerging city that would be a financial boon to both the Jordanians and their brother Palestinians. In fact, it could advance the entire region. The king of Jordan could be given allegiance for fifty years. They could be the beneficiaries of the billions upon billions of dollars that have been pouring into the corrupt government of Arafat and his cronies. Money, incidentally, which never reaches the intended. So, instead they could take a chunk of that empty country and build a nation.

The now diverted money could be used in American products and Israeli know-how. Hey, all of those unemployed Arabs could now find work. In fact, now that they would be building their nation and not doing construction work for the Israelis they might not feel the need to sabotage the job as they did when I was living in Israel. At that time, they would put rotten eggs in the mortar, pee in the air-conditioning system and generally wreak havoc on the construction job. So, instead Israel decided to import workers from Romania and Thailand as laborers. Of course, the Arab nations would never agree to a plan that would succeed in taking away their use of the Palestinians as a cover for demonizing Israel. They would rather release their "bad boys" back on the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Stand With Us, October 20, 2004.

[Editor's Note: The Palestinian Solidarity Movement (PSM), a pro-Arab Marxist group affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Adam Shapiro of ISM had breakfast with Arafat to show solidarity with the 'Palestinian' people. PSM held a series of closed workshops and a conference at Duke University the October 15th weekend. Several Jewish organizations sent people, who reported back on the activities.]

I am told that there were roughly 400 people that went to these workshops, from cities all over the United States.

As completely expected, speakers at the PSM (Palestinian Solidarity Movement) conference whitewashed the Palestinian terrorist groups..and said that. terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are a result of the creation of Israel...

These are highlights from some Workshop 'Lessons'.

Roz Rothstein, Executive Director,


(To Hillel's credit it is a democracy! But look at this plan to manipulate....)

Hillel is a good way to infiltrate the organized Jewish community on campus.....that because Hillel is a democracy...... Hillel makes it easy to get involved...Some Hillels have brought refusniks to speak... so it will be easy to get "in" and get on their boards...."take a position on their boards" ....That Hillel's guiding principles agree with Zionism but that different viewpoints are encouraged---so get inside....and control the debate.


(obviously not their name for this, its ours...) Palestine Education Project (PEP for short) (This is for young children.....around America) Ora Wise....led this session... (she is the link between the ISM and the PSM...)...

Here is what people were told to do: Contact teachers all over the country.. Not Principals... go directly to teachers...so you can get in.... .go to inner city schools. Speak to minority kids...Thats what Ora Wise does... Once in a classroom, here is how you teach about the Israeli oppression: Give a kid some water, but give other kids a lot of water. Give some kids toys and other kids no toys. Talk about the comparisons. The Israelis have the toys, the water. The Palestinians have nothing (and it is the fault of Israelis. Blame the Israelis)

Talked about how you educate young children in your classrooms about the injustices... Get children to draw photos of their families in their homes. Then show them all the photos of what a Palestinian child would draw, reflecting oppression. (you can order these special pictures) Get a hulahoop. Get the classroom of kids to stand close together around the hoolahoop. Then put a child in the middle of the hoolahoop. The child in the hoolahoop is the Israeli. He has lots of space. All the water. Everyone else is crowded and uncomfortable....

Palestinian rapper with images of oppression--suggested that people purchase this video www.jsalloum.org

For more information and materials for the PEP program... Palestine_in_school@yahoo.com


Presbyterian Divestment:

They will use the Presbyterian church to get the Episcopal Church to also divest from companies who do business with Israel... Work to Isolate Israel from the world community through divestment...more on this soon

BUILD BRIDGES between different campus groups.


  • By Nasser Abufarha--author of the Alternative Palestinian Agenda, and doctoral candidate of Cultural Anthropology of the University of Wisconsin Some of his thoughts:

  • Israel, The Colony....is not supported by any other state but by a Jewish population all around the world...

    The very IDEA of a Jewish state is the problem. There should be no talk of a Jewish state. Ending the occupation will NOT end the struggle. Pulling out tanks will not end the struggle. The Struggle is to END the state of Israel. We should not be expected to give up our country to Make Room For Israel. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah ... are not radical groups... they are the logical outcome of the establishment of a Jewish state on Arab land. PFLP (One of Arafat's original terrorist groups) is a leftist group....its only a liberal group. Not a radical group... Challenge the very notion of the Jewish state. Zionism is incompatible with a two state solution.... the two state solution can never work....

  • Diana Buttu stressed that the 1967 war was not a defensive war, that Israel was the aggressor in 1967. She sourced an Israeli historian... Avi Shliam....as her source... Bus 19 is evidence of occupation. Two state solution is not possible. Israel is the problem.

  • Mazin Qumsiyeh - "Zionism is a disease..." Talked about the right of Return.... the only thing standing in the way of the right of return, is the idea of the Jewish state.

  • SAtya - from the Ruckus Society. She made the Tiananmen Square analogy with Palestinian child and tank in Israel..... She proposed that cutting down the fence in Israel is a viable nonviolent direct action...

  • Amnesty International .... Marty Rosenbluth, is quote, Israel Occupied Territories Specialist unquote. To his credit, Rosenbluth challenged the PSM to eliminate guiding principal number five that does not come out against terrorism.... he proposed that the PSM needs to take a stand against terrorism in order to be consistent... international law requires the use of force to distinguish between combatants and civilians. This does not only apply to Israel, international law is a two way street.. you cannot condemn Israel for killing children while not condemning suicide bombings and killing children at a pizzaria... The PSM was handing out leaflets against this stance by Marty Rosenbluth.... Rosenbluth also drew attention to the Palestinian State Security Court that Al Gore visited and commended...Rosenbluth says that in actuality these quote, courts are being used to try quote, collaborators (or people who want democracy....) and the trials are only 15 minutes long, taking place at midnight, and people are executed after these trials.

    Amnesty International has met with Hamas, etc... and has been trying to convince them to stop using terrorism. The fourth Geneva convention is explicitly against the use of using human shields and the use of child soldiers....

  • USE BIRTHRIGHT TO GET TO ISRAEL, Then Join the ISM--the International Solidarity Movement.... cut israel's fence, be an international witness to Israel's terrorism, stop the bulldozing, etc...

    Jessica Rutter presented...she began the divestment campaign at Duke, she went to birthright and then to the ISM....she brought this conference to Duke... Among things said, Jessica wonders about the story of Masada... and if it did take place, whats the difference between those Jews killing themselves and the Palestinians killing themselves? Israelis kill Palestinians indiscriminately

  • Occupation stories..... horrific stories were told... demonizing Israel....you need internationals to walk with the Palestinians because the Israelis will shoot at Palestinians if there are no internationals.

  • One State Solution Session There were 200 people there. Since it was a racist apartheid state, it's RACIST for Jews to have a state.


This is information on Strategy for specific regions... this took place on Sunday morning...10-17-04

People were given arm bands for identification...the conference leaders were desperately trying to control the infiltrators...... even so, this came from small strategy groups:

In the meetings, they discussed future strategy for the ISM How to spread their positions by way of churches, especially the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican. And through the libraries, community centers, schools, and through the "Wheels of Justice."

They are calling for a boycott of Estee Lauder, of Clinique, Prescriptives, and Bobbe Brown... They call Estee Lauder... "Estee Slaughter" because Ron Lauder funds so many Jewish causes....BRAVO ..... everyone should be making a special point of supporting these companies!!

They plan to raise funds to support their efforts via artist delegations, poetry readings and film festivals...

Russel Simmons was mentioned. They feel he may be a good spokesperson for the Palestinian cause since he has incorporated the Palestinian suffering in one of his last hits. They are going to ask him to co-sponsor a music festival....

They want to plan broad meetings in order to call for divestment not only from the colleges, but from all large institutions that invest in Israel... including another push to get people to divest and pressure Caterpiller (the bulldozer company).

They are now trying to raise money via pay PAL (credit card service) "scholarships" to send internationals to be with ISM in the Palestinian territories...

This entire conference only cost them $2,000 because Duke paid $60,000 for security! Why did Duke do this? Do public institutions protect the pro-Israel community of speakers like this?

Brian Avery - Implied that Jews control Bush... he said "Bush's signing of the Global Anti-Semitism Bill was special payback to the Jewish folk" He also said that the Zionists control the media, all the editors are Jews except for Indy Media and Democracy Now.

This first report of the Duke conference is archived at http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=142

StandWithUs is a pro Israel advocacy organization concerned that there be a secure future for Israel. They develop educational material, work with students on campus, and work towards media fairness to Israel. Their website address is www.standwithus.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 20, 2004.
In an article entitled, "Two years after assassination: Soul-searching on the left could heal Israel's wounds," (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/ 7462/format/html/displaystory.html) November 14, 1997, Jack Golbert wrote
Professor Moshe Zimmerman of Hebrew University compared the Torah with "Mein Kampf," as a racist blueprint for the destruction of other peoples and likened the children of Kiryat Arba, the Jewish community outside Hebron, to Hitler Youth. How was Professor Zimmerman's hateful extremism answered? He was recruited to the Ministry of Education and placed in charge of developing history curriculum for Israeli schools.
To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 20, 2004.

This article was written by Rabbi Levi I. Brackman, who serves as spiritual leader of the Enfield & Winchmore Hill Community in London, England. It appeared on October 19, 2004 and is archived at http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=173431

Like most people, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the reports of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings coming out of Iraq. The cities Falluja and Ramadi and much of Anbar Province are now controlled by fundamentalist, Al-Qaeda style militias.

I have asked myself why it is that I am so disturbed by the murderous methods the militants use. We all know that this is war, and war means that there are two sides that aim to eliminate each other. If we are honest with ourselves we would have to admit that the military aircraft, the laser-guided missiles and the Abrams tanks used by the Americans are more lethal and disturbing killing machines than a masked man with a butcher knife. So what is it about these anachronistic beheadings that offends us so much?

As a devoutly religious person, what bothers me more than anything else is the fact that the beheadings are carried out as a form of religious ritual. One of the films of such a murder is reported to show a man quoting passages from the Koran ordaining death. "He who will abide by the Koran will prosper; he who offends against it will get the sword..." And then as he performs the barbaric act he and his partners shout "Allah akbar!" (G-d is great).

I know the intensity of the passion one feels when one is convinced that one is carrying out the will of G-d. Seeing that same passion used in such an evil manner terrifies me.

I often wonder what my contemporaries and I would be like if our teachers had taught us that the only path to G-d is through the sword. I am convinced that at least some of us would have accepted these barbaric teachings at face value and would have become religious murderers. Maybe the fundamentalists are ordinary people who have just been brainwashed by evil ideology.

We have to see this war for what it really has become -- a war of opposing ideologies. On the one side is the Western idea of freedom, democracy and human rights, and on the other side is a form of theocratic dictatorship where the religious authorities are given a free hand in interpreting G-d's will. The question is whether our democratic society can ever overcome an ideology that has the lethal cocktail of religious zeal and murderous intent.

If this war is ever to be won, it has to be fought on two fronts. Certainly when people have become terminally corrupted by lethal ideas, one may have no choice but to eliminate the people who carry the ideas. However, at the same time there has to be a sincere and strenuous effort to win over young people. We must combat the ideas behind religious fundamentalism, and we can do this only if we offer a coherent and equally attractive alternative.

Fundamentalist religion offers its adherents a framework in which to live. It offers a protective brotherhood. But most of all, it adds a sense of meaning, purpose and passion to the life of the adherent. All of the above -- a structured framework, a brotherhood, a sense of meaning and a passion -- are things that Western society lacks. How is Western-style democracy ever to replace the dangerous type of Islamic fundamentalism if it is not fighting on the same turf? The Kabbalists tell us that whatever G-d created in evil he created the exact counterpart in good. One has to present young people with an alternative religious ideology that offers the same qualities as fundamentalism but is aimed in a peaceful direction.

Judaism is an example of this type of ideology. Judaism has a built-in sense of community. It offers real direction and passion but the theme throughout is peacefulness. As Maimonides writes (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Megillah 4:14), "G-d gave the Torah to make peace in the world as it is written (Proverbs 3): 'Its ways are pleasant and all its paths are peaceful." According to the Talmud, a court of law empowered to carry out the death penalty that executes a criminal more than once in seventy years is considered a "murderous court." Throughout the Mishnah and Talmud--which were formed during the rise of Christianity and Islam--you'd be hard-pressed to find a sage who is venerated for his physical battle against unbelievers. Judaism preaches peacefulness; warmongers have no place.

Although there are parts of the Bible that if interpreted literally could seem cruel and violent, our sages interpret them in a peaceful manner. For example the Bible (Exodus 21:24) says that a violent attacker should pay "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but the sages don't take this literally; instead they say it means that the offender must pay the monetary worth of the eye or the tooth. Another example is the law (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) regarding the stoning of the rebellious child. Instead of widening the definition of a rebellious child, our sages narrowed it, to the extent that it is virtually impossible for the law ever actually to be applied. Many Biblical laws can be interpreted either as a license for violence or in a peaceful manner. Rabbinic Judaism exemplifies how potentially violent laws can be interpreted in a civilized and peace-loving way. In Judaism, killing and religion are as far apart from one another as the number one is from infinity. It is this peaceful model that we should be exporting.

Secularism is doubtless dominant in the West. But this may be because the religion that is currently offered lacks passion and attractiveness. What will happen if a new generation of religious demagogues rises up, passionately arguing a negative fundamentalist line? We may end up with another crusade on our hands. The only way to avert such a disaster is to offer an alternative peaceful religious model that has real meaning as well as purpose and passion. Let us hope that those directing the war realize this. The future is still in our hands. Let us shape it while we are still able.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Judah Tzoref, October 20, 2004.

By the chain-reaction spread of email networking, my statement "Pursuing Political Asylum" has gained an outreach beyond the recipients of my address book.

From one of my indirect recipients I received an interesting response, suggesting that I should be more careful with my expressions lest our enemies should use it against us. That recipient suggests further to refrain from insinuations of Holocaust analogies, and in general our domestic political rivals would, God forbid, find verification of our fanaticism.

To that I say: No to politically correct diplomacy. Our domestic as well as foreign enemies hate us for what we are: genuine Jewish people, no matter what !

The Left as well as the Arabs have never been careful in picking up the most virulent vilification against us - true Jews whether secular, traditional or orthodox.

The frequent demand for political correctness by the gentle people of our camp shows nothing but a pathological inferiority complex. We shouldn't care the least about the judgement of our enemies, since moral inferiority is on their side. Our inside and outside enemies have been systematically using the National Camp's inferiority complex as an effective tactic to defeat Israel and the Jews.

The Biblical prophets, who have provided us with an awesome spiritual umbrella, set the exemplary archetype. In their caustic admonition against backsliding nation, the prophets could not care less about delicacy of style. Far too long we have hidden the truth under mountains of political correctness and abandoned the stage for the play of our enemies.

No matter how harsh it may sound to gentle ears corrupted by bad habits of politically correct mendacity, our say should be voiced loud and clear. Eventually, it shall be appreciated. For the world is thirsty to hear at long last the voice of truth and reason from among the Children of Israel.

Dr Judah (Yehuda) Tzoref lives in Rehovot, Israel.

To Go To Top
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 20, 2004.
This was written by Tom Gross, a former Middle East foreign correspondent.

Is the international "media intifada" against Israel, like the intifada on the ground, beginning to run out of steam?

To judge by the reporting of Israel's recent Gaza operation, this just might be the case.

Of course, there is still plenty of negative coverage. There was the usual emotive reporting ("Two girls, two shots to the head," read the Guardian's headline; "The harvest of death in this most dispossessed of refugee camps continued," began Mitch Potter's news report in the Toronto Star.)

And there were also the usual outright lies. Agence France Presse, for example, reported last week (in a story reprinted in newspapers throughout the world) that the majority of the 111 Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza over the last two weeks were children.

But overall, the reporting on "Operation Days of Penitence" was not nearly as fierce, nor as bad, as it has been on several past occasions.

When, for example, Israel launched a similarly-sized counterterrorist operation in Jenin in 2002 (and actually killed very few civilians in doing so), Israel-baiting in the European media reached hysterical levels. Israel was invariably compared to the Nazis, al Qaeda, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and the Taliban.

The Guardian said Israel's actions were "every bit as repellent" as the 9/11 attacks. The (London) Evening Standard called them acts of "genocide" and, for good measure, accused Israel of the "willful burning of several church buildings." And even supposedly pro-Israel newspapers like Britain's Daily Telegraph said "hundreds of Palestinian victims" had been "buried by bulldozers in mass graves." Palestinians in Jenin, Telegraph readers were told, were "stripped to their underwear, bound hand and foot, placed against a wall and killed with single shots to the head."

During recent weeks, by contrast, not only has there been a slight easing of pressure against Israel in media coverage, but some European reporters have actually taken the unusual step of speaking out against their Israel-hating colleagues.

In Paris on Saturday, several journalists at "Radio France International" slammed the station's news director, Alain Menargues, for his "unacceptable" remarks during an interview concerning his book "Sharon's Wall" on Radio Courtoisie last week.

Menargues told listeners that we knew from the Book of Leviticus and from 2000 years of history that Jews wished to separate themselves from "impure" non-Jews. He added that Jews had deliberately created the world's first ghetto in Venice "to separate themselves off from the rest."

And in London on Sunday, fellow journalists publicly condemned the notorious Robert Fisk, The Independent's Mideast correspondent (and a previous winner of journalist of the year award for, among other things, his anti-Israel tirades). The associate editor of the (London) Times said Fisk's coverage "masquerades as reporting but is, in fact, polemic".

Bill Newman, ombudsman for The Sun, Britain's most popular newspaper, said Fisk's coverage of Israel was so bad that he found it "distasteful."

A further sign of change is the displeasure the terror groups themselves have expressed now that they are no longer automatically getting the sympathetic coverage they have come to expect from western journalists. They have recently started to kidnap journalists (French ones in Iraq, an Israeli Arab working for CNN in Gaza) as a warning to others to "toe the line".

There are several possible reasons why there may have been a slight easing in attacks on Israel recently, at least in some parts of the media:

* The media are presently preoccupied with the US elections.

* For the time being, Iraq has become the main focus of Mideast reporting.

* The ferocious nature of terror attacks like those in Beslan and Madrid might finally have persuaded some European journalists to consider the possibility that Israel is justified in the steps it has taken to defend itself.

* The recent beheadings perpetrated by hostage-takers in Iraq have, for the time being at least, given their fellow "militants" in Gaza a bad name.

* Even the most liberal of the pro-Arab media are finally tending to treat Yasser Arafat in a negative light.

* Perhaps commentators realize that Israel is intending to do what the international community has demanded of it for decades and withdraw from Gaza; and yet in response, far from making conciliatory gestures, Palestinian groups have murdered Israeli children in Sderot and Beersheva. Some journalists are now less enamored of Hamas. (There are exceptions, of course; both Orla Guerin of the BBC and Ben Wedeman of CNN have recently started referring to Hamas as "the resistance.")

* Improved public-relations efforts on behalf of Israel: not the lamentable efforts of Gideon Meir, Israel's PR guru at the Foreign Ministry, but those of private groups such as HonestReporting.

* Perhaps, too, there is a belated realization that - even if it isn't acknowledged in public - the Israeli army makes honest and sustained efforts to avoid civilian casualties, of a kind that have very seldom been taken by other armies.

However, experience suggests that this mild improvement in media comment and coverage is likely to prove only temporary. Negative opinion about Israel, especially in Europe, has become so entrenched in broad sections of elitist opinion that there is little chance of Israel receiving fair coverage on a consistent basis - not until there is full recognition in Europe and elsewhere of the nature and threat of Islamic fundamentalist terror.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Ken Heller, October 20, 2004.
This was written by David Bedein of the Israel Resource News Agency (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). David Bedein is Bureau Chief of Israel Resource News Agency.

Giora Eiland, head of the Israel National Security Council, appeared at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on Monday and was reported to have stated that Israel will hand over assets of the Israeli communities in Katif to an international institution.

What Eiland did not mention is that this international institution is the World Bank, and that the World Bank intends to hand over assets to the Palestinian Authority, without any requirement that the PA not engage in terrorism.

This is what the government of Israel decided on June 6, 2004, in clause 7 of the Sharon plan:

"The State of Israel will aspire to transfer other facilities, including industrial, commercial and agricultural ones, to a third, international party which will put them to use for the benefit of the Palestinian population that is not involved in terror"

However, in a monograph that was prepared for the World Bank at the request of the government of Israel and the PLO, entitled "Disengagement, Palestinian Economy and the Settlements and issued by The World Bank", issued on June 23, 2004, and signed by James Wolfenson, the President of the World Bank, there is a detailed program for the transfer of all of the assets of the Katif area of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, without ANY prerequisite that those who receive the assets have not been involved with terror.

The World Bank eliminates the phrase "not involved in terror" and explains "the State of Israel will aspire to transfer other structures, such as industrial and agricultural facilities, to an international third party that will use them for the benefit of the Palestinian population."

In other words, The World Bank intends to hand over assets to the PA without the anti-terror clause, at the request of the government of Israel, even though clause one of the Sharon Plan defines the PA as a hostile entity.

To Go To Top
Posted by IsrAlert, October 20, 2004.
This was written by Jacob Gershman, a staff reporter of the New York Sun. It is archived at http://www.nysun.com/article/3452

At a history class, a professor mockingly tells a female Jewish student she cannot possibly have ancestral ties to Israel because her eyes are green.

During a lecture, a professor of Arab politics refuses to answer a question from an Israeli student and military veteran but instead asks the student, "How many Palestinians have you killed?"

At a student meeting on the topic of divestment from Israel, a Jewish student is singled out as responsible for death of Palestinian Arabs.

Those scenes are described by current and former students interviewed for an underground documentary that is causing a frisson of concern to ripple through the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University, where the incidents took place.

The film, about anti-Israel sentiment at the school, has not yet been released to the public, but it has been screened for a number of top officials of Columbia, and talk of its impact is spreading rapidly on a campus where some students have complained of anti-Israel bias among faculty members.

"The movie is shocking," one Columbia senior, Ariel Beery, said.

"It is shocking to see blatant use of racial stereotypes by professors and intimidation tactics by professors in order to push a distinct ideological line on the curriculum," Mr. Beery, who was interviewed for the film, said.

The film is the creation of the David Project, a 2-year-old group based in Boston that advocates for Israel and is led by the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, Charles Jacobs. The David Project, which is refusing to make the film public, has screened it for Barnard College's president, Judith Shapiro, and Columbia's provost, Alan Brinkley, according to sources.

Neither Ms. Shapiro nor Mr. Brinkley would return calls seeking comment about the film, though at a meeting in Washington this week with women active in Jewish charitable work the Barnard president is said to have spoken of how emotionally affected she was by the film.

With versions at 11 minutes and 25 minutes in playing time, the film consists of interviews with several students who contend that they have felt threatened academically for expressing a pro-Israel point of view in classrooms.

One of the scholars discussed most in the film, according to a person who has seen the film, is Joseph Massad, a non-tenured professor of modern Arab politics, who is teaching a course about Middle East nationalism this fall. Mr. Massad, a professor at Columbia's department of Middle East and Asian languages and cultures, has likened Israel to Nazi Germany and has said Israel doesn't have the right to exist as a Jewish state.

In the film, a former Columbia undergraduate, Tomy Schoenfeld, recalls attending a lecture about the Middle East conflict given by Mr. Massad in spring 2001. At the end of the lecture, Mr. Schoenfeld prefaced a question to the professor by informing Mr. Massad that he was Israeli, Mr. Schoenfeld told The New York Sun. "Before I could continue, he stopped me and said, 'Did you serve in the military?'" Mr. Schoenfeld, who served in the Israeli Air Force between 1996 and 1999, recalled. He said that he told Mr. Massad he had served in the military and that Mr. Massad asked him how many Palestinians he had killed. When Mr. Schoenfeld refused to answer, Mr. Massad said he wouldn't allow him to ask his question.

Mr. Massad did not return phone calls for comment yesterday. Mr. Schoenfeld told the Sun that his encounter with Mr. Massad was not representative of his dealings with Columbia professors and that the Middle East-Asian department is "usually balanced."

Mr. Beery, the senior at the school, told the Sun that anti-Israel bias is prevalent in the department and said the documentary film demonstrates how many students at Columbia have been affected by it.

"You would be surprised," Mr. Beery said, "to find the number of students who were willing to stand up and be counted as members of the student body who oppose the intimidation of students in the classroom, especially on topics related to the Middle East."

