HOME Featured Stories October 2006 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 31, 2006.

Several of the past Government Administrations of Israel have failed the Israeli people and the Jews of the Diaspora. Those who purported to lead the people of YESHA have also failed their obligations. They turned out to be willing to serve but reverted to weak accommodation.

When a government become treacherous, and turns against its own people, the people are obligated to both the nation and their families to defy that Government. Israel has had a series of Prime Ministers who discovered that they can issue diktats to give away the Land of the people - with no permission from the Knesset or votes of the people.

Worse yet, the Israeli Courts (especially the Supreme Court) has become what's called an "activist" court, making judgments based upon politically biased interests and they are now exceedingly corrupt. They issue Judgments as if they are a political party and they act like they consider the people their adversaries.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert temporarily claims he has 'given up' his stated plans to evict the 250,000 Jewish men, women and children from Judea and Samaria, plus an additional 250,000 from that part of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan for 19 years, which includes all the Jewish holy places and many old Jerusalem neighborhoods. He is as driven to do this as when he advised Ariel Sharon to abandon 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from the 25 communities of Gush Katif in Gaza and Northern Samaria.

Why must the people of this small but gutsy nation commit national suicide because a politician in temporary power has a misguided, deranged idea that either the Arab Muslims or an American Administration (whose interests lie with the Arab oil sources) will be grateful for their sacrifice?

The Europeans have always sucked up to Arab oil and now they pour their Euros into the pockets of Terrorists, hoping they won't blow up the Eiffel Tower, the Sistene Chapel, London Bridge, and so forth.

The new group being assembled are the best of the Israeli people because they really care about the Land G-d gave them. You can be certain that this Government will violate their trust - because it has before. This happened under PM Yitzhak Rabin who enlisted the services of a once admired Secret Service, the Shabak, whom he tasked to do political work for the politicians. No doubt, they will try to infiltrate and set up false events so the Leftists and the Leftist Media can slander the new group.

Isn't it a shame when the politicians grow greedier by the day? They truly have come to believe that the people exist to service that greed. They never think of themselves as servants of the people. To get what they want, they slowly corrupt all the Institutions that make up the Government - such as the Courts, the Police, the Secret Services, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), et al.

From there it is a small jump to a dictatorship once the politicians know they have a choke-hold on the people. Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres secretly created Oslo, surrendering Gaza and Jericho first - then Oslo 2 giving up control of 7 major cities to the Father of modern terrorism, Yassir Arafat. Since then the Prime Minister's Office has become the "Red Light District" of the Jewish State of Israel.

Although prior Prime Ministers may have taken a portion, that was petty stuff compared to Oslo 1 and 2, Wye, Gush Katif and any other Peace Accord Surrenders that may have been manipulated in the last 13 years. I guess you have to give the credit for powerful, though evil actions to Shimon Peres and his terrier Yossi Beilin, for arranging things in Oslo, Norway.

Once it was discovered that the entire nation could be cheated out of their Biblical heritage which the Jewish people had prayed and longed for over 2 centuries, can the Prime Minister give away what he personally never owned? And yet when there was no investigation, no individuals indicted for treason, no jail time - then the crooked politicians knew they owned the people. >From then on you have PM Ehud Barak ready to give away 97% of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. You saw PM Bibi Netanyahu give away 80% of the holy city of Hebron.

Now we have in power the equivalent of a law clerk, Ehud Olmert, ready to give away the Golan Heights, more than half of Jerusalem, the center of the country including Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

But, what does Olmert care, since he pulled off an apartment sale gaining himself much money for twice its worth from a good "friend" and will live the good life somewhere outside of Israel.

Is there a good reason for a Peoples' Revolt and a new representative government - including for the Jews in Judea and Samaria? The Israelis fought and won 7 wars against the joint might of the Arab Muslim countries with internal uprisings from the Arab Muslim Palestinians and sustained terrorist attacks by Arabs against Jews for more than 100 years. If the Israeli people can stand up to that, why can't they stand up to a law clerk who bites his nails (always a sign of weakness and lack of self-control)? This essay was written by Hillel Fendel and broadcast on Arutz-7 today.