In 2003, Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, convened a committee of six Columbia professors to investigate the possibility of the school's declaring stricter boundaries between academic expression and political activism. But the credibility of the investigation came into doubt among those following the issue seriously when Mr. Bollinger told the New York Daily News that the committee found no claims or evidence of bias or intimidation in the classroom.

Mr. Beery said the committee did not look hard enough for bias and said Jewish students at Columbia have no avenue for pressing complaints about anti-Israel prejudice among faculty members.

"Because Jews are seen as this overrepresented ethnic group and not prone to protests, they sweep it under the rug," he said.

Columbia is looking to raise money for an endowed professorship in Israeli studies to make up for what Mr. Bollinger has said is lack of contemporary Israel scholarship at the school.

That effort comes at a time when the university is under a cloud for having accepted money from the United Arab Emirates, one of the worst human rights violators in the Middle East and a country hostile to Jews and Israel, to help finance a chair named for the late professor Edward Said, who was a writer and anti-Israel Palestinian activist. Harvard University returned money from the UAE after complaints were raised about the propriety of taking money from that source.

The situation of Jewish students on anti-Israel campuses like Columbia is an issue that is coming into focus only slowly among a Jewish communal leadership whose attention has been elsewhere. The isolation of Jews on campuses has been recognized for decades.

One of the most famous letters ever written by a Jewish figure was penned in 1918 by the Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky and sent to a South African university student. Jabotinsky had heard that in the face of campus anti-Semitism the student was contemplating suicide. Jabotinsky advised him that it would be cowardly for the student to take his own life and that, instead, he should take heart from the Zionist stirrings, which were then just beginning.

The letter, which is reproduced in facsimile form in the "Encyclopedia Judaica," says: "I think, in a very conservative estimate, that the next ten years will see the Jewish state of Palestine ... a reality; probably less than ten." He said it would be "foolish to forego all of this" because of anti-Semites at the university.

Jewish students interviewed by this reporter at Columbia suggest that they perceive their situation in a different light than the student to whom Jabotinsky wrote. The Columbia students do not charge that they are facing anti-Semitism on campus. They attach an importance to what they see as a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments.

"They teach everything in the context of one special, small struggle, when there are 23 countries out there where minorities are being oppressed, where women are bound to their homes, where homosexuals are being put in jail. They're ignoring the rest of the Middle East in favor of a small dimension of it," Mr. Beery said.

Harv Weiner, a businessman in Dallas, Texas, is the founder and moderator of Isralert. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth Matar, October 20, 2004.

Dear Friends,

On February 2nd of this year, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dropped a bombshell on the Jewish People. He revealed his plan to abandon Jewish communities in Gaza and Northern Samaria, and to forcibly evacuate and transfer the Jewish population from their homes in these areas. As we know from reading the Bible, Gaza and Samaria are part of the Land promised to the Jewish People by the Almighty as an everlasting inheritance.

According to Sharon's Plan, these areas are now to be made Judenrein and handed over to the Arab enemy. In addition, the Arabs were promised by Sharon that even the very soil of these communities is to be cleansed of Jews, which means that Jewish bodies will have to be exhumed from their graves and taken somewhere else.

Sharon calls his Plan to expel Jews from their homes "Unilateral Disengagement", and explains that this Plan is important in the international arena, and that Israel's standing in the world would be much worse were his Plan not on the table. "Today's situation demands this step... You don't know what our situation would be [in the international arena] if we did not have this plan," Sharon said.

"The international arena" is probably delighted that the erstwhile Lion of Judah has given in to Arab terror and is running away, with his tail between his legs, from his responsibility to defend the Jewish People.

But what about us plain folks who believed his campaign promises that he would protect the Jews from the Arab enemy, and give them security? Security to live in peace in their homes and in their neighborhood. Security for their children attending school. Security when riding buses, or even when just enjoying a cup of coffee with friends in a neighborhood cafe.

Sharon did fulfill campaign promises - those of his Labor opponent, Amram Mitzna, who had promised, if elected, that he would evacuate every last Jew from Gaza. Because of this very platform, Amram Mitzna was roundly defeated.

Sharon has literally stolen our votes. He won by a landslide as head of the Likud Party, opposing Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna. The Likud Party platform clearly states: No to a Palestinian State, and no abandonment of any Jewish community.

Sharon's Disengagement Plan was a betrayal of both his Likud Party and the electorate at large. After this betrayal, the membership of the Likud Party voted against Sharon's Plan, in a referendum, with an approximately 20% majority. Likewise, the Likud Central Committee voted the same way, with a similar majority.

Unfazed, Sharon continues to ignore the Likud membership, the Likud Central Committee and almost half of the 40 Likud Knesset Members. He insists that the majority of the Israeli People supports his Plan. Then, why does he so adamantly refuse to let the Israeli People vote on his Plan in a National Referendum? So much for Sharon's belief in the democratic principle of listening to the voice of the People. He is completely "disengaged" from the majority of Israel's citizens.

Sharon has become a virtual dictator. In order to achieve his new goals, he does not hesitate to trample Israeli democracy.

Sharon tries to prevent Ministers and Knesset Members from voting according to their conscience. On June 4th he fired 2 MK's who would have dared to vote against the Disengagement (Benny Elon and Avigdor Lieberman). In last Monday's Jerusalem Post (October 18, 2004) there is a report that Sharon is considering firing additional Ministers and Deputy Ministers, who do not plan to support his Disengagement Plan, when it comes to a vote in the Knesset next Tuesday, October 26th.

Sharon tries to prevent the people at large from expressing their opposition to the Disengagement Plan by curtailing their freedom of speech and their ability to freely demonstrate against unpopular government policies.

Ofer Lefler, spokesman for the Israel Prisons Authority (IPA) told Israel Radio in a live interview on September 20, 2004 that the IPA is currently working on the development of "creative alternatives" for the mass detention of disengagement opponents.

Sharon has ordered a law to be drafted listing penalties for opponents to the Disengagement Plan: five years in prison for people who violently resist being "evacuated" from their own home and three years in prison for "evacuation disrupters."

This is a very dangerous infringement of individual freedom. If Women in Green hold a demonstration against the transfer of Jews from Gaza, are we then "evacuation disrupters"?

If Women in Green leader Nadia Matar criticizes Yonatan Bassi, the head of the Disengagement authority, is she then an "evacuation disrupter"?

It is evident to most people that the persecution of Nadia Matar is not meant in a personal way, but an attempt to eliminate the power of the Women in Green as a protest Movement against Sharon's unpopular and dangerous dictatorial behavior.

We, the Women in Green, feel that it is a very dangerous development to vilify all Disengagement opponents as inciters, mutineers, and a danger to the very existence of the state. If no steam can be vented and all protesters stifled, there is the danger that it can "blow people's minds," and lead to dangerous results.

Dear friends, in this regard I want to share with you an op-ed article by Sarah Honig in last Friday's Jerusalem Post. The title of this article is "Another Tack: Blowing People's Minds." Sarah Honig is, without doubt, one of the best and most perceptive columnists of the Jerusalem Post. She is never afraid to tell it like it is.

* * *


In response to last week's "Tack," a reader sent me a copy of the Rosh Hashana eve interview which Ariel Sharon gave Kfar Chabad's publication on the prospect of uprooting established settlements. It wasn't about the eviction he's steamrolling now, but about the one mooted nine years ago.

Nothing illustrates better that alleged incitement is in the beholder's eye, that it's a function of shifting political expediencies, not necessarily of entrenched convictions.

On September 24, 1995, Sharon praised the settlers effusively, likened them to brave pioneers of the 1940s, and opined unequivocally that they won't be tempted away from their homes by lucrative compensation packets. He urged them to "resist and vie with brethren, if need be."

Eviction, predicted yesteryear's Sharon, "would be unmitigated disaster; the settlers won't yield. The government must reflect hard where it's leading us. It's leading to horrific results, to civil war."

These are literally the warnings repeated now by settlers and their supporters. Reiterated, these very words outrage Sharon's entourage and trigger a hysterical, sanctimonious cacophony, vilifying all disengagement opponents as inciters, mutineers, and a danger to the very existence of the state.

Today's Sharon certainly doesn't regard his own legitimate past pronouncements in such malevolent light. Yet his double standard can become a self-fulfilling prophesy of doom. If anyone currently threatens this country with internal internecine strife, it's none other than Sharon because he consistently blocks options of democratic dissent.

When every cry of anguish becomes insurrection, when those who won't snap up compensation offers are threatened with harsh penalties, when all peaceful recourse to reverse high-handed dictates is effectively denied, people are pushed into dark corners.

Crazies thrive where no steam can be vented and where protest is stifled, where no sane options are left, where no course corrections are possible, where no avenue of action with a sliver of a chance to succeed is left open, where an imperious leader declares that he'll have his way regardless of bothersome democratic niceties.

A LEADER who leaves people feeling betrayed and without remedy is to blame.

A leader, who never satisfactorily explained to his own followers why he abandoned them, fragments society. When the only justification for an ideological about-turn of historic proportions is a declaration that the head honcho knows best - because he says so - it can blow people's minds.

When the leader orchestrates a campaign of demonization against political adversaries yet remains silent while his fair-weather fans call for bloodshed, he loses his residual moral credibility.

Sharon and sidekicks saw nothing untoward when Meretz Knesset member Avshalom Vilan, in an August 20 interview with Haaretz, proposed that "we fight extremist settlers by all possible means if need be, we'll open fire we'll shoot to hit the sovereign authority must announce that in order to preserve itself, it too will be ready to kill."

If this isn't recommending a violent showdown, it's hard to imagine what is.

It's not hard to imagine the uproar that would have ensued had the identical statement come from settlers' lips.

Ditto for Sharon's confessor-columnist Yoel Marcus (to whom the PM first revealed the disengagement gospel). On August 31, also in Haaretz, Marcus urged that an elite unit be charged with removing settlers "even if that involves bloodshed."

* * *

What is the reason for Sharon's about-face? In previous years, he unequivocally encouraged settling our Biblical Heartland, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. I have no answer whatsoever! If you read Sharon's prolific writings - also his writings in English, such as many articles in the year 1995 in the Jerusalem Post - and his autobiography Warrior, you will see no early signs of Ariel Sharonys spiritual or moral disintegration. Suffice it to say that this ardent Zionist and fighter for the Jewish Homeland has tragically become virtually unrecognizable, as he persistently tramples his country's democracy!

Ariel Sharon is no longer fit to be the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 20, 2004.


Syrian churches are commemorating Arab "victory" in the Yom Kippur War. That was the one in which the US kept Israel from attacking preemptively, so the Arab invaders caught Israel by surprise, and almost won. Israel recovered in time to smash the Arab armies. I asked IMRA why the Arabs call that their victory. Dr. Aaron Lerner supposes that it is because ultimately Israel withdrew from Kuneitra (IMRA, 10/14) at the behest of Henry Kissinger.

This is a political matter, but churches are taking part in it. They are on the side of the aggressor. Is this the dhimmi mentality, or are they simply intimidated by the dictatorship? We should discount their statements and let them know the statements make the dictatorship and them look worse.


Arafat has paid an award to the families of suicide bombers. In one example, the bomber belonged to Hamas. What then of Arafat's English-language condemnation of various terrorist acts. He does not put his money where his English-language mouth is. Why does PM Sharon suppose that, with Egypt's help, the P.A. will crack down on terrorism? IMRA, 10/10.)


The Director of Al-Arabiya TV station declared that there is no difference between the terrorism at Taba and any other. He advised Arabs to recognize the danger from all forms of terrorism, and not to make artificial distinctions among them. When most are called illegitimate, others cannot be justified. All kill people, Muslims and non-Muslims. The killers are extremist (IMRA, 10/10).


The EU superficially checked allegations that EU donations to the P.A. financed terrorism. P.A. documents, however, that have been released, name which terrorists were subsidized by such funds. Terrorist organizations admitted getting their funds that way. Although the EU claimed that it was paying P.A. employees directly into their bank accounts, it still was giving millions of dollars to a payroll that included many non-existent employees.

The P.A. has received the highest per capita foreign aid, but its people remain poor. They don't get that money. 4 billion euros, alone, were paid by the EU and its members, in the past decade. Now Europeans are asking where that money went. (Repression, war, graft, what's where.)

Whoever suspects fraud is told that the P.A. initiated the necessary fiscal reforms. What they are not told is that Arafat blocks the reforms. But they ought to be able to read newspaper reports of P.A. riots over the continued P.A. corruption (IMRA, 10/13).


Congress now requires the State Dept. to monitor antisemitism. Problem is, the State Dept. is anti-Jewish, itself. The State Dept. opposed the bill as "singling out" the Jews for special consideration. Actually, the antisemites single out the Jews (Winston Mid East Analysis, 10/13).


Turkey's (Islamist) government tried to attain military security by fostering good relations with neighboring countries. This is important, given Iran's missile build-up. That policy, however, has failed, according to the heads of the military (IMRA, 10/14).


Cabinet Ministers Netanyahu, Shalom, and Livnat all had remarked that the Road Map and the Disengagement plans both were disastrous for Israel. Both plans also contravene the principles of the party in which they spent their political careers. Nevertheless, in what they think was an expedient move to keep themselves in the running to succeed PM Sharon, they voted to approve both plans (else he would fire them). They allowed to serve as their cover the poor rationalizations that the plans would work out. They proved themselves cowardly.

In their conceit, they think that if they were to become Prime Minister, they still could save the situation for Israel (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 12/14). They are "cutting it close." Most unwise.


Unpublicized portions of the publicly presented Duelfer report stated that Saddam had retained his nuclear development program, at great economic cost. He was accumulating sums from the oil-for-food scam. He hid portions of the program from UN inspectors and the documentation needed to start it up full-scale. (He was expecting the UN to cast off the sanctions hampering full-scale development, so UN members could make more money.) He kept his staff trained and researching, at increased pay. He hid uranium, some of which has been enriched for weapons. He sent much of his super weapons to Syria, to locations that inspector David Kay has mapped.

US intelligence has ill-served America. It was unaware of what Saddam was doing, had no idea that Libya had advanced programs of development of weapons of mass-destruction, until Libya volunteered the information, was surprised by Pakistan's black market in nuclear proliferation and still don't know its full extent, and, of course, was unprepared for 9/11(for which the State Dept. bears most responsibility by sheltering S. Arabia and other terrorists).

Much of this is being leaked in such a way as to make Pres. Bush look bad. The leaks are from the intelligence agencies, which don't want Pres. Bush to go through with the appointment of a Czar over them, who would reduce their budget or make them work for it.

These organizations, including the State Dept., have become self-serving dead wood (Winston Mid East Report, 10/14). Democracies wake up late; political correctness keeps us asleep.


In the past two weeks, the Israeli offensive, that the US urges Israel to cut short, (and which s subsequently did) liquidated nine cells of rocket launchers. From within a mosque in one town, terrorists fired upon the Israeli patrol. The patrol did not fire back, lest it offend Muslim sensibilities. The troops waited outside, and when the Arabs left, shot them all.

The Muslim Waqf scoffs at Israeli warnings that the Temple Mt., weakened by illegal Arab excavations, may collapse this Ramadan, when tens of thousands of Muslims stand on it. The Waqf thinks calls this Israeli propaganda (Arutz-7, 10/14). The Arabs assert all sorts of plots against them, without explaining what advantage the plots would have or why, for the hundredth time, the Mossad would be committing the terrorism attributed to the Arabs. Has the Waqf forgotten how much the Arabs boast of their attacks on Israel? Perhaps they want to win their terrorist war without the rest of the world realizing how menacing they are.

Outside the mosque, one may say, all's well that ends well. However, it is unfair of the Arabs to use mosques for fighting but wax indignant if the enemy fires back into the mosque. It is not up to us to second guess the IDF tactic, but if the government felt it were at war rather than waiting for a miraculous peace offer from the Arabs, Israel would make more publicity out of the Arab hypocrisy. I think that the Arabs are arrogant about it. They presume moral superiority: they have the right to shoot, but the enemy does not have the right to shoot back.


Muslims forbid non-Muslims from quoting the Koran, but a non-Muslim professor quoted it. Not believing in academic freedom, five Muslims beat and kicked him. He remains out on sick leave. Students (who didn't identify their reason, knowledge of the case, or affiliation) protested against a newspaper's characterization of the assault as "brutal".

Based on his evaluation of the historical record, a prominent Muslim made a negative reference to Mohammed. Islamists sent him death threats. This Islamist reaction is typical of how they join the debate over the excesses of Muslims (Arutz-7, 10/15). Have they redefined "brutal"?

The West lets Muslims in, out of sympathy with poor people abroad, rationalizing that some of the Muslims are not bad people, and wanting to keep factories going with cheap labor. Then immigrants become radicalized. Their children automatically gain citizenship but not loyalty to the country. They remain loyal to Islam, which seeks to dominate all countries. They have "rights," which protect their campaign to repress the natives. When natives object, the Muslims attempt to stifle Western freedom of inquiry. The politically correct natives take no heed of ensuing Muslim violence, but strive to protect the Muslims from prosecution and criticism.

The politically correct are neurotic, and the Muslims are violent. Agreed, not all Muslims are violent, but split hairs like that and lose your freedom to them. Immigration is a Trojan horse.


High-ranking P.A. officials have been paying calls on the government of Syria. They say their ties are warming up (IMRA, 10/15).

This is typical of Arab foreign relations. They have cycles of frozen relations followed by warming relations. They hold numerous meetings and consultations. They come to agreements cautiously, unable to trust each other.

The P.A. welcomes Syrian support but not Syrian goals of incorporating Jordan, the Territories, and Israel (as it is doing with Lebanon). Syria wants to use the P.A. against Israel, without that usage or the P.A. becoming a source of instability or danger to Syria.


A Jordanian Minister reputedly told Israeli journalists that his country is interrogating top al-Qaeda officials for the US. Why Jordan? It is not inhibited by concern for human rights, and it can keep a story secret. The Minister denies the tale (IMRA, 10/15 from Haaretz, 10/14).

If the Minister told journalists, he would cancel out Jordan's use to the US. Therefore, the story, as rendered, is dubious. But is the US outsourcing interrogation to countries with fewer civil liberties, in order to evade Constitutional guarantees? Do our intelligence agencies take liberties with our Bill of Rights? What do they think of our own exercise of them? What other violations do they commit? Does government represent the people or mislead them? In any case, shouldn't the practice be outlawed? How do we prevent it? Let's investigate!


"Israel's tenured leftists have long adopted Bir Zeit. U. (in the P.A.) as their favorite mascot." "At (that) Arab bastion of enlightenment, student politicians campaign over which party has killed more Israelis." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/15, e-mail.) Can't prettify an ugly culture.


In further hope of dominating the Jews, P.A. legal advisor, Michael Terazi, presents a distorted case for combining the P.A. and Israel into a single state. The case is distorted partly because he omits key facts and misrepresents Israel.

Yes, Israeli units raid Gaza and kill Arabs. Stated baldly, that fact leaves the false impression that the raids are wanton and the goal is terrorism. Some readers will not know that the raids are to seek out terrorists who have wantonly bombarded Israeli cities to murder civilians. The Arabs are guilty, the IDF raids are justified, and the Israelis are innocent, soldiers and civilians, alike.

According to Terazi, "Zionism is a movement of Jewish supremacy. It does not tolerate Muslims or Christians." (Zionism is Jewish national liberation and return to the homeland for self-rule. Self-rule is a principle that the Arabs plead for themselves but deny to others.) Israel does tolerate them. They have rights in Israel that they do not have in any Arab state. (I think that allowing a million hostile Arabs to live in besieged Israel is not tolerance but colossal stupidity.)

As for the millions of Arabs living in the territories, he acknowledges that they have few civil liberties, but blames that on Israel. Those Arabs, however, are not living in the State of Israel. They fall 99% under the rule of his own, Arab-run P.A.. The P.A. is a gangster state that is driving Christians out and bars Jews).

Terazi ignores the Zionist dream of Jewish self-rule and national development, to suggest that since the two people's share the same aquifers, utility grids, highways, and borders, let them form a single state that recognizes their equal entitlement to the Land. (It isn't equal. The Arabs have a poor claim to it.) He conveniently omits mention that the Arabs would form a majority and submerge the Jews. (Nor does he explain away the P.A. campaign of hatred and murder of the Jews whom he suggests tie their fate in with the Arabs out to kill or dominate them.)

The notion of a bi-national state is a discredited one. It usually leads to national struggle. (IMRA, 10/15 from Haaretz) It surely would with such primitives as the domineering Arabs.


Do they blame themselves for establishing the madrassas and mosques that indoctrinated their youth in terrorism? Do they blame their governmental corruption, for outraging bin Laden, as he, himself had explained it? No. (Arabs don't think as we do about cause-and-effect. They think in terms of shame. It would be shameful to admit their guilt. Hence they make up causes to avoid that) They blame the US for making what they deem an unjustified war on Iraq. That outraged the terrorists, who saw their dream of Islamist conquest thwarted. (Sorry, fellows, that defending ourselves crimped your dream of conquest, as if that dream were proper.)

They also blame US support for Israel (which gives Israel some aid because it does not want to be seen as destroying Israel but subtly strives to get Israel to fatally undermine itself by ceding its territory and holiest sites). (Bin Laden was more concerned with US - infidel - garrisoning in S. Arabia.) Actually, terrorism in S. Arabia had begun years earlier.

Terrorists blame this side for being friendly with that side or fighting another side (IMRA, 10/15).

Arabs do pick on third parties for friendliness with second parties. They set up bombs, careless about the presence of their own people. They contend that innocent Muslim victims go to heaven, but offer little theological basis for that rationalization. Neither do they ask the victims whether they are agreeable to being blown up. Mostly, however, they wage war on the world, and their twisted pretexts are more propaganda and excuses than reasons and justification.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 19, 2004.

Politicians, by their very nature, often exaggerate, distort and just plain lie.

I have just read Prime Minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon's speech to the opening fall session of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament). His attempt at nobility and promises to the nation are all included, despite the fact that he was knowingly lying through his teeth. If it were not for the critical nature of what Israel is facing, one could accept the bombast as typical blather of a politician seeking support of his people.

But, it was more than that. Sharon has put the Jewish nation in a position of being divided, with a strong possibility that he, himself is about to cause a Civil War. He has repeatedly lied to his people by pledging to accept the will of his political party but, when they voted against his re-partition plan, he told them that he had no intention of keeping to his commitment.

Sharon has adopted the methods and psyche of a megalomaniacal dictator. While he and his cohorts give lip service to democracy and the rights of the people, in practice he believes none of what he says. Worse yet, he has no intention of abiding by those reassuring words he speaks to the Knesset. He was elected in a landslide vote to reverse the course of the failed Oslo Process but, instead he has adopted the paradigm of Oslo as his own.

We are informed by DEBKAfile (1) that, on Tuesday October 26th, he will ask the Knesset to vote and approve of his disengagement/retreat re-partition plan for Gaza/Gush Katif. Like the clever military strategist he is, he will tell the Knesset that he is now open to a vote by the people on a referendum. This is a strategic lie but well thought out.

But, he will NOT wait for the referendum which shall remain merely a vague promise but, he will demand that the Knesset vote NOW to approve his unilateral withdrawal/retreat in their belief that sometime in the future Sharon will, indeed, have a referendum.

Anyone who has been close to Sharon will know that he has no intention of putting his decision to such a critical vote which will probably go against him. He tried that two times and lost two times. (Once he had the Central Committee of Likud vote on his unilateral 'Disengagement Plan' and lost 60% to 40%).

Now he wants the Knesset to rely upon his vague words to give his abandonment plans their official blessing. After he receives that blessing, he will move rapidly to implement the unilateral withdrawal and eviction of Jews, ignoring any protests from the Knesset, the Courts or the People. He will maintain that the Knesset has given him a mandate to do whatever he wishes.

He will continue quoting his vague promise of a referendum which, if it ever comes at all, will be long after he has implemented all the tricks he has planned for the Jewish settlers. That would include but not be limited to, cutting off their utilities, i.e., water, sewage, electricity. Also the roads would be blocked and, in some cases, torn up with a bulldozer. The Israeli government will cut back on security protection for the settlers. Also, expect a rash of arrests under the non-judicial Administrative Detentions of influential settlers and/or Rabbis. These arrests by Shabak (Israel's Secret Service) would reach into Gaza and the territories of Judea and Samaria.

One can never forget Sharon's long-range planning for this re-partition. He exposed his hand when he closed down Arutz Sheva radio (Channel 7), the only non Leftist media communicator which should have revealed his planning to the nation much earlier than was tactically clear. But, the actual Planning began much earlier - Recall Sharon's words when he said: "I will make painful concessions."

Sharon has already recruited the Attorney General Mani Mazuz, appointed by him, to threaten protestors or those who refuse to leave their homes with 3 to 5 years of imprisonment for resistance. No doubt, the Leftist Supreme Court of Aharon Barak will go along with whatever extra-judicial machinations Sharon finds necessary to carry out his version of Oslo. But, as in Oslo, the Knesset never investigated the origins of why Rabin-Peres-Netanyahu-Barak and now Sharon responded to foreign interests.

IF the Knesset gives him the 'green light', he will rampage over the rights of any Israeli citizen who defies his orders.

To salve their consciences, the Knesset Members will put small controls into their vote, knowing full well that Sharon will ignore them. They then can claim they were protecting the interests of the people. They will know that they will be participating in a perfidious act of subterfuge by relying on the distant promise of Sharon's promised referendum. As I recall, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres used that promise of a referendum numerous times while they were secretly creating Oslo. It did serve to mislead and quiet down the people.

Dear Readers: Your urgent message to the Knesset Members should be that: "You have been told about the referendum trick in advance. Should you pretend you believe it and vote to approve both the re-partition and funding it, your Party will forever lose our votes. Moreover, we will defy the re-partitioning and insure that all of Israel will share our pain."

The Likud Party will be divided as will the Jewish nation of Israel.

I would make certain that every Knesset member receives in Hebrew, a notification of Sharon's trick via Email, Fax, hand-delivered letters, phone calls and sizable demonstrations with signs in Hebrew and English that speak about Sharon's referendum Purim spiel.

I cannot help but wonder who first thought up this trick. Was it Ehud Olmert, Dov Weisglass (possibly in consultation with Jim Baker's old Jew-boys, Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Daniel Kurtz and Martin Indyk)? This has the fingerprints of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department all over it.

As for Sharon, we no longer know who he is or to whom he belongs. He has abandoned everything the Likud Party stood for. He seems allied with Peres and the failed Oslo Plan. He also seems dedicated to interests of other nations. Whatever he is or whoever he is allied with, clearly it is not the Jewish nation of Israel nor the Likud Party he is only using.

P.S. You may wish to prepare a voting chart, divided by party and with a space next to the Mks name as to whether he voted for 're-partition', against or abstained. It is vital that each MK receives this prepared voting chart with his or her name listed. So, Email, Fax. Hand out this chart so the people can keep score and save the sheet to remind them during the upcoming elections. The Mks and the Party must know that they are being scored. Be Visible!


1. "Sharon May Buy Knesset Majority by Saying Yes to Referendum" DEBKAfile Exclusive Report Oct. 19, 2004

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 19, 2004.

Border Guard forces are already training to evacuate and demolish Jewish communities and outposts. The Yediot Acharonot newspaper reported today that a mock "settlement" is being erected in an army base on which to practice eviction of Jews from their homes. Eyewitnesses to a training exercise last night - soldiers in the northern-Negev army base in which the exercise was held - recounted that a large Border Guard unit split up into two parts. One of the groups played the part of the soldiers, and the other were the "settlers" who were to be evicted. The "settlers" cried out nationalist slogans, while the "soldiers" followed orders to use great force and show no hesitation. "It was very painful to see this," one soldier told Arutz-7. "They did it in the middle of the base, in front of everyone. Some of them had real hatred in their eyes."

The soldiers said that as the exercise continued, religious and Yesha-resident soldiers began arguing with the Border Guard commanders about it. The soldiers called aloud for the Border Guardsmen to "train for a war against Arabs, and not against Jews." The unit commander attempted to explain that the exercise was not necessarily designed for the eviction of Jews, but also for possible clashes with Arabs.

The Yediot Acharonot report states that the training camp to be opened will include typical features often found in Yesha towns, such as watchtowers, caravans, memorial monuments, and synagogues. The soldiers will train for violent clashes with Jewish residents, for breaking into homes that may be mined or barricaded, and the like. The plan is to try to collect all weapons from the residents two weeks before the scheduled expulsion date. Police and Border Guard forces, headed by Deputy Police Commander Gabi Orgil, will be responsible for the actual eviction, while army forces will defend them.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Women in Green, October 19, 2004.
The following is a translation of a letter in Hebrew sent by Nadia Matar's lawyer, Yoram Sheftel, to the Attorney General's office, October 16, 2004.

Mr. Eran Shendar, Adv.
State Attorney
fax: 02-6288065

Dear Sir,

Re: The Investigation of My Client Ms. Nadia Matar, on Suspicion of Committing the Offense of Insulting a Public Servant, Section 288 of the Penal Code, 1977

In the name of my client, Ms. Nadia Matar, I address you as follows:

1. On October 5, 2004, my client was interrogated in the Moriah police station in Talpiot, Jerusalem, on suspicion of committing the above offense, upon your instructions. Let it immediately be said that it would have been preferable not to summon her rather than summon her for this interrogation, since the very order to open an investigation is a foolish and unreasonable attempt to cause the stifling of opinions and an improper and illegal limitation of the freedom of expression of the activists of the national-Zionist-patriotic camp activists who are struggling against the plan for the deportation of some 10,000 Jewish pioneers - who have been giving their lives (literally, as well) - since the beginning of the Oslo war (the "shameful deportation plan"), all in order to hold onto the soil of the homeland.

2. The purpose of Section 288 of the Penal Code, 1977 ("Section 288") is to prevent, by means of a criminal sanction, a situation in which a citizen who requires the services of a public servant and is dissatisfied with the response that he received will, in response, curse that public servant. And similarly, a situation in which a police officer writes some report against someone, and the latter rudely insults the officer, and the like, Section 288 is for this end, and for this end alone.

The purpose of Section 288 is in no way to serve as a tool in the hands of the State Attorney's Office and the police to intervene, and certainly not in a selective and discriminatory manner, in any public debate, including that which has arisen concerning the shameful deportation plan.

3. Furthermore, the letter by my client comprises trenchant and legitimate criticism of the very willingness of Yonatan Basi - who, like most of the pioneers of Gush Katif, wears a kippah [skullcap, i.e., is religious] and therefore the governmental circles are so happy over his services - to carry out the shameful deportation plan.

4. The comparison of Yonatan Basi's deeds to those of the Judenrat during the Holocaust period, based on the clear context in the letter by my client, was intended solely to denounce Yonatan Basi's willingness to collaborate, and willingly so, with the government in the implementation of the shameful deportation plan. Needless to say, in every society that presumes to be free, it is the right of every person to denounce in a strong and blunt manner those like Yonatan Basi who are willing to take upon themselves the implementation of such disgraceful deeds that the implementation of the shameful deportation plan entails.

5. The intervention of the government in such matters by means of the State Attorney's Office and the police, with the aim of incriminating one who makes use of such a basic and understandable right, teaches nothing of the criminality of the act, but rather of the "short fuse" of the rulers and those who do their bidding, as regards their ability to contend with legitimate criticism. And it should be stressed, once again: the comparison of Basi's deeds with those of the Judenrat bears no connection with the "insulting of a public servant."

6. Now here, it was specifically the "founding fathers," first and foremost Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, who poisoned the public debate in the Land of Israel and in the Zionist movement - already beginning in the period before the establishment of the State [of Israel] -with their repeated and despicable comparison of Zeev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, not to those who, like the Judenrat, aided the Nazis, but to the Nazis themselves, and especially to Adolf Hitler, may his memory be blotted out.

a. Chaim Weizmann, the President for decades of the Zionist movement and the first President of the State of Israel, repeatedly uttered the despicable and false expression that "Revisionism [that is, the Jabotinsky movement - Y. S.] is comparable to Hitlerism in its worst form."

b. Ben-Gurion, in his contemptible language, constantly applied to the head of Betar, Zeev [Vladimir] Jabotinsky, the base epithet: "Vladimir Hitler."

c. In his well-known wickedness, Ben-Gurion said of Menachem Begin, the leading and most talented of the disciples of the head of Betar, that: "Menachem Begin is a clearly Hitleristic type, and if he were to rule in Israel, he would rule as Hitler did in Germany and forcefully and cruelly repress the worker's movement." All the quotations are from p. 25 of the book by Tom Segev, Ha-Milyon ha-Shevi'i.

It need not be recalled that, almost every day over the course of fifty years, Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, was constantly called a fascist by all the elements of the leftist camp; and, as is known, Nazism is an integral part of fascism.

And now, in an environment in which the "culture" of debate is as detailed above, there is clear political persecution in the summoning of my client to a criminal investigation for the use of such a relatively neutral term as Judenrat in regard to Yonatan Basi.

7. Finally, the selective enforcement of the law is a phenomenon of unequaled severity, and how much more so when the selectivity ensues from invalid political considerations.

Attached is an extremely partial list of statements by Flaviuses of Edomite descent [a reference to Josephus, i.e., traitors] from the media, academia, and the arts, in comparison with which the statements by my client regarding Yonatan Basi are completely neutral.

a. During the course of the Lebanon War, Prof. Leibowitz, making use of the sewer language of which he was fond, called IDF soldiers "Judeo-Nazis."

b. Prof. Moshe Zimmerman polluted the air a number of years ago when he said that the children of the renewers of the Jewish community in Hebron - who hold on to the City of the Patriarchs by their fingernails - are like the "Hitlerjugend."

c. The retired Stalinist Prof. Harsegor published an article in Haaretz - to be precise, it would be preferable to translate its name into Arabic - in which he asserted that "the leaders of the ultra-Orthodox are the enemies of democracy, no less than the blackshirts or the heads of the Nazis in Germany."

d. Shulamit Aloni, who is totally identified with Arafat and his gang, soiled the pages of the Maariv newspaper at the end of 2002 when she wrote that: "Eli Yishai acted in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws when he was the Interior Minister," and, relating to a PR film of the Shas [political party], she wrote in the same article that "this reminds me of a Nazi propaganda film."

e. A gutter rag by the name of Kidmah ["Progress"!] informed its readers in January 2003 that: "A general statement may be made of the ideological settlers, that they are much worse than any neo-Nazi in Austria."

f. Gen. [Res.] Shlomo Gazit spoke obscenely a number of years ago when he said that: "there is a resemblance between the knitted-kippah-wearing IDF soldiers and the SS symbol on the Nazi uniforms."

g. In 1988 the anti-Semitic scoundrel Yigal Tomarkin dragged a pig to Malkhei Yisrael Square, and wrapped it in tefilin.

We need not burden anyone with needless words: none of these good-for-nothings were placed on trial. The reason for that is as simple as can be: we are dealing with a band of the wicked, each of whom belongs to the Flavius-of-Edomite-descent camp, and they therefore enjoy "immunity" from being placed on trial. The State Attorney's Office explains this "immunity" by means of diverse and strange excuses, that change from time to time, but always remain within the realm of excuses lacking any real basis.

8. And last of all, Section 288, for which my client is under investigation, on the basis of your order, is one of the less serious sections in the Penal Code. This is an offense that is in the lower level of offenses of a minor type; despite this, with such great alacrity - and out of the desire (that will not succeed) of instilling my client with fear - you issued an order to investigate her. In contrast, the most serious offense under the Penal Code is that under Section 97 of the law. This offense is the first in para. 2 of part 2 of the Penal Code, that is entitled "Treason," in both senses of the word.

According to this section: "Whoever acts intentionally to harm the sovereignty of the State, [performing] an act that harms its sovereignty, is punishable by death or life imprisonment."

Together with Sections 98 and 99 of the Penal Code, these are the only sections in Israeli law - with the exception of the Law for Imposing Justice on Nazis - for which the specified punishment is death.

Not a day passes in which the heads of the Flavius gang who are signatories to the traitorous writ called the "Geneva Accords" are not interviewed by their supporters in the electronic and printed private and state media, in order to publicly disseminate the criminal "accords." These understandings are headed by the giving over of what is holy to Israel in united Jerusalem, that is entirely under Israeli sovereignty, to the murderous gangs of Arafat, the Hamas, and the like.

Although this is an act of treason, not only from the Jewish moral aspect - "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning" [Psalms 137:5] - but also by the law in force in Israel, none of the above - Beilin, Lipkin-Shahak, Nehamah Ronen, and their accomplices - have as yet been investigated, and certainly not placed on trial, for the seeming public and deliberate commission of the most serious of the offenses in the Penal Code, that is, the offense of treason.

9. As the above collection clearly indicates, any objective observer from the side will likely receive the impression that my client is being persecuted by the State Attorney's Office solely because of her Zionist-national-patriotic world view, that is not viewed favorably by the top echelon of the State Attorney's Office, most of whose senior officials are, as is common knowledge, situated kilometers to the left of center as regards their political world view.

10. Accordingly, it would be proper for you to immediately issue an order to shelve the investigation concerning my client. Even if this shall not be done, my client has agreed with me to inform you this would be a vain thought that her summons to the interrogation rooms of the police, on the order of the State Attorney's Office, would deter her from continuing in the holy work that she has done for many years, for the people of Israel's maintaining its hold of all parts of Eretz Israel.

Yoram Sheftel, Advocate

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Carrie Devorah, October 19, 2004.

A press conference for children internationally kidnapped by family members was held in Washington DC, Monday morning, weeks before the presidential election. Twelve people attended a press conference. All of them were sitting on the same side of the table. No press showed up.

The parents held their first press conference 6 years ago. Fifteen journalists attended. Press conference organizer Herbert K Mallard said no one cares about women and children. Mallard is wrong. All levels of American Intelligence might have crowded the room had they been made aware the abductors include Saudi Arabian fathers with suspected ties to Al-Queda and to charities supporting international terrorism. Looking at the Florida tip sheet for one fugitive father pictured along with head shots of his son and daughter, I am reminded of the NY detective who said Intel was puzzled with the description of a black looking family, man, woman and children occupying a hotel room across from a financial institution where a wallet with Al-Queda links was found prior to the DNC and the RNC. Intel was looking for the traditionally pictured Al-Queda suspect. The father is handsome, looking like he would fit within the Florida community he abducted the children from. He is not Muslim looking. Someone the NY detective would like to know about along with Senate Finance Committee's Grassley and Baccus, investigating charitable fraud, about any link to terrorism funding.

Almost all of the women are blonde. Their stories have been told for years in the New York Times, National Review, Frontpagemagazine.com, the television circuit, but from the perspective painted by their advisors, the children are modern day slaves held against their will by their fathers. Mallard's parents are now understanding unless facts are spelled out on newswire notices and press releases during a time media is focused on presidential candidates opinions on homeland security, terrorism, there is a good chance media may not figure out the missing children, upwards of ten years old, are possible evidence America was infiltrated with terrorists cells years before 9-11. These women are not just mothers seeking repatriation of their children from Saudi Arabia. They are women who met their husbands within America's borders. One woman is from Arkansas. Her ex-husband has a master's degree in computer science from Arkansas State University. She is beginning to understand She is guilty of falling in love, unwittingly breeding with the enemy.

Mallard is an internet entrepreneur. He says he owns almost every imaginable Dot Com address a government might want to buy back. Mallard says he owns many URL's for Arabic countries. Jordan, he says wants to buy a URL from him. "Not for sale, I told them." Mallard says little about himself or his associate talking with the moms. The parents listen while he talks about Prince Bandar and Bush Sr. Mallard says over 1 million children have been abducted internationally in the past twenty years. Over 2000 US children and 10000 other foreign children are believed being held hostage in the Kingdom. The parents are worried, beginning to believe Mallard, when he says they will never see their children again.

Maureen Dabbagh says the Syrian father of her daughter, Nadia, took her to Saudi Arabia in 1993. Dabbagh used the Freedom of Information Act to acquire her State Department Office of Children's Issues files. She was shocked to find State personnel called her "a would-be-do-gooder" and brushed off her plight as "Not Without My Daughter" and "The Never Ending Story."

Patricia Roush daughters, Alia and Aisha, both U.S. citizens, were taken to Saudi Arabia in January 1986 by their Saudi father, Khalid Gheshayan. Roush's now-adult daughters were eventually sold by Gheshayan into arranged marriages with Saudi men. One of Mallard's moms used to live on Long Island. Today she lives in the United Kingdom. Her former husband, a diplomat, was the son of an Ambassador. She says she is looking, always, for her daughter, hoping to catch sight of her and end the nightmare. "Maybe I can stop this from happening to someone else. Maybe I'll write a book," she says. "I need to get this poison out of me. Maybe that will help." She looks up. "Things never get better," she said, "They just get easier."

Machael Heidi Al-Omary the daughter of Margaret McCain, another mother, lives in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with her father. "I have appeared on television, protested in front of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and testified three times before the United States Congress." March 2003, she and another mother of children kidnapped presented their cases to the United Nations. McCain's advisors, Dr Peter Leitner, Washington Center for Peace and Justice and Karen parker, Chief Delegate of the IED/HLP argued holding an American captive makes that person a slave. Patricia Roush's daughters were taken by their father to Saudi Arabia in 1986. They were three and seven. Roush says the girls are being raised in her ex-husband's culture of no rights for women to education, destined to be forced into arranged marriages, "sex slaves" she says. Heidi is considered by the Saudis to be the property of her father. She is denied an exit visa. "She wants to walk in the heat, past the checkpoints twenty miles of the Bahrain Causeway to freedom. She's ten. She wants to come home." McCain remembered seeing her ex in a 1994 film called Jihad Against America. She says her ex contacted the State Department in Saudi Arabia the week before 9-11, offering to negotiate a deal, if the kidnapping charges against him were dropped. He wanted to get out of Saudi Arabia. Fast.

Another mother talks about her ex's Al-Queda ties. People warned her about her husband before she married him. "I was in love." "I didn't think he could ever do the things they talked about." Police were slow, she said, to file a missing children report for her son and daughter. Eventually the kids' photos were posted on the Missing Children Information Clearinghouse. Her ex-husband is listed with four aliases. Nine months later an arrest warrant was issued against him. She lowered her voice, "He is a pilot and an armed combatant/courier for Al-Queda. He can be anywhere now, even in Washington DC. He needs to be charged with International Parental Kidnapping. He needs to be stopped."

She drew closer. "He told me the Twin Towers were going to be hit before it happened. I didn't believe him." When asked if she spoke to Intel, she said they do nothing. As it turns out, she isn't really sure if Intel is aware of her information in light of America's security heightened to Level Amber. Someone told her they were told. She conceded Intel may need to see the court papers supporting "things" her former spouse told her about 911. She will co-operate with the police and state departments. She wants to share what her husband the Al-Queda pilot told her. She is disappointed.

She produces copies of cancelled checks addressed to a PO Box her former husband established in Arizona. Arizona is one of the states seeking funding to complete the United States- Mexican triple border wall against economic aliens. Media alleges terrorists are crossing borders. Undetected. Californian Congressman Duncan Hunter has been battling Congress since 1988 to finance the 2000 mile wall. Copies of the checks the mother produced are made out from her former spouse, to the Islamic African Relief Agency. Copies of envelopes he received from them show a Post Office Box in Columbia Mo. The US Department of State lists the IARA as a terrorist facilitator. Treasury secretary John Snow says the alleged charity headquartered in Khartoum is "providing direct financial support to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups" and are "intently seeking to abuse charitable networks and organizations for their evil purposes."

The women are highly critical of police, media, State Department and more. Some website postings border being libellous. Maureen McCain's letter posted on saudhouse.com says "the likes of Bill Clinton, Norman Schwarzkopf, G. Gordon Liddy, and others have had the pants charmed off of them by this guy, or by his lavish parties, or by his money." Or that their demands for lawyers and billions of dollars in reparations is confusing to parents who believe children are priceless. Only after a bit of talking do the women, raised on magazines glorifying romance with exotic men, concede they alone made the decision to marry these men. Their pain shows through as they soften. They really do only want their children back. They are worn, not knowing where to turn. Or who really is listening.

The election is only weeks away. The U.S. Department of the Treasury announces "the global network of the IARA and five senior officials have been providing financial contributions to terrorist organizations." While no mention is made of suspected terrorists taking their children to Saudi Arabia or of the children themselves, hopefully Intel will find it easier to make sense of how a wallet with Al-Queda links could be found in an eastside midtown New York City hotel room previously occupied by kids. With a man possibly wanted for family abduction.

Carrie Devorah is an award winning investigative photojournalist cross credentialed as a Crime Information Analyst, profiler, security and mediator. She covered international horseracing and boxing before moving to America writing on issues related to Faith, Homeland Security and International Terrorism. January 29th 2004, Devorah's youngest brother was one of 11 commuters murdered in a Jerusalem bus bombing.

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 19, 2004.

The Likud party in Israel is clearly in crisis. While presuming to be a "broad tent" for a gamut of political opinion, the Likud is increasingly split along the tectonic lines defined by the Gaza Disengagement plan of Ariel Sharon. While there are many other divisions within the Likud, including over personalities (the Sharon camp vs. the Netanyahu camp vs. the Olmert people), economic policy (market oriented vs. the old-style socialists and central planners), coalition strategies (those favoring national unity coalitions with the Left vs. those opposed), and military-security issues (such as the "Security Wall"), nothing has been so polarizing as the Gaza Disengagement plan being promoted by Ariel Sharon.

The internal divisions became most glaring when the Likud held its party referendum on the Sharon plan several months ago and it was defeated by a margin of about three-to-two. This was widely regarded as a sort of no-confidence vote in Sharon himself. Since then the Likud's "left wing" (if it may be called that), led by such people as Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Gideon Ezra, Meir Sheetrit, have followed Sharon's lead or even gone beyond it in their embrace of certain components of the "Oslo Approach" and specifically unilateral Israeli "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. This wing of the Likud might be labeled the camp of "Oslo Lite" because it reluctantly embraces most of the principles of the "Oslo peace process" introduced by the Israeli Labor Party and the Left, including the desirability of Palestinian statehood. The Sharon disengagement plan for Gaza supported by them is essentially the Mitzna plan, comprising the main plank in the Labor Party's election platform last election. They are opposed by the Likud "Right", at the moment led by Benjamin Netanyahu, which opposes unilateral disengagement in Gaza or at least insists that the plan be submitted to a national ballot referendum before implementation.

Despite calling out his heaviest political artillery guns, Sharon has been unable to impose his will on the party's "Right", which if the referendum last spring tells us anything may well have the support of most of the party rank and file. The widening split increasingly complicates other political decisions by the Likud leadership. For example, there has been talk of inviting the Labor Party to join the Likud in a new "national unity government." Such a move would likely exacerbate the internal divisions within the Likud, pitting those opposing such a move from the party "Right" against those endorsing it from the party "Left". These same divisions are evident in preferences regarding coalition partners for the Likud, with the party's "Right" preferring the small parties of the militant Right and the National Religious Party, while the Likud "Left" prefers a coalition based primarily upon Shinui and the Labor Party.

As these internal party divisions have grown in their ferocity in recent weeks, the press and others have been asking in ever louder voices whether the crisis in the Likud may end up splitting the entire party itself down the middle, leading to the emergence of a separate Likud-Left and Likud-Right.

Within the party, all talk of such a split is generally dismissed as something of a disaster scenario by those insisting that any such split be prevented at all costs. But should it be? Would Israeli voters and Israel as a whole not be far better off should such a split take place?

The Likud has been attempting to be all things in all seasons for all people, and especially to be the Other Labor Party, for many years. Over and over, the Likud has run for election seemingly as the anti-Oslo party. Without exception, after elections where the Likud took office, it immediately jettisoned its election platform and proceeded to implement what were quintessentially the policies of the Israeli Labor Party. The pattern certainly goes back to the Netanyahu election victory of 1996, but in some ways goes back as far as the Begin election in 1977. Having run on a policy of retaining all "occupied territories" and converting Israeli economic socialism into free-market capitalism, Begin quickly abandoned all of the Sinai Peninsula while preserving the monopoly socialism and dirigiste central control of the economy. (Begin's only significant changes in economic policy were floating the exchange rate and enormous printing of money.) The Camp David Agreement signed by Begin included a seemingly innocent pledge to grant the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza "limited autonomy", which in retrospect was the capitulation that formed the precedent for the universal demands for the erection of a terrorist Palestinian state.

Under Shamir, the government dug in its heels over some security matters, played tougher with the Palestinians, but at the same time Shamir cabinets embraced dirigiste socialism even more fiercely, with Minister of Agriculture and of Housing Ariel Sharon serving as the most passionate advocate of central planning of all. Shamir also sat with the Labor Party in a series of national unity government coalitions.