"No one is excited about starting yet a new movement, and the Yesha Council has done great things - but it is leading us to defeat." So say founders of the new "Save-Yesha" (Meginei Eretz) organization.

The founding session of the new group - named Meginei Eretz, Defenders of the Land - was held in Beit El Monday night, led by Atty. Elyakim HaEtzni of Kiryat Arba, Lt.-Col. (ret.) Yitzik Shadmi of Halamish, and others. Close to 100 people from all over Yesha (Judea and Samaria) were in attendance, including young outpost leaders as well as Dr. Gideon Ehrlich of Bar Ilan University, Kedumim Deputy Mayor Esther Karish, Nadia Matar of Women in Green, Beit El Mayor Moshe Rosenbaum, Rabbi Avraham Shreiber of the former Gush Katif community Kfar Darom.

"No one is happy about starting new organizations," said HaEtzni "but this one comes to meet a critical need for our very existence. The Yesha Council [of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria] has done wonderful things, and its leaders have dedicated their lives to Yesha, but they have left the settlement enterprise open and vulnerable at a critically dangerous point that endangers our very existence. By announcing in advance that they accept the 'majority decision,' even if that decision is to do to us what they did to Gush Katif, they have neutralized our ability to defend ourselves."

Lt.-Col. Shadmi elaborated on this point:

"We refuse to adopt this defeatist policy. If they come to expel us, we will not attack soldiers or police, but neither will we go quietly. They will have to use a lot of force against us, and we will be willing to go to jail... Soldiers must be willing to say openly, on the day they enlist, that they want to serve their country in the best way possible but they will refuse any orders having to do with expelling Jews. If 2,000 soldiers say that, it will cause a change in the whole country."

Former Knesset Member HaEtzni continued:

"We want to help the Prime Minister tell the U.S. President, 'I would like to evacuate the communities and/or outposts, but I just can't; the army won't cooperate, and the people won't go peacefully, and there are just too many people who say they believe in the Bible.

"The plan to remove Jews from Judea and Samaria is a four-fold crime. It is a crime against the Jewish religion, a crime against the concept of Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel, a crime against the State of Israel, in that it endangers the entire country, and a crime against humanity - as ethnic cleansing is generally considered.

"The absurdity is that the Yesha Council itself threatens that if a compromise is not agreed upon, the case of Amona [where hundreds of youths protesting the destruction of nine Jewish houses were injured by police violence] will repeat itself... Our new organization is coming to fill the void that was created by the Yesha Council's hanging everything on the narrow shoulders of the girls in Amona."

The Meginei Eretz plan is to recruit residents from all over Yesha, have them form task forces in each of their communities, and "organize those who believe that in this war it is permissible to block roads, to resist, to tell soldiers to refuse, and to employ civil disobedience." HaEtzni dismissed as "demagoguery" talk of the army shooting at civilians or vice-versa.

Successful Activism

Various speakers provided examples of resolute action by Yesha residents that brought positive results. Matanya Ben-Gedalyah of Beit Haggai said that just recently, "Arabs in the area declared war on us by vandalizing the memorial monument to our friend and neighbor Yossi Shok, who was murdered last year by terrorists. I say they 'declared war' because this is how it starts, with attacks on property...

"We informed the army that we were going to hold a large march towards the monument, and from there to the neighboring Arab village. The army of course came out in force to 'keep the peace,' but what they didn't know was that another, smaller group of us went around the back way and stood right at the entrance to the Arab village - just singing songs of the Land of Israel and reminding every Arab who passed by that 'we are here.' The message was received..."