When Netanyahu was elected in 1966, there seemed little doubt in anyone's mind that he was elected by voters to halt the Oslo "peace process." But it became quickly evident that Prime Minister Netanyahu would continue the Oslo "process" and even accelerate it via the Wye capitulations, agreeing to things that even Shimon Peres had refused to implement. Despite his free-market campaign rhetoric, Prime Minister Netanyahu did almost nothing to reform the economy.

After the fiasco of the government of Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon entered office in 2000, once again as the Likud's reigning anti-Oslo crusader. And once again a Likud leader elected to stop Oslo turned around, abandoned his campaign platform, and continued the Oslo "process". Within months Sharon was reiterating his personal commitment to Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu, consigned by Sharon to the Ministry of Finance, perhaps because of its infamous ability to break promising careers, has been doing a remarkably good job there in initiating many of the same economic structural reforms he had earlier refused to promote while Prime Minister. Netanyahu meanwhile morphed into leader of the hawkish internal opposition to Sharon within the Likud. In one of the Likud government's most Byzantine and most cynical moments, Sharon conditioned support for the economic structural reforms being pushed by Netanyahu on the latter's capitulation and endorsement of Sharon's Gaza Disengagement Plan.

The main argument by Likud loyalists AGAINST any split of the Likud into two parties is that such a cleavage could allow the Labor Party to return to office. This is more than a little ironic, because the main thing that Likud-led governments have done since 1996 has been to implement Labor Party political programs. If the Likud is going to implement Labor Party ideas anyway, if Sharon is going to adopt each proposal coming from the Labor Party, starting with the "Security Wall" and ending with the Mitzna plan for unilateral disengagement in Gaza, then what difference does it make if the Likud is split and in opposition - or not?

But the main reason for splitting the Likud is to create true political pluralism and real democracy in Israel at long last. Until 1977 Israel was essentially a one-party state, where the Labor Party (cum MAPAI) exercised quasi-totalitarian (albeit ballot selected) control over the country. By 1977 the Likud had emerged as a plausible alternative for voters, but by 1996 it was clear that it was an "alternative" only in the sense of the roster of names and personnel running for office, not in terms of the policies being pursued. The two main parties in Israel, the only two who are serious contenders for leadership of any government coalitions, have increasingly resembled political clones of one another, pursuing the same flawed sets of visions. Both parties endorse a "two-state solution" with a Palestinian state arising in virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza and with Israel being forced back to borders not significantly different form those of 1949. Both parties now endorse unilateral "disengagement" in Gaza, which will clearly serve as precedent for the West Bank no matter how many times Sharon denies it, and both endorse the expulsion of thousands of Jewish "settlers" from their homes to accommodate Palestinian ambitions.

Splitting the Likud would at long last offer Israeli voters a real choice. The Likud-Left would run openly as the "Other Labor Party", endorsing continuation of Oslo and generally seeking accords with the PLO by way of Israeli concessions and goodwill measures. The Likud-Right would oppose all negotiations with the PLO, would run on a "Peace through Victory" platform, would vehemently oppose Palestinian statehood, and would increase settlement construction. The Likud Left could promote dirigiste state planning, while the Likud Right would promote free market capitalism.

Israeli voters would have a clear choice, and Israeli elections would at last serve as clear legitimizing procedures, rewarding parties clearly proposing alternatives just as clearly opposed by other parties, with the voter making a determination of the direction for the country. Ironically, the total votes awarded to one of the emerging Likud halves could well exceed those of the two Siamese halves currently joined at the hips in the current Likud party. The Likud that represents everything and nothing at the same time, that is, the Likud of the current Sharon-led coalition, has driven away large numbers of voters. A Likud half clearly representing SOMETHING may discover that it has enormous electoral appeal.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 19, 2004.

Dear friends,

Please read very carefully.

This was written by Joseph Farah and appeared September 22, 2004 on the World Net Daily. It is archived at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40568 Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

Collectively, we don't often get a chance to sound off in a meaningful way on the major issues of the day.

I don't know about you, but those public-opinion pollsters never call me.

But there is an opportunity right now to weigh in on one of the greatest and most important issue of our time - whether the world should create a Palestinian Arab state.

A group called Global Israel Alliance is attempting to mobilize opposition to this misguided plan now, prior to the November elections. If the turnout is high enough, the organizers believe it might help reverse U.S. support for the so-called Mideast "roadmap."

What's wrong with the idea of creating a Palestinian Arab state?

There are many reasons to oppose the creation of what would certainly be another breeding ground and support base for Islamic terrorism. But I want to focus on just one.

One of the great untold stories of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the Palestinian Authority's official policy is to demand all Jews get out of the country they are attempting to create.

I'll bet you didn't know that. But it's true. This is why the Palestinian Authority is calling for the dismantling of Jewish communities within its territory. There is no room for any Jews in the country the children of Yasser Arafat want to start.

In any other part of the world, this kind of racist, anti-Semitic effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, Arafat retains a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.

Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?

Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated - even condoned?

Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?

Would America consider it acceptable if the new Iraqi government said the few Jews remaining in Iraq would have to leave? Would America consider it acceptable if the new Iraqi governing council said Christians would have to go?

Of course not. So why - even before a Palestinian state is created - do we accept as a fait accompli that Jews should be forced off their land in the coming state of Palestine?

Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?

Is it any wonder Israelis seek to build a wall to protect themselves from the racist, anti-Semitic supporters of suicide bombers determined not only to kill Jews in the Palestinian Authority, but to kill as many as they can in Israel as well?

While the Arabs do not even believe Jews have the right to live in the Palestinian state, the Israelis, on the other hand, offer full citizenship rights to Arabs in the Jewish state.

What a contrast!

In fact, as I have said many times, nowhere in the Middle East do Arabs experience more freedom than in Israel.

So, sound off. Participate in the referendum. Make your voice heard.

There's still time to stop the creation of another terror state in the Middle East.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Susie Dym, October 19, 2004.


On Tuesday October 26th, the Israeli Knesset will vote on one of the most important issues that it has ever dealt with - the question of whether 8500 Israelis will be thrown out of their homes in Gush Katif.

If this vote passes, it will leave Gaza completely at the disposal of the Palestinian factions bent on destroying Israel.

Not only will this move reward the Palestinians with a prize for their unmitigated terrorism over the past four years, but security experts agree it will increase the danger to the remainder of Israel by creating a Judeinrein Palestinian terrorist enclave.

Remember the men, women, and children of Gush Katif who have endured terrorist attack after terrorist attack over the past four years and have stood fast and remained strong and made many sacrifices for their convictions to protect the Land of Israel.


The message is simple:

Ask the Knesset Member to VOTE AGAINST Sharon's unilateral disengagement retreat plan. The unilateral retreat by Israel, and rout of Israelis, will create yet another radical Islamic terrorist state. It will encourage the terrorists by handing them a victory and it will increase Israel's strategic vulnerability to attack.

You may add another sentence or 2 if you like. Please make it short.

Be sure to give them your name, address and phone number. Note: These numbers are for calling within Israel. If calling from the U.S., begin with 011-972-remove the 0 and dial the rest of the number.

This campaign is coordinated with all the major pro-Zionist groups in Israel and the Gush Katif Committee.

These are the 20 MK's who are central to the vote on Tuesday:

Cell phone numbers of the MK himself (for the brave)

fax numbers

Telephone numbers of offices (speak to aide) 

Member of Knesset





MK Ruchama Avraham



02-5309980/ 02-6753446

MK Yaakov Edri




MK Michael Eitan




MK Eli Aflalo


02-6496591  03-6976990

02-6753846/   6977154-03

MK Zev Boim





MK Daniel ben-Lulu




MK Roni Bar On

054-7703225 052-4501818



MK Inbal Gavrieli


/ 02-6773699

02-6753266 6773690-02

MK Tsachi HaNegbi




MK Yehiel Chazan



02-6753237 / 75 / 


MK Yisrael Katz




Min Limor Livnat




MK Danny Naveh


02-6496421  02-5635769


Min Bibi Netanyahu



02-6753123 / 3658

MK Yuval Steinitz


02-6753792 5303506-02


Min Silvan Shalom




MK David Tal



02-6753870 / 371802

MK Chemi Doron



02-6753666 / 133

MK Yigal Yasinov

.Was former Prisoner of Zion



MK Victor Breilovsky

Ten information items to read before you get started:

1. On Tuesday, 26 October, there will be a fateful vote in the Knesset re: the unilateral retreat plan. Below is a list of the 20 MKs who are central to the vote on Tuesday. This campaign is coordinated with all the major pro-Zionist groups in Israel and in particular with the Gush Katif Committee.

2. It's simple -- you call and say to the aide or secretary who answers something like: "My name is ___ and I would like MK ___ to vote against hitnatkut (unilateral withdrawal) on Tuesday". If the aide or secretary refuses to accept your message, or insists that you "have to" send a fax, insist that accepting telephone messages is -- with all due respect -- part of their job. If you get an answering machine, by all means, leave a message.

3. If you have a fax, fax the same short message. Don't waste your time on long messages; they are not read. Your time is better spent calling a dozen or more friends and relatives and urging them to please, please participate in this campaign.

4. Don't use email -- it is not effective enough. Knesset members hardly ever read email, and your friends and relatives are MUCH more likely to cooperate (fax or make phonecalls) if you show how much you care by personally calling them -- rather than merely emailing them.

5. All the MKs are from the Likud party, except for David Tal (Amir Peretz's workers' party -- formerly Shas) and Doron, Yasinov and Brailovsky (Shinui).

6. Are you willing to use YOUR fax machine to send a fax on behalf of somebody ELSE? Call friends or relatives who don't have a fax and ask them to dictate a message to you! Or, contact Susie Dym sddym@bezeqint.net and I will send you however many faxes (from other people) you ask for. For example, if you ask for 3 faxes from others, that will mean you have 60 pages to fax out -- 3 pages to each of 20 Knesset members. It doesn't take as long as you think and it's extremely effective.

7. If you have no fax machine, you can email me a message for the MKs and I will try to find someone with a fax machine who will fax out your message. Messages in Hebrew rather than English are better. HOWEVER DON'T FORGET TO MAKE THE PHONECALLS. Phonecalls are the most important of all!!!

8. If you know Hebrew, and are willing to call 25 people (who are known to oppose the retreat) and ask THEM to phone and fax, please contact 052-987566 or email man_mos1@yahoo.com and you will get 25 names to call.

9. Please forward this to everybody you know who you think MIGHT be against the unilateral withdrawal campaign.

10. If you get really nervous on Tuesday, it will make you feel better to make a second round of phonecalls.


Susie Dym, spokesperson
Mattot Arim

To Go To Top
Posted by Dr. Yoram Shifftan, October 19, 2004.

In the last few days, the Minister of Defence, the Commander in Chief of the Army and various writers have all criticized, in the name of democracy, the rabbis that have called on soldiers not take part in the uprooting, even if given order to do so.

This instruction of the rabbis has to be understood as a counsel of despair in the face of a central government that has itself broken the rules of the game and acts undemocratically.

Two opposite tactics have been adopted by central government to justify the uprooting.


This tactic has been adopted by the Minister Sheetrit designated by Sharon to carry out the uprooting. He said in the popular 'reshet beth', second channel of Voice of Israel (state run) radio station on the morning of 17 October 2004: "Sharon got a complete mandate in the last election to carry out the hitnatkut [uprooting]". He was not challenged by the interviewer Karmit Gai.

The next day, 18 October 2004, the same station again gave him the platform at the 5 PM program and he said: "Sharon said before the election that he is going to make the hitnatkut [uprooting] and he still got forty MKs". Again he was not challenged by the interviewer.

These statements are clearly untrue. Before the election Sharon used to say from time to time that "for peace he is prepared to make serious concessions". In fact, the proposed uprooting was the policy of Sharon's opposite number, Amram Mizna, who was defeated in a landslide. In any case, in the election it was not an individual that was elected but a party according to its manifesto. And the Likud's manifesto was the antithesis of the proposed uprooting.


This tactic has been adopted by Lawyer Dov Weisglass Sharon's personal lawyer and head of his office, the 'strong man' of the Sharon's administration.

To analyze this approach we should contemplate why is it that in normal transactions one has transgressed the law if one does not keep to the details of the signed transaction, but the Israeli legislator has left it legally possible for an elected government to behave in opposition to its declared policy on the basis of which it was elected, i.e., in opposition to the manifesto of the elected party in the last election.

The answer cannot lie in the legislator allowing for the possibility that once in power the P.M. can argue that he has secret information that he cannot share with his electorate. If this were the reason than it would mean that there is no point of an election and a manifesto at all. There would have been no democratic transparency and accountability.

What remains is the possibility that between the election date and the date in which a policy opposite to the elected party's manifesto is initiated or adopted, a radical change of conditions on the ground has occurred. It is solely to allow for this possibility (eventuality) that the legislator has left it within the law to adopt a policy which does not conform to the ruling party's manifesto in the last election.

In his interview with Haaretz, Weisglass says that on a certain date after the election they suddenly realized why the uprooting is a good thing. And he enumerates certain things implying that there were new important things that have happened after the election. But one need not be a great expert in Middle Eastern Affairs to know that there were no radical changes in the local or international scenes between the election date and the date of the initiation of the uprooting, so as to justify the adopting of diametrically opposite policy to the one in the Likud's manifesto on the basis of which Sharon's government came to power. No wonder that many feel that their votes have been stolen. And the Minister of Defence, the Commander in Chief of the Army and the various sanctimonious writers admonishing the rabbis do not even refer to this undemocratc conduct.

There has been on the part of the Sharon's government an undemocratic abuse of the reasons for which the legislator left it possible within the law to act in opposition to the party manifesto and even to adopt the policy of the main opposition.

One can go one by one through the various "new events" that Weisglass invokes in his interview with Haaretz in order to try to imply that there has been after the election new radical change on the ground, and a new realization, that justified reneging on the Likud's manifesto. But this is really unnecessary since it is so obvious that there has been no such radical change in this period. Yet, I cannot resist mentioning my unsuccessful plea in a conversation with Weisglass in 2001, asking him to influence Sharon so that Israeli diplomats would be allowed to say in public that the settlements are legal in international law. His "new realization" communicated to Haaretz includes an alarm at the refusnik soldiers that refuse to serve in the territories. But not only is their proportion in the Israeli army insignificant, it would have been even more insignificant had this plea been heeded.

The absurd Weisglass' insistence on taking the initiative, on the determining the agenda ourselves, i.e., on initiating ourselves a partial uprooting as a means to face up to the world that wants a total uprooting, is tragic-comic. It reminds one of a man attacked by a crocodile and he doesn't want to let the crocodile have its own agenda, which is devouring the man in one move. But instead of swimming away from the crocodile, the man swims towards the crocodile, suggesting it take only a part of himself. For the sake of taking the initiative, he is completely oblivious to the intoxicating effect of the scent of blood on the crocodile.

The absurd sudden realization, AFTER THE ELECTION, that domestically and internationally everything was collapsing and such an Israeli initiative was required, is so ripe with humorous and journalistic possibilities that even the professional left-wing writer of Haaretz cannot resist the temptation to write an article entitled, "Put the blame on Yossi" in Haaretz October 16, 2004, pointing out that if anything has changed it is in a direction opposite to the one pointed by Weisglass. He writes:

...But now the cat is out of the bag. Dov Weisglass, the prime minister's former bureau chief, in his interview with Ari Shavit (Haaretz Magazine, October 8) has revealed the secret - put the blame on Yossi Beilin. "Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything is stuck. And even though according to the American reading of the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians and not on us, Arik grasped that this state of affairs would not last. That they wouldn't leave us alone, that they wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative garnered broad support," Weisglass explains.

Few in Israel will recall the fall of 2003, exactly one year ago, in such dark colors. The contrary is true. If changes there were, the changes were all to the good. The economy showed the first signs of picking up. The battle against Palestinian terror was beginning to show results. Relations with Washington were good. But, as has been frequently remarked, things look different when viewed from the Prime Minister's Office. But Yossi Beilin's Geneva initiative? Any astute observer knew that this ludicrous "agreement" was stillborn and would go nowhere. By now it has been long forgotten, and not because of the "disengagement" plan. Was this a reason to announce that Israel was going to uproot the settlers of Gush Katif? [end of citation from haaretz].

In conclusion, for such a radical uprooting proposition that goes against all the ethos of what Israel is about, initiated after the election with no hint to it in the pre-election campaign of the Likud, without a radical change on the ground, only the nation itself can democratically decide (in a real democracy it should not have been raised at all because the nation has already decided in the last election and rejected it in a landslide). A vote in the Knesset is open to various pressures and manipulations, as has indeed occurred when Oslo was confirmed in the Knesset. Even with the Arab vote there was no majority, and only with a personal bribe for two MKs, who crossed the floor, and thus a majority of one was obtained. And a referendum or an election should be conducted according to the principles expounded in http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.gifting.html

Dr. Yoram Shifftan's articles on the legal basis of the Jewish National Rights to Israel are featured in the current issue of Think-Israel.

To Go To Top
Posted by Judah Tzoref, October 19, 2004.

The Israeli National TV reported lately on the deployment of Israel's Imprisonment Service to expand its detention installations for the confinement of objectors to uprooting of Jewish communities. The first reflection, that crossed my mind in the face of such concentration camps designed for opponents of the Israeli regime, focused on the noble Bulgarian people who saved my parents and the rest of the Bulgarian Jewry from the fateful atrocities of the Holocaust.

In 1945 my parents left Bulgaria for a new life in the Jewish homeland. In their wildest nightmares my late parents, bless their souls, could have never imagined their son being incarcerated in a concentration camp in the Land of Israel under the tight watch of Israeli jailing hounds.

I am not young anymore, spanning over the same year count as the State of Israel, but I'll be there on the scene of crime and do whatever in my power to resist the ethnic cleansing of my fellow-countrymen. In the educational nursery of the Left, I was brought up on the values of humanism. Each professed humanist, who will not be there to prevent the crimes of uprooting, is neither a humanist, nor a Jew, nor a human being.

I would rather sit in an Israeli concentration camp, patrolled by armed perpetrators of uprooting, than turn a blind eye to the crimes of tyranny and its agents, that render Israel a leper state and the most dangerous enemy of the Jews.

I am about to engender the required procedure for an application of a political asylum in Bulgaria, where my family had been living since time immemorial. I want to return to those hospitable people who granted an haven of dignity to a Jew as a Jew. I want to forsake my evil country that humiliates me for being a Jew.

I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country that despises, tramples and abuses Jews. My lost dignity will be hopefully regained in Bulgaria, if the Bulgarians accept my appeal. If not, I shall try in every other state, and if I'm still declined, I'll stay in the exile of the Land of Israel and spend my life in concentration camps under the scrutiny of anti-Semitic guards.

The more the Israeli regime becomes brutal and violent, the more I realize the greatness of Prof Paul Eidelberg, a political scientist of a worldwide renown, who predicted the processes of decadence currently manifested in Israel. As a preemptive measure, Prof Eidelberg developed his plan for Israel's Future Government in Exile, which is designed to constitute an alternative to Israel's current governing establishment. Prof Eidelberg's thesis outlines the groundbreaking reform of governmental system required for the survival of Israel.

Henceforth, the only alternatives reserved for Israeli Jews conscientiously incapable of losing their human dignity are: indefinite detention in concentration camps for political dissidents, application for a political asylum in another state or joining the enterprise of Israel's future government in exile. At any rate, the Prisoners-of-Conscience Association in Israel welcomes every citizen endowed with the virtue of a true Jewish soul.

Dr Judah (Yehuda) Tzoref lives in Rehovot, Israel.

To Go To Top
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 18, 2004.

The endemic and deeply taught hatred of Jews has not gone away since they massacred 6 million of the Jews in Europe. It merely went under civilization's radar. The excess of their butchery even startled the practitioners and enablers of Jewicide. When the madness of killing 6 million Jews during WW2 surfaced, exposing them to world view, it shocked even those committed to the elimination of first European Jewry and later World Jewry. The Jews have never been forgiven for bringing to the world's people a single, omnipotent G-d to displace their pagan gods and diminish the power of the priest cults.

The perpetrators are well known. Germany may have opened the portals of Hell but, all of Europe rushed through to enthusiastically partake of the savagery. The question is not Who participated but Who didn't? All of the nations of Europe participated - with only a few who made minor gestures of humanity. The German people, the French, the Poles, Finns, Swedes, Holland, Croatia, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Austria et al participated.

The Allies, like the English and French, knew that the Nazi Death Camps were like a daily meat processing factory, turning out burned Jews but, the so-called civilized Free Western nations said nothing. President Roosevelt stopped any rescue efforts by any nation at the Evian and Bermuda Conferences. The Allies refused to bomb the Nazi crematoria or rail lines to the death camps - telling all they would rescue the Jews only after the War.

The Church of Rome was deeply involved and even created the infamous 'rat-lines' to give sanctuary to German SS officers infamous for their crimes against humanity. The Church and Red Cross cooperated by providing passports and transportation to the Eichmans, the Mengeles (the Doctor called the "Angel of Death" by camp survivors). He experimented on live pregnant prisoners, twins and others. His practices exceeded the horror of the Marquis De Sade but the Church considered them angels of the Jew, Jesus and thus to be saved. I do not blame a dead Jew hanging on a Roman torture instrument whose name was misused to commit Jewicide. For a brief time the excesses of WW2 shocked them and these monsters of Europe submerged their Jew hatred, after having been exposed as veritable human flesh eaters. The U.S. State Department through such as the Dulles brothers did everything they could to protect the slave traders of German manufacturers and few were prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Even the Nuremberg Tribunals only dealt with a handful of the war criminals who carried out the Genocide of Europe's Jewry.

As the Europeans became more of a target for Arab Muslim Terrorists, they instead are consumed with Jew-hatred. Recall that Hitler was similarly so consumed with killing all the Jews as the "Final Solution to 'his' Jewish Question", that he devoted thousands of troops and rail cars to transport Jews to his Nazi death camps. As Hitler lost, so too shall the Europeans and the Arab Muslims - IF they pursue the destruction of the Jewish people and the Jewish State.

After WW2 a handful of Jews escaped the graveyards of Europe and went to Israel where the U.N. members voted a partitioned State. But, all knew or believed that even these pitiful few would soon be wiped out by a coalition of Arab nations (themselves created as 'free gifts' by the Free West after the Allies had defeated the Ottoman Empire). The Arab Armies pledged to occupy all the land in the Middle East by pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea.

But, miraculously the rag-tag army of Jews, fresh from Europe's death camps, using old weapons from WW1 and 2, beat the 6 well-armed Arab armies. The U.S. under President Harry S. Truman and the Europeans embargoed weapons to the Jewish State under the excuse that "they should not ship arms into a war zone". The Arabs had no problem getting weapons from the Europeans - particularly the English. Where the Arabs attacked, neither the U.N. nor any single faction made any effort to assist the newly born beleaguered Jewish nation of Israel.

The Arabs, active supporters of Hitler's Jew killing machine and the Europeans themselves, well known as abettors of the Jew killing, have now joined forces. This all happened since 1948 as the Europeans shed or buried their guilt of having committed Jewicide

I have spoken to Holocaust survivors and they tell me the same stink of betrayal and perfidy is in the air today..

Now, because the mix of Muslim Arabs called Palestinians cannot terrorize the Jews of Israel sufficiently to create an abortive state of Terror, the Europeans have started to re-invigorate the centuries of old Jew Hatred. There are several by-products of this assistance. One is to insure Arab oil availability and the other is to put the hostile radical Muslim genie that is now terrorizing the world back into his bottle.

They have already announced that the E.U. (European Union) will vote another Arab Muslim Palestinian State into existence in 2005 - regardless of the Arab Muslims unceasing Terror and the pledge of each of the Arab Muslim Terrorist groups to continue attacking - even if another Arab Muslim State of Palestine is established. The plan is to then to embargo Israel - IF Israel refuses to consider committing national suicide.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England has proclaimed that he will use all of his powers to establish what will be the most active Terrorist State in the Middle East. So, the E.U. driven by France, Germany, Spain joined by the Russians and China who want markets for weapons' sales to the Arab Muslims will vote another Palestinian Terror State into existence. It is estimated that Europe will soon be populated with a critical mass of Islamists and will then be called Eurabia.