Another story that was recounted involved Ronen Tzafrir of the Galilee, who came with several of his friends to stand up against left-wingers and Arabs who accused Shomron Jews of cutting down Arab olive trees. Tzafrir later told Arutz-7, "It turned out that in the car of one of the leading trouble-makers there, Yoel Marshak of the Kibbutz movement, I found a large saw - of the type used to cut down olive trees! It was clear that they were simply making a blood libel against the Jews there... We surrounded his car - he didn't know what hit him - and I took the saw, and then the army officially confiscated it... The problem is that they later returned it to him and detained me - but in the end, they forbade him to return to the area..."

Finally, Col. (ret.) Moshe Leshem of Givon HaHadashah, just north of Jerusalem, recounted the following:

"Six years ago, Arab terrorists shot at a car in which my son was traveling - miraculously, only one passenger was hurt, but it could have been very much worse. That very night, we went to the nearby [hostile - ed.] village of Bidu, and said, 'No more Arab cars will drive past our community,' and we demanded that the road be closed. We refused to budge until finally the army came and almost pleaded with us, saying they couldn't bring the bulldozer to close off the Arab village until the next morning. We said fine, we'll remain here until tomorrow morning. In the end, they closed it off, and has not been opened in six years..."

Strength from Within

"Our own communities in Judea and Samaria are an asset that we have overlooked," Leshem said. "We must each go back to our communities and widen the circle of activists, simply by starting discussion groups -- people are worried about the future, they want to talk about the current situation. From there, the circle will widen, and people committed to self-sacrifice on behalf of the movement will come forward... Don't look to the coastal plane and Tel Aviv for salvation -- believe in yourselves. We must instill our communities with ideology."

Leshem later told IsraelNationalRadio's Yishai Fleisher,

"The main mission of this group will be to organize people in their communities on an ideological basis - parlor meetings in homes, and then larger groups. Many of the people have not yet recovered from the expulsion of Gush Katif, and so we hope to create a new flame within them, a hope that things may change... Including those in Jerusalem and the Golan, we have more than a half-million people, and they are the cream of the crop - the most idealistic, the real pioneers, the best soldiers and officers - and they can set the national agenda, just as the Kibbutz movement did in the early days of the State. The problem is that they don't yet know who they are, or the great power they have, and that's what we want to change."

Among the many points made by Journalist Boaz HaEtzni of Kiryat Arba, the MC of the evening, was this:

"Nashuv l'chol Yishuv - We Will Return to Every [Destroyed] Community - is not just a bumper sticker to decorate our cars, but truly represents the way that we want to lead. The story is not over, and we in fact expect to return to the destroyed communities, and everyone must be aware of that. Especially in the northern Shomron, where Israel is still in control - the area is still Area C, that is, under full Israeli control, and we must have active committees engaged in planning how to return to there."

Arutz-7's Ezra HaLevi reports:

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union-NRP), the only Knesset Member to attend the meeting, said that the destruction of outposts could come at any time. "[Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor] Lieberman's entry to the government is liable to bring about an attack on the outposts as part of the internal government power struggles,"

Eldad warned. "Peretz will seek to prove to his constituency that he still has control over the IDF, despite Lieberman's demands that the outposts be authorized."

Eldad also took the opportunity to reiterate his public stance on refusal and civil disobedience, daring Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to prosecute him for it. "I am publicly calling for refusal of orders [having to do with destroying Jewish sovereignty in parts of Judea and Samaria] and for massive civil disobedience to such orders on behalf of the populace," Eldad said. "Now I have said the same thing that people like Bayit Leumi [National Home] activists Shai Malka and Ariel Vangrover are being tried for -- let the Attorney General put me on trial."

Former Gush Katif spokesman Eran Sternberg, who is against enlisting in the army and feels that the army cannot be changed from within, spoke about his mixed feelings for the Yesha Council. Decrying the Council's willingness to come to peaceful defeatist agreements in Kfar Maimon [on the eve of a bid by thousands to "crash the gates" of Gush Katif shortly before the Disengagement] and Amona, he said that "later, the Council held a rally in support of the youth in Amona."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 31, 2006.