The Jews of Israel, except for some, do not understand that they are standing in the same position as the Jews of Germany in the late 1930s. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon thinks he can sweeten up the International community by withdrawing from Gaza, showing that he can harass his own Jews and thereby appease the Jew-killing nations of Europe and placate the Arabs of Islam. Sharon is not a fool, necessarily - rather a peasant soldier who has spent his life as a strong, dominant military commander - but, who never had a clue as to why the Europeans or the Americans follow their own special interests. Arik Sharon is like a man-child, playing in a game where he doesn't understand the rules or even the nature of the game.

For the Europeans, the Jews and the Jewish nation are merely pawns to be sacrificed. Granted, the Europeans also carry the age-old virus of anti-Semitism, practiced not only by the Church of Rome but also, the Church of England and the Russian Church, the Greek Church, the Lutheran Church and so on.

Have you noticed that the age-old Jew hatred is cropping up in the Presbyterian Church as they vote to divest their investments from any company that does business with Israel in an organized campaign? Syria continues the management of this world-wide boycott of Israeli goods and services to which many European companies adhere.

If the Church were a business, they would be now facing a court trial and substantial fines based on U.S. law that prohibits boycotts of Israel. This unethical, biased Church has not cited one other nation for what clearly is a gross anti-Semitic campaign by the Church fathers. (Note! It must be said that there are many Church members who are angry with this decision.) Presumably, we will see other Church organizations slip the hood of civility from their faces and pick up where the Inquisition, Russian pogroms, Hitler and Jew-killing nations of Europe left off.

Regrettably, Jews can't believe the Jew-killers of Europe have re-awakened. They stare in disbelief just as they did in the late 1930s, like a startled deer caught in headlights of a giant Juggernaut headed straight for them. Jews are still frozen - like they were then - thinking they can appease the nations with good deeds and benefits to humanity. It never worked before nor will it work now.

The so-called Jewish leadership of Israel, having fought one un-ending war, mixed with Terrorism since 1948 and before, should know better but, they don't. They are doing exactly what the Jews of the Polish and Russian ghettos used to do, namely, trying to bribe the chief goy of the local village and perhaps the Church priests so the peasants will not do so much damage this time in the Easter pogrom. It never worked. The Church preached the hatred and the peasants rioted, looting, raping, burning, murdering. So, this time Sharon and the Left will again try bribing the Arab Muslims with more land and still watch the missiles land on their inner cities wondering what next to give away.

For years I have tried to remind G-d that he owes the Jewish people a promise He made to Avraham: "I will Bless those who Bless you and Curse those who Curse you."

In case G-d ran out of ideas on how to curse those who savaged His people, with extreme prejudice, I offered these suggestions:

That the continent of Europe should freeze in winters, flood in summers, followed by droughts that dry up the rivers, not allowing a blade of grass to grow in soil baked to concrete.

I further suggested a scattering of medium-sized asteroids that would shatter the cities of Germany, France, Poland, Russia - et al.

I requested that, if England could not sink below the sea then nature would pound the Jew-hating British unmercifully.

I beseeched G-d for incurable pandemics that would sweep through their nations making the Black Plague and HIV look like a mild cough in comparison.

For the hostile Arab Muslim nations, I thought it would be appropriate for major earthquakes to shake such cities as Tehran, Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Mecca, Medina (etc.) so hard that not one brick would stand on another. Primitive nations would best return to the stone age rather than have them capable of using nuclear bombs instead of swords.

I asked for a mild trembler that would allow the Temple of Solomon to shrug its shoulders and cleansed itself of the pagan trash that has been built upon it.

I did not forget the Erev Rav (the mixed multitudes from the trash who left Egypt with the Jews during the Exodus of Moses. These pagan traitors have clung to the Jewish people like parasites and today called themselves Leftists. These are the non-Jewish Jews who work so diligently to divide the nation and to de-Judaize the Jews and the Jewish nation.

I thought that G-d's solution for Korach would fit nicely for these betrayers. (Recall the ground simply splitting open and swallowing Korach with his whole clan.)

No doubt, G-d has other messages and solutions such as hurricanes one after another. We hear reports from the volcanologists that slumbering volcanoes are heating up all over the globe: Mr. Saint Helens, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, Vesuvius, in Mexico - etc.

I think G-d may make the world pay for what they have done to the people of His Covenant. We all have a ring-side seat to what may be a replay of G-d's decision at the time of Noah. The world was corrupt and he ended it. This time, perhaps he will leave some but not many.

Do I sound angry and unforgiving? I AM angry and have NO forgiveness. You all (except for some) have killed my people for century upon bloody century. I want you now to share the pain we Jews have suffered at your hands. I want you to know that what you have done is supremely wrong in the eyes of good men and G-d. I want you to be responsible and to pay for every baby you hurled into the Krupp ovens alive and screaming. The Europeans and the Church delivered them like fresh meat to Germany's slaughter houses. Surely those screams scattered the tranquillity of Heaven and the angels wept. Those screams are still reaching out across the universe, marking our planet as a deadly celestial body.

I want you to choke and gag just as those who were gassed in the gas chambers with their fingers clawing the walls to escape and catch one more breath. The factories that produced the Zyklon B Gas still operate and thrive. I will not forget how the Nazis gathered Jews in their synagogues and burned them to death - just because they were Jews.

I trust G-d has not forgotten His Promise and will send our persecutors howling through Hell for eternity. If the reader has any creative suggestions to add, I would be pleased to add them to my nightly requests for Justice and Retribution.

But, not to worry. When you get to plead your case to the Jewish Rabbi, Yehoshua (Jesus), you can tell him you butchered his descendants - all in his name. That you did everything possible to eliminate his Jewish bloodlines and almost succeeded. But, of course, there is always another chance as the Jew killers of Europe re-awaken and join the Arab Muslims in what may be their grand finale.

One caveat: There are good, fervent fundamentalist Christians who have tried to help the Jewish nation. Granted they may have their own agenda but, they have stepped forward when few others of so-called faith would not. They may yet be called upon to come as an army to face their co-religionists who may yet advance as a mighty force to kill the Jews. Therefore, when Judgement Day does come, we can testify they did try to help.

With the Jews gone, Islam can then claim all the land in the Middle East; Christian Europe can then lay claim to the Covenant and then the Muslims and the Christians can fight it out to the last man, woman and child on earth.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 18, 2004.


There is a pattern to US vetoes of Security Council resolutions against Israel. The US vetoes them, not because it is pro-Israel because they are one-sided. The latest one, demanding that Israel cease counter-terrorism in Gaza, referred only to Israeli action. The US objected only to its not mentioning the terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself from it.

I think that the US explanation reveals is bias against Israel. The US seeks balance in Resolutions. Balanced Resolutions are unfair. There is nothing to blame Israel for, regardless of how much the Arabs are to blame. The Arabs have launched a war of jihadist aggression against Israel. Israel is entitled to: (1) Pursue terrorists in Gaza who criminally bombard Israeli cities; and (2) (Not that this is Israeli policy) Solve the Arab-Israel conflict by winning the war, gradually getting the Arabs to leave that part of the Jewish homeland, and absorbing it.


War is being made on Israel, but Israel does not declare itself at war. It sometimes retaliates, and it sometimes pursues, but it has no strategy for winning. It imagines itself in the mode of peacemaking. Unfortunately, one cannot make peace with jihadists any more than one could with fanatical Nazis and Communists, dedicated to imperialism. JIhadists fight until they drop. The only thing to do is to make them drop. That means, as a start, declaring war.

Once having declared war, Israel can justify its measures as necessary wartime tactics. Instead, Israel pretends that it can negotiate peace or withdraw in security behind a wire fence (with a million Israeli Arabs!). Everyone knows that for each Israeli concession, the Arabs demand another.

As for the US, it had declared war, but the government has not rallied the people to it. In that task, Pres. Bush is a great failure. His failure may be fatal for our people. It is not his failure, alone, however. In their partisanship, the Democrats do not content themselves with rallying to the war effort and reserving their criticism for how Pres. Bush commands it. They object to war and second-guess every petty decision and piece of ill fortune in it.

The NY Times, for example, pulls a veil over the eyes of its readers. As a result, people do not yet realize that we are in a world war, that it is a religious war against non-Islamists, and that only the US is in a position to lead it. The Democratic candidate recommends working more with the UN and Europe, the first a leader of evil and the second a dropout from virtue. As it is, Bush wasted time working futilely with the UN and Europe, for which the Democrats begrudge him what, according to their light, not mine, should be political credit.

Pres. Bush has alluded to the wider scope of this world war, but he has not put it that way decisively, consistently, and frankly. (To mollify the politically correct, he calls bellicose Islam a religion of peace. He thus smothers appreciation for the vast scope of the conflict). Democrats should be arguing with him that Iran was a more suitable country to win over, and a more immediate danger to be disarmed. Instead, they are cocooned in an old-fashioned notion that with goodwill and negotiations, we can avoid any war at all. What I see as a pattern of jihadist attacks all over, most people see as isolated incidents not their concern.

When I disillusion people, they fall back on defeatism: "How can we fight them, more just arise?" I say, close down Iranian and Saudi financing of the madrassas and the Muslim immigration that also finances them and raises fifth columns. I say, eliminate a group of regimes that form the axis. That's what a world war is. I have no answer, however, about N. Korea. One friend challenged me, why object to Iran's having a-bombs, and not the US and Israel. That's like asking, why object to criminals being armed if cops are.


After discussing the bombing of a resort area in the Sinai frequented largely by Israelis, PM Sharon and Pres. Mubarak agreed that terrorism must be fought.

The statement was deceptive. While Mubarak agreed that terrorism must be fought, his UN representatives argue that the killing of Israeli civilians is not terrorism (IMRA, 12/7).

Why does only the Jewish nationalist media bring that out. Why not the general media? Why not Israel? Israel doesn't, because it is in a state of denial about Egypt and jihad. It pretends that diplomacy can make kpeace with fanatics whose dream is of conquest and murder (and looting). Hence Sharon invites Egypt to retrain the same P.A. forces that Israel is fighting, and supposes that those forces this time would repress terrorism instead of supporting it. Why this time?


"Haaretz" boasts that Israel is more careful to avoid civilian casualties in fighting against terrorists than is the US. Israel has high-ranking legal officers advise on selection of targets and methods of fighting. The US does not. (I'd like to hear from the US military on that.) The US certainly bombed indiscriminately in the Serbian war. (Yes, but that was then.)

Since Israel exercises great care in its fighting, it refutes accusations of having lost its ethical standards as a result of its presence in the Territories. (Israel goes too far, in not going too far.)

By contrast, the Arabs, who commit sadistic crimes against enemies and callously risk their own people's lives, indoctrinating them in savagery and employing women and children in terrorism, the Arabs have low ethical standards.


Pres. Katsav of Israel contends that a critic of PM Sharon's abandonment plan may argue that it damages Israeli security but not that it threatens national survival. If you say that Sharon's plan threatens national survival, then you may incite someone to murder him (IMRA, 10/11).

How paranoid! Israelis don't run off to murder people because of their policies. (What the Secret Service does is another matter.) This is just an excuse to stifle the most severe criticism.

The difference between damaging and destroying national security in a country whose survival often hangs on a thread is hairsplitting.

Suppose the plan does threaten national survival. Not allowed to warn people? Shall Sharon, an irresponsible enemy of the people who defies his mandate, be allowed to threaten the survival of all, lest someone unable to figure out for himself that the plan threatens national survival, would be impelled into assassination when told that it does? This is silly. Israel should lean more in the direction of free speech. Perhaps if the people heard more criticism and alternatives, they would not be stuck with such fools for leaders and folly for policy. Let's hear some concern for the Israeli lives he ruins. Leaders play with billions of dollars and millions of lives.

Ironically, the name-calling in Knesset surpasses anything I heard in my life from US legislatures.


With a Ford Foundation grant, Brandeis U. is pairing with al-Quds U. in Jerusalem. Al-Quds U. trains students in terrorism (Prof. Steven Plaut, 12/11, e-mail). Shame on Brandeis, too!


Arabs seized the wristwatches from Israelis on stretchers. Egyptian police did not stop them. Egyptian security officials ignored a forewarning from an Israeli emissary who came to Egypt for the purpose. (Israel had penetrated al-Qaeda.) They believe that had Egypt cooperated, the attack would not have occurred (or at least the wounded would have been attended to properly).

A reporter noted cooperation in the rescue work (at that time, but not at first). Egyptian authorities did not let some of the Israelis return for their property (IMRA, several).


Egypt knows how to deal with terrorism. It defeated Egyptian terrorism. All the more suspicious that it does not stop Sinai arms smuggling to terrorists in Gaza (IMRA, 10/10).


An MK pointed out that even if a commando unit posted in or near Gaza had only rifles, it could endanger Israeli forces (IMRA, 10/12).


The treaty allows Egypt to station as many lightly armed police at the Sinai border with Israel as they want to. That means they may carry assault rifles. Nevertheless, the government of Israel suggests that the treaty be changed to enable Egypt (which is fostering arms smuggling) to suppress arms smuggling). This makes no sense.

Pres. Mubarak claims that if he had troops (i.e., heavily armed forces) in the Sinai, he could have prevented the terrorist attack. However, he could have had more police with assault rifles. The treaty forbids heavily armed troops, lest Egypt mount another surprise attack on Israel from the Sinai (IMRA, 10/11). Egypt disregarded an Israeli warning. Let us hope that Sharon's head clears in time to realize the danger of invasion that he is inviting.

When the reason given for a policy makes no sense, suspect an outrageous secret motive or that the policy-makers are stupid. Just don't let officials utter nonsense, without a protest.


S. Arabia expressed its solidarity with Egypt's fight against terrorism, in connection with the bombing at Taba. It said nothing about Israel, though half the victims were Israeli (IMRA, 10/12).


The conference is being called by Saudi Arabia, which invited Iran (IMRA, 10/10).

One may anticipate harsh condemnations of terrorism, with or without explaining that they do not consider Arab attacks on Israeli civilians terrorism or that they do not consider Israeli civilians as civilians or that their interpretation of Islam makes them not consider Jews as human beings. This would be a cynical pretense to the West of being virtuous.


Rabbi Obadiah Josef ruled that policies that save lives in the short run must be approved, even if they don't save lives in the long run (IMRA, 10/12).

That is not a proper cost-benefit analysis, if the long-run is reasonably foreseeable, as this one is.


N.P.R. host Scott Simon asked a guest whether there was a need for the State of Israel. He was upbraided for asking a question that he would not ask about other countries. He defended himself with a lying retort. He pointed out that his critic did not restate the guest's answer, and that this affirmed the need for the Jewish state. No, the guest's answer further impugned Israel's existence.

In describing the Jordanian occupation of the Old City, Mr. Simon once claimed that the Jewish Quarter "was respected but neglected." To the contrary, Jordan expelled all the Jews, destroyed all their synagogues, and barred Jews from their holiest site. Simon told a "whopper."

Simon, who, as does NPR, routinely maligns the Jewish state, was invited to the national Holocaust Museum, dedicated to warn against anti-Jewish bigotry and persecution (IMRA, 10/9).

NPR is a showcase for the conservative objection to government subsidy of biased arts and media. NPR's audience may not see this, if their main news sources are NPR and "NY Times."


The P.A. analyzes Sharon's plan as: (1) Retaining military and economic control over Gaza, while disclaiming the responsibilities of an occupying power; and (2) Using the withdrawal as leverage for retaining a presence in Judea-Samaria (IMRA, 10/11).

I wouldn't put it as "occupying power" or call supervision of entry of goods "economic control." The only goods barred would be military. The P.A. goes through all the definition of "occupying" except for the significant point that to be occupied, a territory must belong to a sovereign state, which Gaza, Judea, and Samaria do not, and do not belong to the Arabs. One of the main talking points about Israel being an occupying power is that the "international community" finds it such. I wouldn't put much stock in bandwagon propaganda that depends on vendors to the Arabs and on antisemites. Our planet is not so mature that world public opinion is authoritative ethically. During the Holocaust, Jews hoped in vain for intervention by the civilized world.

The P.A. sees through Sharon's plan. Its flimsy premises contradict human nature. The Arabs know how to refute it, although the Arabs also will lie in their retort.


The "Jordan Times" considers the election a tribute to the democratic spirit that, IMRA notes, the Arab world lacks. IMRA remarks that the paper fails to give any credit to the US, which made possible this election, following its overthrow of the particularly backward dictatorship. The "Washington Post" does give credit to the US and NATO forces for helping Afghanistan. It warns about the lack of security and the extensive work to be done (IMRA, 10/11).


IMRA asked the government whether a criticism of the Sharon abandonment plan like the one Pres. Katsav said should be banned as incitement to violence would be permitted. Protestors ought not risk arrest. But the government refuses to pre-judge posters (IMRA, 10/12). People don't know what is permitted speech, so they are inhibited. Israel needs an ACLU.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Gary M. Cooperberg, October 28, 2004.

Clearly it is more than disturbing to hear our Prime Minister using his strength, determination and reputation as a bulldozer against his own country. He has a perfect faith in his own political maneuvering, but no faith at all in his party, his country, his people or his G-d. He, as many leaders before him, has assumed that his election grants him exclusive rights to do as he will with our country. He was elected, overwhelmingly, under the premise that he would not dismantle any Jewish settlements. It is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who voted for him when he declared his intention to remove all Jews from the Gaza Strip.

Sharon is neither a traitor nor a fool. He really believes that he is doing what is best for his country. He believes that Israel is at the mercy of the USA and the European Union. (Neither of which really has any mercy). It is his futile hope that by partially self-destructing on our own initiative we can hold on to most of what is left. He is wrong. By beginning to self-destruct we are merely whetting the appetites of both our enemies and our alleged allies. The pressure he feels now not only will not be assuaged by these actions, rather they will increase owing to the incredible precedents set by an alleged right wing Prime Minister.

Our destiny lies before us, whether we like it or not. The nations of the world are destined to gather against us. Trying to negotiate our existence with those who seek our destruction will only serve to convince our enemies that we can be destroyed. As much as we yearn for peace, trying to escape the inevitable war to come will never succeed. If war is in our destiny then we have but one choice. . . to fight to win. Any other choice will bring us pain and suffering even greater than that which we fear.

I have no doubt that Mr. Sharon is under tremendous pressure from both friend and foe. I have no doubt that he really believes that he has no choice but to sacrifice part of our homeland to save the rest. But I also have no doubt that he is absolutely wrong and is placing our country in grave danger by the path he has determined to take.

Nazi soldiers who committed crimes against humanity claimed that they were just following orders as soldiers must do. Yet the world determined that there are times when immoral orders must be disobeyed. It is no crime, nor is it a breach of democracy or duty to country for a soldier to outrightly disobey an immoral order.

If George Bush arbitrarily decided to make peace with Mexico by "disengaging" from California and New Mexico, and offered to pay American citizens living in these states compensation for their homes as they are deported to other states, I have little doubt that most of those citizens would rise up and fight for their homes. And most other citizens would support them. Even if Mexico threatened a nuclear attack, morality would dictate that we never back down to such a threat.

I don't know what threats were made against the Jewish State, nor by whom they were made. But I do know that backing down to threats will never make them go away. In addition, and even more important, the rebirth of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel is the beginning of fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. For us to take the clear miracles which we have witnessed and reject them by fearing Man more than we fear G-d, it is we who invite Divine Wrath upon ourselves. No power on Earth can destroy Israel. But our rejection of clear miracles will bring needless tragedy upon ourselves.

Let us remember recent Jewish history. Most of our leaders were opposed to declaring a Jewish State, not believing that we had the strength or ability to stand on our own. And, in 1967, after the most astounding miracles which saw us defeat overwhelming enemies and regain much of our ancient holy land in a mere six days, every Jewish government sought to buy peace by trying to undo those miracles. Sharon's is but the most recent of consistent attempts to give away miracles for peace during the past thirty seven years.

Yet, despite all of these efforts by so many different governments of Israel, not only have we not undone the miracles, we have built upon them. Good Jews have built their homes and their future in lands which have been under threat by our own government. These areas have grown and developed into beautiful towns and cities. The ruined places are destined to be rebuilt and they are being rebuilt. If only we would recognize the miracles we witness every day in this country it would never occur to us to attempt to undo them. Miracles cannot be undone. But the very idea that we would try to undo them will bring punishment upon those who would try.

Gary Cooperberg lives in Kiryat Arba-Hebron. He can be reached by email at gary@projectshofar.org or go to his website http://www.projectshofar.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, October 18, 2004.

The war of propaganda has been elevated to a fine art by the Arab world, and it is imperative that we understand the misuse of language that influences public opinion.

FLAME has contributed, by providing a definitive, untwisting of words and phrases to our understanding of Arab propaganda. Here we reprint their illuminating propaganda analysis of a technique that has been effective in permeating and molding world opinion about the Arab/Israeli conflict.

The following phrases are brilliantly analyzed:

1. "Terrorists and Freedom Fighters"
2. "Dishonor in the Muslim World"
3. "Palestinian Land"
4. "Arab Humiliation"

The bottom line is that Arab crimes against humanity have been sanitized by misuse of words.


How Arab propaganda has managed to give new meaning to old words.

In the decades of the Arabs' unremitting struggle to fight the Jews to the death and to wipe Israel off the map, they have managed to introduce certain words and phrases into the consciousness of the world. These phrases are twisted and have in many cases come to convey the exact opposite of their actual meaning. Today, we examine two of those twisted concepts.

Terrorists and Freedom Fighters

The Palestinians who blow themselves up and in so doing, succeed in killing and maiming as many innocent Jews as possible are described as "martyrs" and "freedom fighters" in the Arab world and even in much of the European press. But, for whatever purpose, the deliberate murder and mutilation of defenseless and innocent civilians can never be warranted by the common law of humanity and by accepted international standards of behavior and international law, even where the use of insurgent force may be understandable and even justified.

And, surely, there must be great doubt whether the insurgence of the Palestinians is justified at all. They have rejected all offers to settle their conflict and alleged grievances against Israel. The goal of the Palestinians is not to live peacefully and successfully alongside Israel, but rather to build a Muslim-Arab state on the charred ruins of a dismembered Israel.

The official website of the PNA (Palestinian National Authority) does not show two states, only one - Israel is eliminated altogether. Palestinian "insurgents," who resort to terrorism and slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians will never acknowledge that a Jewish state, of any size and wherever located, has any right to exist. They will fight to the death and use any method and any weapon available to them to achieve their extremist...goals.

Those who murder and maim innocent civilians in pursuit of their genocidal ends are not "martyrs" nor "freedom fighters," nor even "militants" (as even the U.S. press often calls them). They are common mass murderers and terrorists, just as much as those who, for their own twisted reasons, committed the September 11 atrocities, and who deserve the condemnation of all decent mankind.

Dishonor in the Muslim World

The subjugation of women in all Islamic countries is placidly accepted by most of the world. The most widespread of these abominations is that of female genital mutilation, a practice that invades the rights of women and their enjoyment of life in the most horrible way.

Another act of disgraceful repression of women in the Muslim world is the "protection of family honor." Under this concept, a woman who, for any reason at all - including having been raped - is suspected of being or having been involved with a man who is not her husband, is condemned to death, usually by stoning. The primary purpose of that savagery is to salvage what is considered the "family honor." "Honor killings" claim tens of thousands of female lives every year throughout the Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa. Nobody seems to care. There is no record that the U. N. or any other international body has done anything to interfere with those horrible practices.

Leave it to the talent for genocidal innovation of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization, to have added a new macabre twist to this barbaric custom. In January, a woman named Ream Selah el-Rayashi blew herself up at the Erez checkpoint, the main passage between Gaza and Israel. The woman, mother of two children, had committed the grave offense of falling in love with a man other than her husband. When the affair was discovered, el-Rayashi was given the choice between a dishonorable death by stoning at the hands of her family or an honorable state of martyrdom by becoming a suicide bomber. She chose self-inflicted death and the murder and maiming of many innocent Jews, before dishonor. It is not surprising that no similar demands were made on el-Rayashi's lover.

There can really be no peace with people whose beliefs are so different from Western concepts. There can be no peace with people who treat their women worse than cattle, kill them to save their "honor," and who mutilate them horribly in order to keep them sexually subjugated. And there can be no peace with people who, in the name of and for the purported glory of God, blow themselves up or encourage their children to blow themselves up in order to kill or to maim as many as possible of those whom they consider their mortal enemies and who oppose their twisted ideas of religion and patriotism.


In the previous of this series of hasbarah (educating and clarifying) messages, we described how Arab propaganda systematically twists words and phrases so that eventually they come to mean almost the exact opposite of their original intent. We discussed "Terrorists and Freedom Fighters" and "Dishonor in the Muslim World." Here are two more examples of such twisting of language, and there are many more like it.

What are the facts?

Palestinian land: A great hue and cry has arisen about the Israeli barrier (called the "apartheid wall" by its noisy detractors). At a cost of billions of dollars, Israel has been forced to erect such a barrier in order to safeguard itself against constant murderous attacks that have so far cost over 1,000 Israeli lives and have hurt and mutilated thousands more.

Fourteen out of fifteen judges of the International Court of Justice have condemned this barrier as "illegal." The only laudable exception to this lopsided and totally unwarranted decision was that of the U.S. judge on this (otherwise kangaroo) court. What particularly agitated the judges was that this barrier allegedly intrudes on "Palestinian land." But, of course, there is no such thing as "Palestinian land." The Palestinians do not own any land in Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank"). That land, originally part of the Ottoman Empire, became part of the British Palestine mandate after the First World War and was allocated as part of the Jewish homeland by the Balfour Declaration. In the War of Liberation of 1948, right at the birth of Israel, the invading Jordanian army occupied that territory and assumed possession. In the Six-Day War, Israel repulsed the attack and stayed in possession of the territory.

Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") is therefore part of Israel. If at some future date Israel should decide to relinquish any part of that territory to a Palestinian entity, then it would indeed become Palestinian land. But right now, there is no such thing. "Palestinian lands" do not exist. It is a twisted phrase, created by Arab propaganda to score public relations points and to create confusion in an uninformed public.

"Arab humiliation:" A great deal of ink is being spent on "Arab humiliation" at the hands of the Israelis. There are almost daily stories in the papers deploring the "endless delays" that Arabs suffer at being stopped and interrogated and in some cases searched at one of the many check points. Those delays, which undoubtedly are major inconveniences and annoyances to the Arabs, have one purpose only, namely to reduce and to the degree possible to prevent altogether the passage of suicide bombers that have so far caused so many Jewish victims.

The Arabs have brought those miseries upon themselves with their intifada, now over four years old. There were no check points and no delays before that started. And what could one say about women who, feigning pregnancy, carry explosives under their garments and blow up the female guards who examine them and all others around them? Or what about little children in ambulances who are supposedly in urgent need of quick passage (to a Jewish hospital), but who have bombs hidden in their gurneys, ready to explode and to kill?

But how about the "humiliation" and annoyance that the Jews have to endure? For Jews, normal life in Israel has practically ended. Motorists in Israel expose themselves to a gauntlet of sniper fire on the highways. Most school trips have been canceled for fear of attack on the children, similar to what the Moslem barbarians have just perpetrated in Russia. Social occasions, such as weddings or bar mitzvahs, can't take place unless armed guards are provided. Restaurants, movies, stores and parking lots have to be heavily guarded. Arabs, on the other hand, can freely move through any part of Israel, the cities and the countryside, without any fear of attack. They need not protect their schools or their places of worship, their restaurants, grocery shops or other places where people gather. And they need not fear for their children and that Jews are going to blow them up.

The prevention of Islamic terror is an enormous burden on Israel. Fully three percent of the country's $40 billion GNP goes to protection against terror. The Palestinians brought their misery upon themselves, but the Jews suffer much more from the necessary security precautions than they do. "Arab humiliation" is a twisted phrase, invented and endlessly promoted by Arab propaganda in order to engage the sympathy of the world.

The Arab Moslems have launched three major wars against Israel and have engaged in a constant war of attrition, in order to destroy what they call the "Zionist entity" (another twisted phrase). Unable to defeat Israel militarily, they have resorted to an endless war of propaganda, in which twisted words and phrases play a major role. They have been quite successful at that. Peace cannot come about until the Arab world is willing to wholeheartedly accept Israel and to forget about military action and the war of propaganda. But that day, if it is to come at all, is not yet in sight.

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

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

See the Background Page for another FLAME essay.

To Go To Top
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, October 18, 2004.
These are several recent comments on Gaza.

"For the Sake of Your Nation Mr Sharon, Please Call Off This Civil War!" From: International Christian Zionist Center (iczc@iczc.org.il)

Is this what we need? A civil war and a nationwide sin'at achim?

When the Europeans unimpressed by Prime Minister's Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan from Gaza nevertheless threaten already stricter measures - even sanctions - if there will not, after Gaza, be further withdrawal and full implementation of the disastrous road Map forcing Israel towards a near total withdrawal from all territories to accept a Palestinian State to be formed on their very doorstep!

Is this the already often tried, conventional self destructive, Jewish wisdom, of a nation at war surrounded by enemies on all sides; to start a fight with one another at a moment that before all else unity is needed as a bare necessity to even withstand the enormous outside pressures?

Even those who so arduously maintain that this plan is truly for the ultimate good of the nation (which it isn't), must realize that at this time it will lead only to disaster (and what disaster!). If those who want to push this disengagement plan at all cost, had any sense or real concern for their people for this time they would shelve the plan immediately, before it is too late.

Anyway the Europeans are not even impressed by this unilateral withdrawal plan and Israel as a result will surely be brought to the brink of civil war at a time that she can least afford it. So let's stop it before it is too late and unite to face real battle looming over us - an increasingly arrogant and belligerent Europe and UN who are waiting to force Israel - by sanctions if need be - to obey their wishes and instructions! Israel should tell these arrogant self-serving and often totally hypocritical European leaders that we shall not be pushed by them; not from Gaza nor from any other place till THEY show real moral fortitude to demand an end to Palestinian terror, withhold their money till there is true Palestinian reform and financial accountability, rather than the totally unacceptable request to Israel to give the mother of all terrorism, Arafat, his freedom to travel again!

Israel's government must take the offensive now - not against their own brethren in Gush Katif but against those who out of their hypocritical self interest are pushing Israel to the point of no return. We all must now unite with Israel to stand against the European and UN front which is posed to give the Palestinians what they so far failed to attain by all their war and terror - a strangled Israel and a Palestinian State.

May G_d give Mr Sharon wisdom and courage at this very late hour to prevent this happening!

Jan Willem van der Hoeven,
Dir, International Christian Zionist Center
POB 49063, 91490 Jerusalem, Israel,
Tel +972-2-581.9701,
Website www.israelmybeloved.com

Arens Opposes Disengagement

Moshe Arens of the Likud, who served thrice in the past as Defense Minister, calls on the Prime Minister to cancel the disengagement plan. In an article in Haaretz this week, Arens writes:

"Ever since the prime minister announced the disengagement plan - speculation has been rife regarding the reasons for this move. What sense does it make to hand the Palestinian terrorists a sense of achievement at this time? Why go counter to the positions of the Likud party he heads? Why break up the most stable government coalition Israel has had in many years? Why reverse the position he presented to the voters at the last election? And why plunge the country into the trauma of uprooting settlers from their homes without receiving any Palestinian concessions in return?

"What in the world made him do it? The most bizarre reasons have been proposed to explain this U-turn in Sharon's policies. But now the cat is out of the bag. Dov Weisglass, the prime minister's former bureau chief, in his interview with Ari Shavit (Haaretz Magazine, October 8) has revealed the secret: put the blame on Yossi Beilin. [Weisglass said,] 'In the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And even though according to the American reading of the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians and not on us, Arik grasped that this state of affairs would not last... Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative garnered broad support.'

"...Yossi Beilin's Geneva initiative? Any astute observer knew that this ludicrous 'agreement' was stillborn and would go nowhere. By now it has been long forgotten, and not because of the disengagement plan. Was this a reason to announce that Israel was going to uproot the settlers of Gush Katif?

"... If for some strange reason the Prime Minister's Office believed that after the announcement of our leaving the area, some of our friends who had been badgering us to return to the 1967 lines would decide to leave Israel alone and tell the Palestinians that now the ball was in their court, that has not come about.

"And the Palestinians? From Arafat to the Hamas, they saw in the withdrawal from Gush Katif a sign that terrorism pays off. Only an appetizer, increasing their appetite for further Israeli withdrawals, their mouth watering as they visualize Ashkelon coming into range of the Kassam rockets after the Israeli withdrawal. It is beginning to look as if the disengagement plan has turned into a prescription for dragging Israel deeper into the morass of Gaza..."

Rabbi Avraham Shapira calls on soldiers to refuse orders In a surprise move today former Chief Rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of Mercaz HaRav, Avraham Shapira issued a halachic rulung that forbids soldiers from participating in the dismantling of settlements and even assisting those who will do so in any way. He called on soldiers and police to tell their officers now that if such an order is given they will not carry it out and that soldiers are even required to sit in jail if necessary. He equated the dismantling of settlements with Sabbath desecration or eating non kosher food which of course no religious soldier would agree to do. This ruling caused quite an uproar and is especially important as Shapira is considered a mainstream Rabbi and a Halachic Authority for the National Religious community. His opinion carries much weight and hopefully several "smaller" rabbis will follow suit and issue concurring rulings.

Israeli Major General Aharon Ze'ev Farkash, chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, estimates that Hezbollah has 13,000 rockets in its arsenal. Israel's unilateral retreat from southern Lebanon has left Hezbollah free to produce and stockpile rockets.

What stands between Hamas and the "Fajr" rockets is the Israeli presence in Gaza. Right now, the Israeli navy can intercept boats trying to smuggle weapons to the ports of Gaza. The Israeli Army can uncover weapons-smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. Israeli intelligence can pinpoint rocket-producing factories, and Israeli troops can shut them down.

If Israel leaves Gaza, its intelligence-gathering capabilities in the area will be severely reduced. Its troops will not be free to chase and destroy terrorists and their arsenals. The Palestinian Arabs will be able to import Fajr V rockets, or to develop their own deadlier and longer-range rockets to fire at Israeli cities. In short, withdrawing from Gaza is not only bad for the Jews of Gaza, but is equally dangerous for the rest of the Jews in Israel.

To Go To Top
Posted by NGO Monitor, October 18, 2004.

On October 18, Kenneth Roth, leader of Human Rights Watch, and Sarah Leah Whitson, head of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, held a press conference at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to publicize a 135-page report condemning Israeli security actions in Gaza. (see www.hrw.org)

The press release and report reflect the style of other HRW publications related to Israeli security actions during the past four years of intense violence, consisting of political and ideological claims, unsupported "military assessments", and denunciations that downplay the context of terrorism. This press release and report regarding IDF operations in Gaza reflect unverifiable Palestinian allegations and unsubstantiated security judgements for which HRW's politicized Middle East Division has no credentials.

For example, HRW claims that IDF actions were taken despite the absence of "military necessity" and that the "IDF has apparently failed to explore well-established methods to detect and destroy tunnels..." However, the only evidence presented to back this claim is from interviews with three "experts", whose personal backgrounds, professional qualifications and assessments remain entirely hidden. Other sources cited in the report consist of journalistic impressions, claims by PLO-based NGOs such as Al Mezan, and unsubstantiated claims from Palestinians and Egyptians (on the other side of the smuggling tunnels). In many cases, these reports are circular, with one source simply quoting another, without verification. This closed process has been responsible for false allegations in the past, and as a result, HRW's dismissal of legitimate security actions are without credibility.

This report also contains numerous allegations and assumptions that reflect HRW's dominant ideology. In this context, Roth asserts that the Israeli response to the lethal missile attacks is a "pretext to justify home demolitions" and other actions are taken under the "pretext of protecting its soldiers". Such statements are clearly subjective, as is also true for claims regarding the legality of specific responses to terror.

This pattern of exploiting the rhetoric of human rights to advance a political agenda has been used repeatedly, as in the case of HRW's role in the 2001 Durban conference that demonized Israel; in HRW's exploitation of the term "war crimes" to refer to the IDF offensive in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield following the murder of over 100 Israelis; in its one-sided condemnations of the Israeli anti-terror separation barrier, and in many other examples.

In addition, HRW's 135-page report focusing on Israel's security responses stands in stark contrast to this NGO's minimalist approach to terrorism. In the past four years, HRW has issued well over 100 reports, press releases, and other condemnations of Israeli defensive actions, in contrast to a handful of low-profile reactions to terror. HRW's single substantive analysis was issued in October 2002, and is never mentioned, including in the case of the current publicity campaign.

In conclusion, as this evidence indicates, HRW reports on Israel lack substantive credibility and are driven by a clear and consistent political and ideological agenda. Beyond contributing to the destruction of human right norms and demonization of Israel, this agenda also diverts attention from genuine human rights catastrophes, such as in Sudan, which received far less attention from HRW.

The NGO Monitor organization (www.ngo-monitor.org) promotes critical debate and accountability of human rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict. The Monitor is produced by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute of Contemporary Affairs.

To Go To Top
Posted by Honest Reporting, October 18, 2004.

Two reputable medical journals recently allowed crude anti-Israel propaganda to masquerade on their pages as legitimate academic discourse:

1) The British Medical Journal - hailed by the Financial Times as 'one of the world's top four general medical journals' - included in its Oct. 16 issue an article entitled 'Palestine: The assault on health and other war crimes.' The author, Dr. Derrick Summerfield, compares the IDF's acts to those of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers:

The Israeli army, with utter impunity, has killed more unarmed Palestinian civilians since September 2000 than the number of people who died on September 11, 2001.

The only actual similarity between the two is the death count - approximately 3,000. Summerfield labels all Palestinian casualties 'unarmed civilians' - denying the fact that (1) the clear majority of Palestinians who have died since September 2000 were terrorists and armed combatants (according to the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439), and (2) no Palestinian civilian has been deliberately killed 'with impunity' - in stark contrast to 9/11.

Summerfield goes on claim that since some Palestinian minors have died from wounds to the upper body and head:

Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat.

Beyond falsely branding Israel as guilty of 'war crimes,' deliberate child-killing, illegal colonization and apartheid, the article makes absolutely no mention of how Palestinian terror and political corruption have contributed to the unfortunate state of the Palestinian heath system.

If you agree this article is inappropriate for a respected medical journal, send comments to British Medical Journal editor Kamran Abbasi, http://quest.bmj.com/demail/semail.phtml?semail=Kamran+Abbasi

2) The June 2004 edition of Diabetes Voice - a quarterly publication of the International Diabetes Federation - included a report on that disease in the Gaza Strip. Here's the abstract, which appeared in bold print at the top of the article:

The year 2003 marked the 55th anniversary of the Nakba (cataclysm) of the Palestinian people. In 1948, according to the United Nations Conciliation Commission, 760,000 Palestinians were evicted from their cities and villages, hundreds of which were razed to the ground. What remains of the Palestinian people's land is now split between the West Bank of the river Jordan and Qita Ghazzah (Gaza Strip), and remains occupied by Israeli military forces and settlers. In 2003, the second uprising, or Al-Aqsa Intifada against this occupation entered its third year. Panagiotis Tsapogas, Medical Co-ordinator of the Greek section of Medecins Sans Frontires (Doctors Without Borders) in Gaza, 2002-2003, reports on the difficulties faced by Palestinian people with diabetes in Gaza, and makes a call for the provision of improved diabetes care in the region.

NGO-Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/), which promotes accountability of non-governmental organizations active in the Mideast conflict, responded (http://www.spme.net/RESPONSE/gsdiabetes.htm:

This short abstract consists of a blatantly political attack that has little or nothing to do with diabetes. The one-sided and highly distorted version of history that is presented is based on the Palestinian version of events and vocabulary, and immorally ignores the brutality of Palestinian terrorism. It is also entirely inconsistent with the goals proclaimed by Diabetes Voice, the International Diabetes Federation, and Medecins Sans Frontires.

The International Diabetes Federation (known, ironically, as the IDF) published an official apology for the abstract quoted above, and the editor-in chief of the journal resigned over the matter. The abstract was re-written for the publication's archived, website version of the article.

Not only medical journals have contributed to this disturbing trend of inserting anti-Israel rhetoric into ostensibly neutral academic literature.

Academe, the journal of the American Association of University Professors, included an update on Palestinian universities in its Sept.-Oct. 2004 issue. While lamenting the "infamous segregation wall' and roadblocks that limit access to Palestinian schools, author Mary Gray cites Ramallah's BirZeit University as an example.

Gray gives no explanation whatsoever why Israel implemented these strictures - to deny terrorists free access to Israel. Moreover, Gray ignores the fact that BirZeit is one of the very centers of Palestinian incitement to terror - Hamas won a recent student body election there by featuring exploding models of Israeli buses and claims of prowess based on its success in killing more Israelis than the other parties.

If you agree that this review of the state of Palestinian higher education lacked appropriate balance, send comments to Academe: academe@aaup.org

Honest Reporting monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com. You can help support their research online or by sending contributions to: HonestReporting, 400 South Lake Drive, Lakewood, NJ 08701-3167.

To Go To Top
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, October 18, 2004.
Thanks to Maxine Elkins of Princeton, NJ for for sending this letter on from her friend, Shari Lorch in Jerusalem.

Josh was (luckily) home for Rosh Ha'Shanah AND for Yom Kippur and for the first day of Succot, though all of the time he was home, he had to go to shul with his cellphone in his pocket, in case he was to be called back to the army.

On Yom Kippur all of the men were told to arrive to services with their guns/rifles, so everyone went with their machzorim and M-16's to pray for a better, safer year.

Josh was called back to the army at midnight after Yom Kippur, when he was sent to Jenin. I didn't hear from him after that until Erev Succot at 11:30 a.m. when he called and said, "Surprise, I'm getting out and coming home!!!"

You can imagine how relieved I was! He arrived home around 50 minutes before candle lighting and told me that he would be home until Sunday of Chol Ha'moed 'unless something happened'.

It was wonderful to have him home, out of Jenin, away from things which we never hear about on the news.

He told of young children who throw glass bottles at the Israeli soldiers - glass bottles filled with hot oil or hot tar, but who are officially 'not armed' (and therefore, cannot be shot at, even in self-defense). He wondered how such small, such young children are so adept at aiming these bottles at him and his comrades! He said that their aim is amazing!

Luckily, we spent time with family and with friends on the chag. Around one hour before havdala his cellphone started ringing. The bottom line of it all is that (1) the soldier who was killed that morning was a VERY good friend of his, and (2) he had to be ready very shortly to go down to Gaza.

So....since last Thursday night, that's where he's been - in Northern Gaza, along with so many precious young men.

He calls when he gets a chance to (which is once every few days for a minute or so). I'm going down to the kibbutz for Simchat Torah, hoping that I'll be able to get a package of goodies to him via the person on the kibbutz who's responsible for security, or any other way that I can, and also so that I can at least feel a little closer to him.

When you say your prayer for the State of Israel and for the IDF soldiers I know that you'll have him in mind, as well as the soldiers whom he commands and all of those with whom he's spending this Chag.

From: Shari Lorch

Judy Lash Balint is author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen) which is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by David Wilder, October 18, 2004.

So, what's the answer?

Is the magic solution a national referendum? Can we legitimately decide the fate of Eretz Yisrael in a national election? Who can participate in such a crucial ballot? May 'leaders' of Yesha, and more specifically, those people participating in the 'Yesha Council' rightfully take responsibility to claim that 'we will accept the results of a referendum? dealing with chopping up our land?'

The only answer to these questions is an unconditional NO!

Let's examine these questions, and their possible answers in greater detail.

First: Who has the right to take part in a referendum about Eretz Yisrael. Let's take into account that we're not talking about how high taxes should be, who must participate in active army service, or other such mundane issues. We are not even discussing whether or not a Jew has the legitimate right to live in Eretz Yisrael. We are talking about evicting Jews from Eretz Yisrael. We are talking about unilaterally abandoning our land to sworn enemies who have murdered, in cold blood, over 1,500 people in the past ten years, since the "Oslo piece accords" left our land in pieces. We are talking about fleeing a land area bordering Israeli cities, which will be controlled by a 'palestinian prime minister,' who said, only a few days ago, "Unfortunately, up to now the Palestinian security forces have not been able to control this situation and we bear a very big responsibility for this," Qurei was quoted as saying in al-Ayyam, a Palestinian daily. "There's still chaos, still killing." (Greg Myre - The New York Times - Friday, Oct. 15, 2004).

So, who has the right to vote? There has been much talk about who can vote. For example, can hundreds of thousands of Arabs, 'citizens' of the State of Israel participate in such an election. Or, what kind of majority is necessary for such an issue to be decided: a regular 50% plus one majority, or sixty percent of the population?

However, I'm not referring to these questions, as legitimate as they are. My sights are set on Jews who live in New York, Buenos Aires, Paris, Johannesburg, or, even in Oslo. Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people, ALL the Jewish people, wherever they may be. Some live here, in the State of Israel, and many others, (unfortunately), still reside elsewhere. But that does not mean that these millions of people may be silenced, that their voices cannot be heard, when dealing with our land. It is theirs, just as much as it is mine. For many years I have told groups "Hebron belongs to you as much as it does to me. The difference is, we live here, and today, you don't. We are the keeper of the keys, ensuring that Hebron will always be accessible to whoever wishes to visit here."

So it is too about Gush Katif, so it is too about Homesh and Sanur in the Shomron, so it is too about Tel Aviv and Kiryat Shemona. Citizens of the State of Israel, living in our land, are the keepers of the keys, keeping our Eretz Yisrael Jewish, for the Jewish people. But it is our land, whether we live here or not.

How can we, in Israel, leave our brethren out in the cold? How can it be decided to amputate a living, healthy limb from a healthy living body, without consulting with the patient, whose limb is to be severed? The patient isn't only Avraham in Hebron, Yitzhak in Jerusalem, and Ya'akov in Eilat. The body, Eretz Yisrael, a G-dly possession, has been delegated to the Jewish people, including the Avrahams, Yitzhaks and Ya'akovs who live in Alaska, Melbourne, and Tokyo. What about them?

Second: Concerning the Yesha council (The Council of Judea, Samaria and Gaza). Yesterday a delegation of Yesha leaders met with Sharon about the planned 'disengagement.' Speaking after the meeting they, labeled it a disgrace, calling the Prime Minister "unyielding and heartless." One of them men was quoted as saying, "either someone is controlling Sharon or he is taking Prozac or another tranquilizer."

One of the purported goals of this meeting was to convince Sharon to accept a national referendum to determine the fate of Gush Katif. One of the questions put to these men by various journalists is, "will you accept the results of such a plebiscite?" This morning, the Maariv-NRG web site quoted these men as saying, "we will honor a clear result of a national referendum." They did not guarantee to end all protest should the referendum pass, but did promise to conduct opposition in a "more relaxed atmosphere."

I have written before, and I reiterate here: Yesha council leaders have no mandate to decide whether or not Yesha residents will 'accept' or reject the results of such a referendum. A vast majority of Yesha council leaders are elected mayors of their respective towns or municipal areas. They were elected to provide municipal services to their constituents. They were not elected by the general Yesha population and have no collective power to make such fateful decisions 'in the name of Yesha citizens.'

Third and most importantly: Can the question of Eretz Yisrael be decided in a national referendum? The obvious answer: Of course not. Why? Very simply, Eretz Yisrael does not belong to us. What about our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. How can we deny them their land? It belongs to them too. What right do we have to deny them their birthright, especially when the question is not whether or not to 'conquer the land' rather, it is to simply stay put. How can we give away what belongs to them too.

But most notably: Eretz Yisrael is a G-d - given land, it belongs to Him, He gave it to us. One does not give away, abandon, or run away from G-d-given gifts. A week ago we began reading the Torah - the Five Books of Moses, from the beginning. The most important Biblical commentator, Rashi - Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak, living in France almost a thousand years ago, understood, even then, the controversy surrounding Eretz Yisrael. His first Biblical commentary asks why the Torah begins with "In the beginning" and doesn't begin with the commencement of the Jewish people, in the days of Moses. His answers concisely, "Thus, should the nations of the world say to Israel, 'You are robbers, for you have taken by force the lands of the Seven Nations,' they [Israel] will say to them: 'All the earth belongs to G-d. He created it and gave it to whomever He saw fit. It was His will to give it to them and it was His will to take it from them and give it to us.'" For this reason will read next Shabbat how Abraham was commanded to go - to walk to Eretz Yisrael.

So, what's the answer? No elections, no referendums, no negotiations. Rather, to know, to understand, to internalize, once and for all, Eretz Yisrael is not for sale, not even to the highest bidder, not at any cost. None of it, not now, not ever.

With blessings from Hebron.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 18, 2004.