Below is an review of David Mamet's "Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-hatred, and the Jews" that answers the question: how do you tell the difference between anti-Semitism and honest legitimate criticism of Israel. It was written by Efraim Karsh and it appeared yesterday in the New York Sun

Mr. Karsh is head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London, and author, most recently, of "Islamic Imperialism: A History," available from Yale University Press.

Why is world's preoccupation with Israel is far greater than her size and her influence and global role would in fact merit?

It is rather a complex question that has no defined answer but could generally be explained as, the world having inexplicable, diabolical and nefarious anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and racism notion all stem from these words passed on to the Jews by G-d: "From Zion comes Torah and the word of G-d [comes] from Jerusalem."

If these words are not the precise explanation of the world's obsession with Israel, than the entire world needs its head read for its insane bias, prejudice, unfairness, preconceived notions, predisposition, preconception and foregone conclusion towards Israel.

Since Israel's establishment in May 1948, the world's preoccupation with the country has been far greater than its size, influence, or global role would merit. For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international press of this tiny nation, the size of Vermont, whose seven-million-strong population is smaller than the Middle Eastern cities of Cairo, Tehran, and Istanbul. How many people outside their particular countries know the identity of the Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Brazilian, Spanish, or even German heads of state? How about the premier of Indonesia, who is, after all, the leader of the most populous Muslim country in the world? By contrast, virtually all Israeli prime ministers have been household names throughout the world during the past 60 years, from the state's founding father David Ben-Gurion, to Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, and more recently Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Olmert.

What is the source of this extraordinary attention? Not empathy with the Palestinians; Israel attracted huge international interest well before it conquered the territories in the June 1967 war, indeed well before the "Palestinian problem" gained international prominence. In fact, there has never been a genuine international interest in the "Palestine question," especially by the Arab states, whose decades of mistreatment of the Palestinians has gone virtually unnoticed. It is only when they interact with Israel, the only Jewish state to exist since biblical times, that the Palestinians win the world's attention -- not on their own merit but as a corollary of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and Muslim worlds.

On occasion, notably among devout and/or born-again evangelical Christians, this obsession has manifested itself in admiration and support for the national Jewish resurrection in the Holy Land. In most instances, however, anti-Jewish prejudice and animosity, or anti-Semitism as it is commonly known, has served rather to exacerbate distrust and hatred of Israel. Indeed, the international coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the libels of Zionism and Israel (such as the despicable comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa) have invariably reflected a degree of intensity and emotional involvement well beyond the normal level to be expected of impartial observers. Rather than being a response to concrete Israeli activities, it seems a manifestation of longstanding prejudice.

In The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-hatred, and the Jews (Schocken, 208 pages, $19.95), the distinguished playwright, filmmaker, essayist, and novelist David Mamet doesn't pull his punches about the direct link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. "The outright denunciation of Israel as 'acquisitionist, bloodthirsty, colonial, et cetera' is to me simply a modern instance of the blood libel," he writes. "The world was told Jews used this blood in the performance of religious ceremonies ... Now, it seems, Jews do not require the blood for baking purposes, they merely delight to spill it on the ground."

It has long been a staple of Israel bashers to argue that they have never had anything against Judaism or Jews but only against Zionism and Zionists. Yet for all their protestations to the contrary, opponents of Zionism and Israel have never really distinguished among Zionists, Israelis, and Jews, and often use these terms interchangeably. When, in June 1967, the Israeli government ignored a French warning against breaking the tightening Arab siege by force of arms, President de Gaulle lambasted the Jews -- not the Israelis -- as "an elite people, self-assured and domineering."

The truth of the matter is that since Israel is the world's only Jewish state and since Zionism is the Jewish people's national liberation movement, anti-Zionism -- as opposed to criticism of specific Israeli policies or actions ("a salient fact of life in Israel, as abroad" in Mamet's words) -- means denial of the Jewish right to national self-determination. Needless to say, such a discriminatory denial of this basic right to only one nation (and one of the few that can trace its corporate identity and territorial attachment to biblical times) while allowing it to all other groups and communities, however new and tenuous their claim to nationhood, is pure and unadulterated racism.