For those of you who are still befuddled as to what motivates Ariel Sharon, this reprinted article should help a bit. Sharon got a good pay off from the Jericho casino deal and is now looking forward to even bigger bucks from the Gaza casino to be built on the ashes of the Jews of Gaza. As I have written many time in the past, Sharon is deeply in love with money. There is nothing more important in his life than money.

If the Yeshah "leaders" and the various pro-Israel activists want to make any impact on the situation they first need to understand and acknowledge this. As long as they maintain the fantasy that Sharon is confused, mistaken, mislead, uncompromising or any other reason other than he is a greedy gangster intent on grabbing as much wealth as possible, they will get nowhere.

This article was written by Arnon Regular, Arab Affairs Correspondent, HaAretz. It first appeared in Ha'aretz on March 2, 2003 and was posted on the HaAretz web site again on October 10th, 2004.

Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad and the rating company Standard & Poor's have traced $658 million worth of the Palestinian Authority's assets and funds, according to a preliminary report issued recently.

Among the more interesting details are the PA's part in the Oasis casino in Jericho. The PA owns 23.08 percent of CAP, the company that owns the Jericho Casino. The Oasis is also partly owned by Jewish Austrian businessman Martin Schlaf - a close friend of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - who also sits on the board of directors.

According to the report, CAP is registered in Lichtenstein and most of its owners are not known. Among its registered owners is an Austrian casino company, in which Schlaf is prominently involved. Schlaf last visited Sharon about two weeks ago in Hashikmim farm. The Prime Minister's Office director general, Dov Weisglass, represented CAP in Israel before entering his present office and his former law office still handles the company's business.

The Austrian Casino company received, according to the report, a franchise to operate the Jericho casino until 2028, with a 10-year tax exemption from the day it opened, and exclusive rights to operate other casinos in PA territories.

The report was issued by the Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF), the central body set up last August to concentrate and manage all the PA's assets and properties as part of the economic reforms in the PA. These funds and assets were managed during the Oslo agreements exclusively and secretly by Mohammed Rashid and his men. The PIF appointed Fayyad finance minister, Rashid as PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's representative and five other prominent private Palestinian businessmen, to take over and manage the assets in an orderly, open fashion.

The report, albeit partial, gives the Palestinian public for the first time some idea of the extent of funds run by Rashid and the economic system that the PA set up in the territories and abroad. In many cases, the information regarding the funds or assets is not complete and it is not yet clear which senior PA officials are managing them or own them.

The report indicates so far that there are 11 central PA investments in Palestinian companies totaling $372.9 million in local investments, like the Palestinian Telephone Company and the Palestinian Cellular Company. There are also investments in the Arab world, in cellular companies in Algiers, Tunis and Jordan, a Canadian drug company and others.

Another prominent company mentioned in the report is a Palestinian cement company, which according to the report is worth about $45 million and is owned entirely by the PA.

The company constitutes a monopoly in cement marketing and is estimated to hold 60 to 70 percent of the cement market. Its main suppliers are the Israeli Nesher company and the Jordanian cement company. The company's annual income is estimated at NIS 115 million.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, October 18, 2004.

Ariel Sharon has reached the ripe old age of 76. At that old age he realistically has concluded that he does not expect to be re-elected. Accordingly, he no longer needs the Likud Party that elected him. Being a former Army General, he is used to having his own way, and readily dismisses views that do not agree with him. Not only that, he portrays those who oppose his views as "rebels" and "disloyal".

He completely ignores the fact that on two previous occasions his Likud Party rejected his plans for ethnic cleansing of Jews from their Promised Land. Nor does the prospect of decisive division amongst the Jewish People on his Plan, seem to faze him. The Arab enemy persists in seeking to destroy the Jewish People, and daily mercilessly continues its attacks of firing missiles and mortars on Jewish communities within and beyond Gaza. Nor does it disturb Sharon that Hamas says it will continue these attacks even after the Jews vacate Gaza.

Members of his own Likud Party understandably have difficulty questioning his present actions. They recognize that Sharon in the past has done a great deal for the Likud Party. For instance, in the last elections, based on his prior record, he brought Likud a resounding victory over his Labor opponents. His Likud Party garnered 40 seats in the Knesset to his opponents the Labor Party who suffered a resounding defeat by electing only 19.

Moreover, his military record was no less than brilliant. The fact is that he contributed greatly to Israel's survival in the many Arab wars that were waged against Israel. Under such circumstances, the members of his Likud Party would be hesitant to criticize, other than verbally, Sharon's present reversal of his prior views and policies.

And then there was the very practical reason that Members of the Knesset from his own Likud Party had to consider the consequences of expressing opposition to his leadership. New elections would jeopardize their present seats in the Knesset, and they could not be assured of re-election.

The fact is that their Party has betrayed the electorate by Sharon adopting the views of Labor's Mitzna on Gaza, which the electorate had rejected by their vote in the last election. There is no question that savvy politicians would realize that the ordinary voter who previously voted for their Party, would not be doing so again. Even if there is a rebellion within the Party, and Likud Knesset members did not support Sharon, they could not be assured that the electorate would vote Likud again.

So while there is a good deal of verbal criticism within the Party, and there is no lack of "rebels" to Sharon's Disengagement Plan, there remains a considerable gap between verbal disagreement to open rebellion of Sharon's leadership. There does not seem to be anyone with vision in the Likud to take the necessary action to depose Sharon. Unfortunately, the Likud Knesset Members will not vote to remove Sharon, even if the consequences are that their own Party will likely be destroyed by his present actions.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Arutz-7 Staff, October 18, 2004.

To Go To Top
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 18, 2004.

It is interesting how all of Israel's crypto fascist are so nervous about a referendum. There are of course those who oppose the idea because it is not our place to vote on G-D's commandments. They are, however, but a small although correct minority.

It is obvious that Israel's ruling elite feels very threaten by the possibility of a referendum. They have good reason to be. Over the years they have successfully manipulated the political system so as to neutralize the electoral system and to guarantee that only those of their group or subservient to them can be elected to any office of real power. A referendum on any issue would destroy this carefully constructed apparatus.

The irrational squawking of various treif birds such as Peres or Eichler about the "will of the majority," "the honor of the Knesset" or that "the elections are the referendum" all reflect the fear they have of a direct and unmanipulated expression of the electorate. Furthermore, (and this is their real fear) once there has been one referendum there can be others. Who knows where that could lead to!

Today we have a unique opportunity to clearly identify those in Israel who support the democratic process and those who are fascists. The litmus test is the referendum.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, October 18, 2004.

The great referendum debate is heating-up and my stand is clearly one of yes and no.

Yes, I would like a national referendum to take place over Sharon's plans to uproot Jewish communities in Gaza, and no, I would not adhere to its results if the national camp were to (G-d forbid) lose. I reserve my right to protest. I see this stance as obligatory rather than subversive. I confess that I am not a great adherent to democracy when it comes to existential issues. And when it comes to the lives of my children and future of my people, I go with my guts.

For the most part, I'm willing to let democratically elected politicians and bureaucrats haggle over and decide policy with regards to economics, employment, labor unions, health care, education, welfare, social security, tax reform, energy and environmental concerns. I also have a healthy degree of confidence in the capability of our defense forces to effectively carry out operations against our enemies.

But as a Jewish mother who has borne witness to the tragedies of Oslo and the corrupt actions and blunders of our government and leaders, I cannot allow a referendum, regardless of how democratic it may be, to take precedent over what I know in my heart to be wrong and dangerous.

But still, there are advantages to a referendum, and I would certainly participate if one were to be held. Voting is one of the most direct, legal and tangible means for the public to express their will and effect change. I also believe it is the only way we have of gaging actual public sentiment, as public opinion polls in Israel are notoriously off the mark.

The apathy demonstrated by certain segments of the Israeli public may help to explain some of the discrepancy in polling statistics. Picking up a phone and answering a pollster is a far cry from rearranging one's schedule and taking the time and effort to vote with one's feet (off the record, I'm sure my husband isn't the only one who likes to have a bit of fun with the tele-pollsters). I believe what Ariel Sharon is most afraid of is that the people who really care and who have a stake in this country will flock to the polling stations, while others won't bother. And that would spell another humiliating defeat, and possibly the final blow for Sharon.

A referendum on the issue of a Gaza pullout and evacuation would certainly give all of the "experts" what to work with, and the wealth of information we can garner from such an exercise may be well worth the effort and expense. If we were all a bit more reflective, everyone from government officials, to journalist, to educators, to historians, to the military would take time-out and study the results. An honest look at ourselves and the choices we make could go a long way towards understanding what makes this nation tick and towards healing national wounds. Dream on, Ellen - our experts are not so introspective or wise.

It's more than possible that the citizens of this country will soundly defeat Sharon and his plans, at which point we could then thank G-d, but where would we go from there? It's also likely that final poll results would indicate a severe rift in the country. And based on those results, any responsible political leader would see the obvious ethical dilemmas inherent in trying to push through this type of decisive agenda. Who am I kidding? There are no responsible, ethical politicians or leaders left.

It's appears that democratic process has come to the end of the road in Israel, and there is no room for compromise - at least not over certain eternal issues. We're a people who are clearly forbidden to surrender any portions of our eternal inheritance to our enemies. We're a people who desperately want to live and have our children continue to live and thrive in Eretz Yisrael. We're a people who don't want to lift a finger against our fellow-Jews. We're a people who want to fulfill our obligations and see those who are trying to kill us destroyed.

All things considered, I believe that we people have held our ground and handled ourselves quite well through these several leaderless years. But now we've come to a crossroads. We're not sure where to turn -but we're fairly sure that salvation is not going to emanate from the direction of the knesset building. We're also aware that we have a responsibility to prevent public discourse from deteriorating further, and that we cannot fall into the "incitement" trap that the government has set-up for us. We need leaders who can form a unified front, consistently speak the truth for us and understand the consequences.

And that's why G-d created rabbis and why the rabbis created the Union of Rabbis for the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. This group, led by Rabbi Avraham Shapira, represents over 1000 rabbis from Israel and the Diaspora, both Ashkenazim and Sepharidim. Included among them are many of Israel's most outstanding halachic scholars and spiritual leaders. The group was formed several years ago in response to the tragedies unfolding as the result of the Oslo Accords. They took a stand back then and they have remained consistent ever since -which is more than I can say of most of our current political leaders.

In July 1995 I had a letter to the editor published in the Jerusalem Post which defended the Rabbis' halachic ruling and I still hold by those words today:

Sir, - I support the recent halachic ruling by the Rabbinic Forum for Israel. Governments come and go, whether they be left- wing, right-wing, totalitarian or democratic. They dictate policy, only to be replaced by the winds of history.

Rabbis represent an eternal truth, one on which the values of justice and sanctity of life are built. Rabbinic authorities have an obligation to object when they feel the Torah, people and land of Israel are endangered. When a moral dilemma exists, many turn to spiritual leaders for guidance.

History condemns religious leaders for their silence before and during the Holocaust, and history judges kindly those clergymen who participated in anti-government activities during the Vietnam war. The Israeli left is certainly no stranger to the term, "conscientious objector." If the Oslo DOP fails and brings tragedy with it, then these rabbis will be seen as heroic figures with tremendous insight.

But until history takes its course, we must reserve judgment and remember that, while our politicians are being wined and dined in diplomatic circles, our rabbis attend the funerals of our fallen and comfort bereaved families. Who truly represents the people?

Ellen W. Horowitz

When the man-made facade and infrastructure of our world starts to crumble and fail us, then we need to get back to our source and rediscover our true foundations. We need to seek guidance from those leaders who neither receive knesset perks nor have conflicts of interest, but from those who care deeply about the land, people and Torah of Israel. People who love Zion and Zionism, and who have a healthy fear of G d and understand the importance of and strength in unity.

What should our next move be? I defer to the Rabbis.

Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter and columnist for Israelnationalnews.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com

To Go To Top
BLUES BY THE BEACH: reel time documentary of a terrorist victim surviving a bomb murderer's blast
Posted by Carrie Devorah, October 18, 2004.

Soon after the Palestinian Authority re-aired its music video, removed from broadcast after the US Senate screened the footage encouraging children to die as Martyrs for Allah, two video projects debut in the same week. One is inciteful; the other is insightful. Both projects are being presented to the public days after Duke University hosts the Palestinian Solidarity Movement's 4th annual conference. PSM was launched in 2000 in support of the Intafada's terror campaign on Israel a precedent to America's 911.

MTV is airing the artist once again known as Prince's music video featuring a teenage actress as a Palestinian child bomb murderess self-detonating amongst innocent bystanders. American film maker Jack Baxter screens his independent film "Blues By The Beach" at New York Hampton's International Film Festival. Baxter narrowly escaped death 1 1/2 years ago from a bomb murderer detonating in Tel Aviv where Baxter was filming.

Independent File Producer Jack Baxter's movie addressing Israelis defying death by living normal lives in the face of terrorism is in the Festival's category "The Abraham Award for Films of Conflict and Resolution." It will probably never achieve the Golden Globe, a Clef D'ors, Emmy, or the financial success it deserves. Baxter, a struggling filmmaker happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. He brings a reality check to people who think they are impervious to unpredictable, increasing terrorist strikes contrasting Prince presenting a video promoting teen suicide and murder. The singer will probably glean Grammy and other nominations along with the reward of being a celebrity, immune from the US Senate.

1:00am the morning of Wednesday April 30, 2003, security guard Avi Taviv prevented two British Pakistani bomb murderers from entering Mike's Place where Baxter and co-directors Detroit born Israeli Josh Faudem and Czechoslovakian Pavla Fleischer had been filming for two weeks. One bomb murderer detonated himself. The second ran away, remaining at large. Baxter, says, "It's important people pay attention to the fact the bomb murderers were not Muslims from the Middle East. They, Asif Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, were British." Taviv, severely injured, is credited with saving the lives of many patrons. The three dead include French waitress, Dominique Hess, last filmed moments before the blast. Hess planned to return to France within the days after she was murdered.

Sagit Sherf, singer for the band performing the night of the murders testifed at the Israeli government's alternative Hague hearing after being refused entry to the to International Court of Justice along with 18 other victims and casualties of terrorism. Sherf, staring through the blood red velvet curtains shielding the audience from Pro-Palestinians protesting Israel's safety wall, said, "We used to joke no bomber would bother with Mike's Place because it wasn't famous enough." Hanif's self-detonation proved Sherf wrong. Mike's Place sits next to the US Embassy on Israel's Mediterranean waterfront. Sherf's boyfriend, the band's drummer is still wearing - body pressure suits aiding to heal burns he suffered in the detonation. "You know," said Baxter, "I recall seeing something strange before the blast but did not know what I was observing at the time. A group of Middle Eastern men, not Israelis, were smoking together outside the bar. And, they all got up. Walked away. I thought that was strange. Then, boom...."

The blast left Baxter in a coma. He awoke after three days, his left arm paralysed. It has atrophied to one half the width of his right hand. His eardrums, typical of bomb murder victims, are ruptured. Baxter leans forward to listen, sometimes even for himself, twisting comically until he can hear people he speaks with, a human version of the cell phone television commercial repeating, "Can you hear me?" Talk too soft or with your back turned to him, he can't. His left leg drags as he walks. Measuring over six feet, Baxter, visibly gaunt in comparison to home photos decorating the loft he shares with wife Fran Strauss-Baxter, appears taller. American doctors have not yet diagnosed the source of eruptions on his body. They recently concluded they are caused by foreign organisms, undiagnosed as of yet. Tel Aviv's Rabin Trauma Centre ER doctor Jeffrey Kashuk, speaking in Canada in March on the topic of medical terrorism said terrorists engage in chemical and biological warfare counting on the deadly projectiles Aids, Hepatitis C virus and SARS-like virus infected bone, blood and other particles from bomb murderers will further injure their victims. Rabin Medical Centre is a leader in urban triage of terror attack sites including murder bombings. Baxter's doctors determined early on, his skin eruptions were not caused by nail and metal bits exploded from vests the bombers wear. It was determined Baxter's bomb murderer used plastic explosives more typical of Irish bombers.

One sense's even if Baxter knew what is causing his bumps, he wouldn't care. His film, wife and two oversized cats are most important to him. Fran flew to her husband's side upon hearing of his attempted murder. A former girlfriend saw his misidentified photo, - page tall in Westchester's The Journal News claiming he was a wounded Israeli. Baxter includes the clipping in his film's press kit.

Baxter prefers talking about his new love. Israel. A Catholic, he is working on persuading Fran to move from their Penn Station neighbourhood loft to Israel. Only another casualty of terrorism can understand why. Baxter has in Israel a solidarity he lacks in the US. Few in America understand daring death, surviving a horrific tragedy or losing loved, close ones or strangers from no reason other than hate. Baxter returned to Israel after coming back to New York. Interpreting his wife's order to stay out of danger as not riding public buses, he took taxis to the battleground settlement of Hebron. And walked the streets of Tel Aviv late at night. Alone.

Baxter settles into his armchair for picture taking. He put on his "Mike's Place" t-shirt, making sure the words can be seen by the camera. Closing his eyes for a moment, his left hand seems to be to be tapping in time to songs Baxter must have been listening to that ill fated night. Baxter recalls how, in a style Cecil B. De Mille would be proud of, he ordered 28 year old Josh Faudem, "Keep shooting." Faudem did.

Faudem's father, mother and best friends from childhood gathered for beers and soda after screening "Blues" at Jerusalem's Cinemathique. Newsman Ira Garshowitz says Faudem's film has a chance to save lives in Israel. And outside. Garshowitz knows terrorism does not respect borders or cultures. It just murders. "How did they respond?" asked Baxter. "Did they laugh?" Yes. At all the right spots. And they wept. Every person in the room was seven degrees of separation from terrorism. Someone they once met at the mall. A colleague. A friend. A relative. Even a brother. Baxter had travelled to Israel to film a documentary on Palestinian Muslim Arab leader Marwan Barghouti, the man he says launched Israel's recent three year Intafada of terror. Upon discovering a woman was already filming "his" documentary, he went for a drink ending up at "Mike's Place." Listening to blues by the beach and "Mike's Place" owner, Gal Ganzman, in a life changing conversation. Ganzman, who rebuilt his establishment in time for Israel's Memorial Day less than a week later, had suggested Baxter do a film on how Israelis have fun in the face of death, albeit, according Jerusalem cab driver Moti, "a bit nervously." Unfunded, already in Israel, Baxter said, "Sure."

And, for Israel, it is a good thing Baxter did.

Terrorism, old hat for Israel, is new for North America. With the timing of Prince's video screening the same week as Baxter's film, people may realize what is mischaracterized as an issue between Jews and Arabs, is in fact a battle between good and evil. Good people don't murder. Bad people do. Baxter's film shows audience and interviewers, the bomb murderers did not ask fellow Muslims to leave "Mike's Place." Nor did they warn non-jews to run for safety. They walked in, self-exploding, taking with them innocent people caught in their murderous perimeter.

Fleischer told the New York Sun, she had hoped "Blues By The Beach," would be a happy piece on Israel. She said it "turned out to be quite different." It is different. It shows the real Israel is not a war zone but a suburban urban life in a country rich in heritage attracting colorful characters like Hess, Faudem and Baxter. And terrorists intent on murder.

Baxter is fundraising to get his film to Cannes. Everything he had was invested into this movie he nearly died for. "We're living on food stamps," he says.

Fran Baxter says her husband is a hero. No, Fran, Jack is a saint who aught to be rewarded. Press releases should be sent to every enforcement office, military base, high school, college, synagogue and church group, social event and memo board, advising this film is a must-see. "Blues By The Beach" is reality entertainment showing what will hit America, again. Twin Towers, Target, a local restaurant, a bus. An independent film screening in the Hamptons or, even the location where Prince films his next music video. This jewel of a film brings home two points MPDC Lieutenant Jeffrey Herold, said, in an interview, "It is only a matter of time," and "it is where we aren't looking that it will happen," as it did, Friday. Two bombers wearing backpacks, entered and shattered a tightly secured area of Iraq near the highly guarded US Embassy. Witnesses reported something similar to Baxter. They said it was strange. The two bomb murderers sat for some time sipping tea before self-detonating.

Baxter's film deserves to be entered in and win every independent film festival in the world. It is an ambassadorial lesson worthy of receiving the Nobel Prize for explaining, in reel time, the Conflict in the Middle East, is a matter of life or death. Almost Baxter's. Next time, mine or yours.

Carrie Devorah is an award winning investigative photojournalist based in Washington DC. Her family are the first Canadians to lose a member to a terrorist bus bombing in Jerusalem. Devorah is a certified crime information analyst and profiler. She can be reachied at carried@carrieon.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 18, 2004.
1. Today's headline in Haaretz is that 13% of the graduates from Ben Gurion University are unemployed and this is the highest for any university in Israel, and fully 53% of graduates were unable to find work in the profession they had studied at the university.

Gosh, I wonder if the high number of unemployed and poorly employed BGU grads might have something to do with the fact that Ben Gurion University also contains the highest number of anti-Israel, "post-Zionist", far-leftist, and anti-Jewish faculty members out of all Israeli universities, including many who endorse worldwide boycotts of Israel and who endorse law breaking and refusal by leftists to serve in the Israeli military until Israel adopts those policies supported by its communist party. Perhaps the labor market simply understands what sorts of nonsense are being taught at Ben Gurion University? 2. The eyeballs at Haaretz are rolling. Haaretz ran today a front page headline on the terror festival at the Duke University intifada, and reported on the handful of Jews for a Second Holocaust there, the far leftist Jewish scum cheering on the terror and denouncing Israel as an apartheid and fascist country (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/489903.html).

It never occurred to the writers at Haaretz that maybe the problem is that the Duke students have been reading Haaretz? Why are Gideon Levy and Amira Hass and Akiva Eldar any less nauseating than the Duke Jew-baiters?

The same Haaretz that is rolling its eyeballs in horror at the Duke Jewish self-hating leftists has promoted precisely the same sort of Jewish leftist self-hatred in Israel for years. This is the same Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew that blames Israel for all that is wrong in the Middle East, "understands" the terrorists - er-we-mean-militants-and - activists, demands that the "root causes" of Palestinian terror be understood and justified, opposes all forms of Israeli self-defense other than complete capitulation to the terror, denounces Israel as racist and discriminatory, and increasingly runs articles calling for a "ONE STATE SOLUTION" in which Israel will cease to exist and instead will be swallowed up inside an Arab-majority "secular" state, no doubt so secular that infidels will be beheaded there. 3. Well, if you know anything about Israel, you know that the country has long been awash in leftist Orwellism, where words mean their opposites. Hence Palestinians are "resisting" and Israel is a "conqueror" and Arabs are victims of "discrimination" and free speech is "incitement".

Among the manifestations of the Orwellism are the inversions of notions like "human rights". Hence every group around that opposes Jews having any rights at all, including the rights to breath or to self-defense against terror nazis, are groups for "human rights". Things like the pro-terror Betselem and the "Physicians for Human Rights" and the anti-Israel "Association for Civil Rights in Israel", which has no interest in defending the right to free speech of non-leftists. The same is true for the word "democracy". The Arab communist groups supporting terror and destruction of Israel always include the word "democracy" in their titles and often the word "equality". And so does the anti-democratic Israel Institute for Democracy (IID).

In fact the IID is a far-leftist anti-democratic lobby group pretending to be a neutral professional think tank. It is run by leftists for leftists. It is headed by Prof. Arik Carmon who just happens to have a guest Op-Ed today in Haaretz (not available in English on line) in which he denounces proposals to have a ballot referendum on implementing the Sharon-Mitzna "disengagement" plan in the Gaza Strip because, in IID's opinion, asking voters what they think is undemocratic. It does not matter at all, insists Carmon, that Sharon got elected on a election platform in which he explicitly was running OPPOSED to any such unilateral "disengagement" plan. The fact that he got elected is all that is needed for him to implement the Far Left's dream plan for Kassam and suicide bombing escalation. To demand that Sharon ask the voters what they think would be undemocratic, and darned fascist. 4. Haggai Ben Artsi is a teacher and "settler" activist who strongly opposes the Oslo Lemminghood and also happens to be the brother-in-law of Bibi Netanyahu. He also opposes Netanyahu when the latter was playing the Wye's Man of Chelm when he was Prime Minister. Ben Artsi has a nice guest Op-Ed in Haaretz (available only in Hebrew) in which he takes the Left to task for its sudden eye rolling over some talk among opponents of the Sharon-Mitzna Plan that they might break laws or urge soldiers to refuse to obey orders to evict Jews from their homes. Had Sharon instead ordered that the West Bank be annexed, these same lefties would be out there screaming that Sharon had defrauded the electorate in a lowly dirty trick. In other words, that Left's commitment to democracy is highly selective.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top
Posted by Carrie Devorah, October 17, 2004.