Yet it is precisely because it has been tacitly construed as epitomizing the worst characteristics traditionally associated with Jews that Israel is the only case where one party to a territorial dispute -- Israelis and their supporters across the world -- is collectively stigmatized for government actions and targeted for political, economic, and academic boycotts.

"Imagine the anti-Israel propaganda currently engaged in on college campuses and other institutions of enlightenment -- imagine it directed against Canadians," Mamet writes, "not that Canadians are misguided, indeed wrong, but that they are 'bad' -- devoid of the capacity for goodwill, duplicitous, inspired by some nefarious and implacable power to wrong those around them; possessed of a power so diabolical it induces their neighbors to strap bombs on their young and send them into the marketplace to slaughter women and their babies."

A saddening thought, indeed. But is there any other explanation for why, 60 years after its establishment, Israel remains the only state in the world whose citizens are presented as the heirs to the Nazi mantle; whose economy faces relentless calls for sanctions, boycotts, and divestment; whose policies and actions year in and year out are condemned by the international community, and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged? As the poet Heinrich Heine, himself a convert from Judaism, once wrote, Judaism is "the family curse that lasts a thousand years." No matter how much it has tried, Israel has never been able to escape this disturbing reality.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 31, 2006.


Catholic League president Bill Donohue criticized a professor at De Paul U. and that Catholic university for employing him, because that professor's gutter tactics of debate shame him and his bigotry shames Catholic education.

The professor, Norman G. Finklestein, opposes Prof. Alan Dershowitz' defense of Zionism by suggesting that Dershowitz be assassinated and by publishing a cartoon on his web site suggesting that Dershowitz gets a sexual thrill from watching Israeli troops kill Lebanese. Finklestein repeatedly likens civil libertarian Dershowitz to the Nazis. That breaks all bounds of civility. This is street propaganda, not academic behavior.

A liberal arts education is supposed to pursue the truth, and use fact and standards of evidence, not engage in gutter polemics with ad hominem assaults, really character assassination. Responsible Catholic leaders should call a halt to this, not host it (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/12). Call it "racist" education, but it really is puerile.

Finklestein also is a Holocaust denier. All such neurotic behavior goes together.


Bangladesh once was moderate about Islam. Then madrassas inculcated the radical version, under protection of corrupt officials. Indoctrination led to terrorism. The people were surprised when bombings started. Salah Choudhoury, journalist and apparently owner of a newspaper there, had warned about the rise of Islamism in his country.

He also tried to discuss peace with Israelis. He was arrested for sedition, later released on bail after intervention by the US. A mob, whose leaders had bribed police officials ransacked his office and assaulted an associate and him. Police made a false charge against him for that, and withdrew protection from his home and office. The Arab media accused him of being an agent of Israel (IMRA, 10/11).

So it goes in one country after another. Islam is imposed secretly and violently.


The US sent Abbas thousands of assault rifles, purportedly to support his official forces. Israel approved of the transaction. Abbas, however, turned the arms over to Fatah, his militia engaged in a struggle with Hamas (IMRA, 10/12). A Fatah officer said that the arms would not be used against Hamas but only in a war with Israel. Fatah is defined by the US as terrorist, so the US is arming terrorists (IMRA, 10/14).

Earlier news was that Hamas was arming for war on Israel. The stronger Hamas gets, the more it can dominate the P.A., too. Conversely, the stronger Fatah gets, the more it can vie with Hamas for popularity among their depraved people by fighting against Israel. Fatah has committed much terrorism against Israel, and still rejects Jewish sovereignty anywhere. I think Israeli approval was foolish. Bolstering Abbas confuses the West into thinking Israel should not fight against the P.A.. Abbas never wanted to fight Hamas, and the longer he waited, the weaker his position. Unless his forces immediately wipe out Hamas, he will lose.