Within a day of Iraqi insurgents beheading an American hostage, no one would have known Islamic communities existed in the United Kingdoms. America. Or Canada. Their uncharacteristic silence was deafening. Europe's first fully Islamic Bank opened its doors on Britian's Edgware Road blocks from London's Marble Arch where hanging was outlawed. Edgware Road is nicknamed Little Kuwait after its majority populating community. PR person, Alison Love, without addressing the fate of Liverpool's Ken Bigley hostage in Iraq, said, "Other branches are opening in European highly populated Muslim communities starting with Birmingham, Leicester. Including Liverpool."

The only voices heard were the kidnappers or scripted pleas from families begging loved ones lives be spared. The day after Jack Hensley' beheading was broadcast over the internet, brother Ty's lone voice in Marietta, Georgia was heard across the pond offering solidarity to Bigley's British family.

SkyNews reporter Tim Marshall described behind-the-scenes maneuvering with clerics to save Bigley. He didn't know who. Where. Just heard. Unconfirmed. Maybe. Marshall offered no explanation why Britain's engineer society, around the corner from No. 10, hadn't issued a statement supporting their tradesman. Marshall agreed Britain's Muslim community's absence of voice addressing their compatriot's beheading is profound.

Because Islamics do speak up.

They spoke up against imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay Muslim cleric suspected of treason. They spoke against a Middle Eastern version of reality TV show "Big Brother." They spoke against America barring entry to Yusaf Islam, formerly known as the singer Cat Stevens. Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Daud Abdullah protested the act against the "man of peace" as "insanity" despite Cat Stevens speaking for the fatwah issued against author Salman Rashdie.

Two Muslim Islamic book vendors spoke against British officers repeatedly warning them not to solicit donations on Oxford Street. One vendor grabbed a copy of "What Everyone Should Know About Islam And Muslims," yelling, "Racist cop. Just because we're Muslims." Corrected, Muslims in Britain. British law applies equally to everyone.

One month earlier, A.N.S.W.E.R. and United for Justice and Peace led - million anti-war/ pro-palestinian demonstrators outside NYC's Republican National Convention. Prior October in Washington, A.N.S.W.E.R. and UFJP led a lesser number past the White House. The year before over - million including pro-Muslims activists marched past No.10 Downing Street protesting Iraq's war. In 2001, al-qaeda supporters swarmed Hyde Park.

The day after Hensley's beheading, Bigley's hometown Archbishop Jones pled salvation from his Walton man's captors. Silently sitting next to the Archbishop was a western clothed Islamic cleric. He spoke the night before when Liverpudlian police visited his center advising him to expect repercussions from Brits angered by Bigley's kidnapping. His sound byte clarified that the kidnappers' behaviour was not traditional Islam.

The Financial Services Authority approved Islamic Bank of Britain PLC's "operating in accordance with Islamic Sharia'a compliance under Mudaraba principles inscribed in the Koran." It prohibits giving or receiving interest but "doesn't prevent making a profit," clarified British cabbie, Brian Alpert enroute to Paddington Station express to Heathrow airport, blocks from the conveniently located Islamic bank. Ireland. Dubai. Italy. All a train ride away to a plane ride away. "If I want a loan of $1000 to buy this Starbucks coffee cup, they'll charge me $1200 dollars, their profit possibly exceeding what interest might have been," said Alpert, "that's what the bank headquartered in Birmingham, with a 14 million pound backing from Gulf States investors, doesn't make clear."

A fleet street article told that DVD's of kidnap victims' beheadings were for sale in Iraq's marketplace within 48 hours of Jack Hensley's death. 99p, in British coins. Almost $2 American. What the western world spoke up calling perverse entertainment, the Islamic world described as educational. Interesting the Islamic Bank details assured monies are "invested ethically in Sharia'a compliant goods and services, not alcohol or tobacco companies." There was no disclaimer against industries like internet, DVD or weapons of individual's destruction. Even orange jumpsuit manufacturers.

Two days earlier, I spoke with kidnap victim Bigley's sister-in-law in Lancashire. She was noticeably silent as I said, "You have what I wish I had. A phone call preparing us for my brother's murder. An opportunity to maybe make a difference. There are over 2 million Muslims in Britain. Demand your neighbors show their solidarity as Britons. That they care." I apologized for not remaining silent.

I thought about an email response I received before leaving DC to the Middle East. It addressed a billboard I photographed featuring an Islamic Crescent, a Jewish star and a cross. And the word "Co-exist." Foreground of the US Capitol. The e-mailer wrote she shows the co-exist image she had seen at the Museum of Seam in Jerusalem to promote connectiveness and peace amongst people in Canada. "It's nice to see it is making a difference in the US" She introduced herself as the president of Muslims For Israel International at University of Toronto. Canada who had been "excessively profiled in DC." She asked why my emails are politically related. And to introduce myself.

I did.

I told her my Toronto family are the first Canadians to lose a loved one in a Palestinian bus bombing murder in Jerusalem. I told her I work in DC. A credentialed journalist, I am routinely profiled. And I explained the e-mails are my contribution towards peace through understanding.

It is over two weeks. She has not written back. So much for Sharia'a principles. And speaking up. Just profit. No interest.

Carrie Devorah is an award winning investigative photojournalist based in Washington DC. Her family are the first Canadians to lose a member to a terrorist bus bombing in Jerusalem. Devorah is a certified crime information analyst and profiler. She can be reachied at carried@carrieon.com

To Go To Top
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 17, 2004.


Former PM Barak had tried to make the most far-reaching concessions to the Palestinian Arabs, in the hope of getting them into another peace agreement. Recently, he was supposed to lecture at a university in Montreal. Police refused to let him come, because, they believe, they cannot secure any buildings on campus at which he might speak (IMRA, 10/5).

Mob rule in Canada is curbing of freedom of speech. Pro-Arabs threaten riots and worse. To Canada's shame, it lets them prevent other viewpoints from being heard. Bias and bigotry only?

A democracy cannot last if only extremist views can be heard. Ironically, Barak's views are extreme, in wanting to cede what he shouldn't, for a pact the Arabs would break. Arab prejudice is so irrational, that they bar him simply because he is Israeli.


Now the Sharon regime offers as a reason for abandonment of Gaza that the benefit would be a temporary pause in the "peace process." For that minor benefit, Israel is uprooting many communities and thousands of Israelis? Then it would be asked to make more sacrifices, again (IMRA, 10/6). Why give something for nothing? Sharon was brought in to replace Barak's policy, but emulates him.

Why doesn't Israel ask the Arabs to make some sacrifices? After all, they are the aggressors.


About 150,000 Arabs in Jordan trace their arrival back to flight from Gaza during the War For (Jewish) Independence. Jordan denied them citizenship (although they were fellow Palestinian Arabs). Jordan has just granted them residency rights, which enables them to lead more normal lives and earn livelihoods.

The change is criticized in Jordan as preventing them from making a bid to move to Gaza. IMRA denies that it would, and asserts that the criticism is due to ill will. (IMRA did not explain how so. Jordanian citizenship wouldn't prevent the id, but normalization would deflate its motive.)

IMRA contrasts Jordan's treatment of those fellow Arabs with Israel's treatment of Arabs in Jerusalem, who have residency papers enabling them not only to work in Israel, but to claim welfare benefits, to vote in the municipal elections, and to apply for citizenship (IMRA, 10/6).

The government of Jordan is relenting on its long cruelty towards the very Arabs about whom it professes so much concern, in relation to Israel, which treats them so much better. NGOs that don't mention those benefits for the Arabs of Jerusalem, complain when Israel takes some minor action against large-scale Arab abuse of law, such as by illegal building. How unfair!

As for Israel, its humanitarianism is unthinkingly cruel to itself. It allows a large fifth column in its own capital. It invites enemies to become citizens. It confers welfare benefits upon enemies that it cannot sufficiently afford for its own poor citizens.


Jonathan Pollard's attorneys, who have top security clearance, petitioned the court to order the government to allow them access to the classified 40 pages behind the sentencing of Pollard. The attorneys need to see those documents, in order to appeal the sentence properly. ACLU agrees, and has filed an amicus curiae in behalf of Pollard's rights (IMRA, 12/6).


The Chicago Tribune presents the Arab-Israel conflict in a pro-Arab manner. Its two-page story about a suicide bomber subtly misled uninformed readers to sympathize with the terrorist. (The real story is that although people buy newspapers to become informed, they remain uninformed.)

The boy terrorist was educated boy and not poor, as are many, just the opposite of the stereotype deployed to get audiences to "understand" they fight because of desperate grievances against Israel. The newspaper presented him as a victim of Israel, having honey-colored eyes. Actually, his religious schooling molded him into a bigoted killer. His religion produces pathological murderers, but the newspaper praised him as "pious," with reasons to kill. It was not piety but fanaticism, when he murdered two Israeli soldiers.

The boy was said to have become a terrorist when he took up with the "resistance" and joined Hamas. It is misleading to call terrorists part of some nationalist "resistance." It also is somewhat misleading to attribute his wanting to fight infidels to joining Hamas, when as a Muslim his religion already requires him to be willing to fight infidels.

He is painted as a victim, for being a descendant of refugees. However, they became refugees when, in a war on Jewish independence that the local Arabs participated in and mostly sympathized with, invading Arab genocidists ordered the local Arabs to get out of their path. The local Arabs were to come back and loot the slaughtered Jews. Their notorious "humiliation" is the denial of those spoils (though PM Sharon plans to give them much loot in Gaza).

Further "humiliation" resulted from Israeli emplacement of checkpoints in reaction to continued attempts to murder Jews. The boy was not told that the checkpoints were reasonable and the terrorism was not. Neither were readers told.

Because the Arabs of Gaza live in slums, they are depicted as victims of Israel. Why Israel? Israel started a decent economy that the Arabs ruined. The writers fail to explain that Jews don't live in slums because although they returned to the Land with nothing, they built it up. The Arabs refuse to let their people improve their lives. Arafat spends their tax revenues on war, and then begs for international donations that he embezzles. There would be more Arab workers in Israel, but their number was reduced after some of them commit terrorism, even turning on their long-term employers and stabbing them in the back. With indignation, the world demands that Israel allow tens of thousands to work in Israel, to shore up its enemy and despite the murders that result. (The rest of the explanation for Arab poverty is that the Jews are energetic and progressive, whereas the Arabs are fatalistic and exploitive. Jews create, Arabs loot.)

To assuage readers' outrage, the boy's father is quoted about what he had hoped for his son's education, etc.. The real victims here, the soldiers, were only 19 years old. They were not given sympathetic treatment, nor were their childhood history and family relationships fondly recounted. (The "NY Times" and NPR do this constantly. It is the hallmark of pro-Arab media bias.)

The article explains that decades of Arab warfare and factional fighting makes the current siege grim. The Winston Mid East Analysis interprets the article as equating Israel's counter-attacks with the initial Arab aggression and, worse, making Israel seem deserving of being attacked.

The current P.A. war on Israel was prepared months in advance of MK Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. The "Tribune" pretends that the visit caused it. They depict that visit as a great insult to the Muslims, but he had cleared it with the Imam in charge of the mosque there. Nor could he have desecrated a mosque he had not walked near. That is a fact the newspaper should know. Did they not know, or did they conveniently piggyback on earlier, popularized, pro-Arab propaganda?

The writers dip into antisemitism if not lunatic conspiracy theory, when they contend that the Arabs would not have attacked the US but for resentment against some US support for Israel. Arab hatred of the West and Muslim jihad pre-dates Israel (Winston Mid East Analysis, 12/6.)

The US does much for the Arabs, and is trying to squeeze Israel out of the Territories and into defenselessness. Be reminded that there is jihad all over. It has little to do with Israel. Osama referred Israel as almost as an afterthought, in citing his "reasons" for 911.) The attempt to justify attacks on Israel and to blame Israel for the attack on the US, which is a widespread piece of disinformation, seems to be giving al-Qaeda encouragement to focus more on Israel. Blaming the Jews is an old form of antisemitism. From the Nazis, the Communists, and the Arabs to the Chicago Tribune?


New explanations keep being invented for the plan to abandon Gaza. Now it is that: (1) Israel had accepted the Road Map (with reservations) that called for an end to terrorism; (2) The Arabs continued terrorism: Israel must not let the Map fail, and should "regain the diplomatic initiative," Israel proposes this unilateral withdrawal (IMRA, 10/7; NY Sun, 10/12).

The US did not press the Arabs to meet their Map commitments anymore than their Oslo commitments. Therefore the Map cannot succeed. Israel should not make sacrifices to keep diplomacy going, when diplomacy doesn't solve problems of jihad.

Why doesn't Israel let the pro-Arab Map fail? What does "regain the diplomatic initiative" mean? The proposed partial withdrawal would neither gain international goodwill nor stanch terrorism. The world calls the proposed partial withdrawal insufficient. Foreign countries are aligned with the Arabs; abandonment would increase terrorism. If Israel made policy firmly in its own interests, it would gain international respect.

The ever-changing rationale behind the plan gets increasingly obscure. It makes no sense. Without any logic behind it, the explanations for it must be sordid. How sincere is a series of newly contrived explanations for a plan devised half a year ago?


The P.A. offered to cease bombarding Israeli communities in Gaza, if Israel stopped its military operations against rocket launching in Gaza. The Organization of Islamic States, which had nothing to say about Iraq or Sudan, denounced Israel for not accepting that offer (IMRA, 12/7).

The offer failed to take into account P.A. rocket launching against Israeli communities in Israel. The P.A. offer is a snare. Arab offers usually have a catch to them. The main catch generally is that the ceasefire requested when the Arabs are losing, is intended to let the Arabs rearm so they can resume fighting. Israel would be foolish to accept that kind of offer.


The Prophet abrogated earlier portions of the law, and adopted new ones, to accommodate changing social conditions. Flexibility without abandoning principle is practical. The Islamist tendency is to adopt Islamic law as is, as if its solution to past problems automatically solves problems arising from future conditions. Instead, a Tunisian lecturer pointed out, Sharia causes new problems in modern times, unless amended. For one thing, it has caused a mass-exodus of Christians, indicating the intolerance of such law and shaming Islam. The lecturer urges Muslims not to adopt Sharia as is.

Those who consider Sharia immutable flout Islamic tradition.


Against advice from security agencies, Israelis flocked into the resort area of the Sinai and succumbed to terrorism. At first, Egyptian authorities, despite their limited resources for the wounded, didn't let Israeli rescue personnel in nor ambulances out. Israel claims that is due to Egyptian inexperience, not ill will. Bedouin looted the dead (Arutz-7, 12/7) and Israelis' unsecured cars and hotel rooms.

Tourists in Egypt have been attacked, before. One would think that after other times when Egypt blocked medical help to wounded Israelis, permission would be negotiated and readied in advance for rescue from Israel. Why hasn't that been done? Egyptian enmity or Israeli laxity? Must Israelis return to the fleshpots of Egypt? Israel should not have ceded the Sinai.

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

To Go To Top
Posted by Judy Lash Balint, October 17, 2004.

As Israelis enter the fifth year of the war against the Jews, the strangest things have become normal. We hardly notice the young people wearing beige, short-sleeved jackets and ear pieces plugged into their heads who accost us at almost every city bus stop. "Good morning, rather warm isn't it?" they ask, sussing out those who don't quite fit. They ride at the front of every bus, closely eyeing every passenger who steps in front of them.

The locked gates that greet us at the entrance to almost every cafe don't even register any more. We've long ago grown used to the long wait at the entrance to every parking garage while security guards rummage through the trunks of our cars.

In essence, all these security inconveniences have been absorbed into our daily routines, and have not really affected our enjoyment of life. Weddings, bar mitzvahs, baby namings--all go on with more simcha and meaning than any place in the world.

Despite funding constraints, cultural events are burgeoning--Israelis are not staying home cowering behind the curtains.

Of course, the best attended concerts are the freebies, and a venerable tradition in Jerusalem is the free Sunday night concert series offered by the Mormons at the Jerusalem Campus of Brigham Young University. The campus sits on a magnificent piece of land on the Mount of Olives, just below the Mt. Scopus campus of Hebrew University. In one of his most controversial acts, former Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek gave the Mormons the priceless piece of real estate in 1980 in return for a $2 million donation to his Jerusalem Foundation.

The Mormons used the land to great effect, building a magnificent arched campus, filled with terraced rose gardens and dormitory space for 1700 students.

Due to a decree by the US State Department designating Jerusalem as a danger zone, no students have graced the halls of BYU's Jerusalem outpost for the past four years. A staff of American Mormons and local Arabs maintain the place, but one program they didn't cancel was the concerts. They foster goodwill amongst Israelis toward the Mormons, who have been accused of missionizing outside Israel.

Last week's concert was almost surreal. Against a backdrop of the Jerusalem skyline, with the Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock front and center, The Master Quartet played a program of Russian music with a few Yiddish classics thrown in.

The Quartet, all Russian born, includes a graduate of the Leningrad Conservatory and a veteran of the Red Army Ensemble. As they played their lively repertoire, police lights flashed outside the walls of the Old City and fireworks erupted periodically. It's the first week of Ramadan, and the fireworks and occasional gunfire mark the end of the all-day fast.

Back inside the beautifully appointed hall, the MC--a middle aged American Mormon politely asks people to shut off their cellphones. A beautiful vase of fresh flowers adorns the stage and tickets are quietly and efficiently distributed with none of the usual ruckus marking most Israeli affairs.

The audience of several hundred people is a cross-section of Jewish Jerusalem society. A few male heads sport knitted kipot; Russian may be heard in almost every row, with English a close second. Smartly dressed Israelis are among the regulars, and a few students have wandered down from nearby Hebrew University. We've all traveled to eastern Jerusalem to listen to a group of Russians play Russian, Yiddish and Dixie music.

Today in Israel, this too is normal.

Judy Lash Balint is author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" which is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com.

To Go To Top
PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN COMBAT SUPPORT ROLES: Behavior Mirrors Teaching And Popular Culture
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, October 17, 2004.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has revealed that Palestinian children are actively aiding terrorists in Gaza. In a striking example of the way in which the new PA curriculum has indoctrinated children, the children have assumed the exact combat support roles they have been taught in the new PA schoolbooks. This text book indoctrination compliments PA music videos and other forms of popular culture, that aim to convince children that their place is in the heart of battle zones.

This latest revelation of children's active participation in combat coincides with the renewed broadcast (at least 10 times since Oct. 4) of a popular music video that explicitly demands that children participate in combat - even when it may lead to their death. (See below)

An article this week in the official PA daily, reported that children are aiding terrorists in the following combat support roles:

"In spite of family members' warnings, groups of children are spreading around the [Gaza] camp, both to pass on information to the resistance and to bring them water." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 11, 2004)

It should be stressed that supplying water and gathering information for terrorists in active combat zones, puts these children in life-threatening situations and has led to the deaths of many children. Note that the term "resistance" is used by the PA leadership and media to refer to all terrorists, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others.

These two combat support roles are precisely the roles taught in PA schoolbooks. A 6 th grade schoolbook teaches PA children to follow the example of a young child, who according to Islamic tradition, fulfilled these combat support roles. According to this tradition while Muhammad and his companion Abu Bakr hid in a cave, Abu Bakr's young daughter aided them by passing them information about the enemy and giving them water. The schoolbook teaches children to see themselves in similar roles with such language as: "Asma, Abu Bakr's daughter, was my age when she played a role..." and immediately asks the question: "What role can I play ...?"

The following is the full schoolbook text:

"Asma, Abu Bakr's daughter, was my age when she played a role in supplying provisions and water and passing information about Kuraish [Tribe] to the Prophet and his companion during their secret Hegira [emigration] from Mecca to Medina.

What role can I play in order to support the national resistance movement against the occupier and colonialist?" [History of the Arabs and Muslims, sixth grade, p. 34, translated by CMIP]

Note also that the PA schoolbook's defining Israel as "colonialist" is an important component of the denial of Israel's right to exist taught in the PA schoolbooks and popular culture. Teaching that Israel is a foreign European "colonial" creation is intended to give both legitimacy and zeal to the hatred and violence the PA actively inculcates among PA children.

This week's revelation is yet another reminder that the new PA textbooks still promote hatred and violence, contrary to the false information being spread by Palestinian apologists. This is also a confirmation of that this education indeed is reflected in the violent and life threatening behavior of Palestinian children.

Music Video Returns to PA TV:

It is striking that this report on PA children in combat coincides with a return to PA TV of a insidious music video that demands children participate in combat even if it leads to their death as a Shahid (Martyr for Allah). This clip had not been broadcast on PA TV since this video was shown in a US Senate hearing one year ago, as part of the testimony of PMW director Itamar Marcus. His testimony, exposing the use of PA children in combat roles, and the subsequent media reaction, had brought pressure on the PA to stop indoctrinating children to aspire to Shahada death. This video has now returned and has been broadcast at least 10 times in the last 13 days.

The words of the clip are sung by a woman vocalist wearing an army uniform, and the visuals include children in frenzied war dances, interspaced between scenes of children participating in violence in combat zones.

The following are the words of the music video:

"Shake the earth, raise the stones.
You will not be saved, Oh Zionist, from the volcano of my country's stones,
You will not be saved, Oh Zionist, from the volcano of my country's stones,
You are the target of my eyes, I will even willingly fall as a Shahid [Martyr for Allah].
You are the target of my eyes, I will even willingly fall as a Shahid.
Allah Akbar, Oh the young ones".

The similar messages found in formal PA education and popular culture, together with the reported children's participation in combat roles, are further indication of the child abuse by the PA leadership for political purposes, and the tragedy they have brought on their own children and the entire region.

Videos can be viewed on the PMW website: http://www.pmw.org.il.

Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top
Posted by Ruth Matar, October 17, 2004.

Dear Member, Friend and Supporter,

The Sharon Government is intent on jailing Nadia Matar, and denying her the right to criticize its policies. We thus have no alternative but to appeal for necessary funding to be able to pay for proper legal counsel for Nadia.

Speaking through Gideon Ezra, his recently appointed Internal Security Minister, Sharon lashed out at Nadia in the "left" oriented media. Ezra demanded a police investigation of Nadia, and told the media that she should not be permitted to "roam the streets." Attorney General of Israel, Mazuz, who is part of the Sharon apparatus, has obliged. The police began interrogating Nadia on Tuesday, October 5. That interrogation will no doubt be followed by a formal indictment. She has already retained counsel, to provide her with a proper defense. Nadia has dared to lead the fight for what a majority of the people in Israel are against, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, and the undemocratic means that Sharon is using to accomplish that unholy objective.

Nadia's criticism of Bassi, the person chosen by Sharon to head the eviction of Jews from their homes in their own Biblical Homeland, is justified. She merely told him that the letter he intended to send to those being evicted was "chillingly similar" to a letter the Judenrat sent to Jews in Berlin in 1942 asking them to quietly submit to German dictates. Gaza in the Bible was promised to the Jewish People by the G-d of Israel. There is no justification for destroying their homes, their houses of worship, and uprooting the graves of their loved ones. Nadia spoke out against this intended undemocratic action. Free speech can not be restrained by the government unjustifiably labeling such speech "inciting to violence" or "insulting a public official." Nadia believes Sharon's Plan is an appeasement to terror and will only increase it.

Those living in the U.S. who file income tax returns can make their IRS approved donations by writing their check to the Central Fund For Israel, and sending it to the Central Fund For Israel, 980 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor, New York, N.Y., 10018, writing on the lower left hand corner of that check that it is for Nadia Matar's legal defense. Donations can also be made by credit card by going to our website (http://www.womeningreen.org/) and sending same over the Internet in a safe and secure manner. Or checks can be sent directly to us in Jerusalem, made out to Women in Green, P.O.B. 7352 Jerusalem, 91072, Israel. It is IRS approved. Indicate in your letter that it is for Nadia Matar's legal defense.

Give generously to this important Cause. Nadia speaks for the majority of the people of Israel. Nadia is a gifted, persuasive and charismatic leader, and her voice must not be silenced by the present Sharon government. You are privileged to financially enable her to have a legal defense, and to uphold the Biblical values of the only democracy in the Middle East.


Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 17, 2004.

How do we know that "Oslo" is a religious cult