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), the Mormon Church, is the single largest donor to the U.S. branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), also known as Islamic Relief. In the past year, it donated $1.6 million to the charity. But Islamic Relief is not just any charity. The Israeli government says it is a front for the Hamas." The Church members are patriotic, so it is odd that they would donate to a terrorist front (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/3).

An Israeli government statement about Ali and IRW: "He also admitted that he worked in Jordan and cooperated with local HAMAS operatives. . . . Incriminating files were found on Ali's computer, including documents that attested to [Islamic Relief's] ties with illegal HAMAS funds abroad--in the UK and in Saudi Arabia--and in Nablus."

"IRW activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by HAMAS operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further HAMAS' ideology among the Palestinian population. These associations' educational and religious institutions incite against the State of Israel and advocate terrorist actions against it and its citizens."

In 1999, IRW's British headquarters received $50,000 from a Canadian group that the Treasury Department says is a Bin Laden front, according to the Los Angeles Times. This is a partial corroboration by the US government of Israel's finding.

Misbah Shahid, the organization's Detroit representative, announced that IRW publishes and distributes school textbooks to children in Palestinian refugee camps. But textbooks distributed in the camps are riddled with anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American rhetoric, according to Molly Resnick of Mothers Against Teaching Children to Kill and Hate

That website had other accusations that I would not use, because they are about individuals related to involved individuals. Those accusations show tendencies but not conspiracy.

I corresponded with LDS, to elicit its point of view. LDS protested that it has no political agenda in this. I take its word on that. I also think LDS quite properly checked with Western governmental agencies about the propriety of the charity in question, IRW. However, European governments have yet to declare Hizbullah, or is it Hamas, a terrorist organization. They are very slow on such matters, governed by politics and bureaucracy. The US government is not swift enough. LDS should have checked with the Israeli government about such an important matter, since Israel is more knowledgeable about it.

The Islamists are totalitarian, using every aspect of society to imbue the whole population with their hate-filled drive for conquest. LDS does point out that its aid via IRW takes the form of relief goods, not cash and not military goods that could be misused. However, contributing to any one aspect of their society promotes the overall goal. It takes greater circumspection to try to help ordinary people there, without boosting their ability to make war on us. It may not be possible to separate charity from their whole society being geared to jihad.

Donors should take greater pains to avoid contributing to jihad against the US, murder of Israelis, and hatred of Christians, knowing as they should that Islamists make extensive use of charitable fronts to promote murder. I know from various studies that the textbooks are vicious. Since IRW distributes them, surely LDS should have found another charity to help, there or somewhere else.


About 1,500 youths from all over Israel hiked through the Hebron hills outside the security fence and to which few Jews have ventured in recent years. They did so to affirm that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people (Arutz-7, 10/12).


Defense Min. Peretz, head of the Labor Party, has ordered the Army, contrary to its advice, to expedite demolition of "outposts." Israel Radio interpreted his move not as motivated by concerns for legality but as a political maneuver to make it too distasteful for the more right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu Party to join the governing coalition.

Israel Radio did not discuss the impropriety of using the Army for internal politics.


PM Olmert is considering creating still another Cabinet post, costing millions of dollars just to set up. This one would be given to the head of Yisrael Beiteinu, Avigdor Lieberman, for joining the Cabinet. The new post would be for strategic security planning.

How suitable is MK Lieberman for that post? His notion of security in Gaza is to let Egypt be responsible for it. His notion of security in Judea-Samaria is to let Jordan be responsible for it. This means bringing Arab armies closer to Israel. That is dangerous for Israel (IMRA, 10/13). (Israel has too many Ministers for efficient governing.)

Egypt has allowed extensive smuggling of arms into Gaza, protects the illegal militias, and acts in other ways as Israel's enemy. Both Egypt and Jordan have powerful Islamist movements that may take over the country. It would be better if Lieberman ran strategic planning for Arab countries, and fouled their defenses.


For security, Israeli police restricted Muslim worshippers at the Temple Mount to hundreds of thousands over age 40. Hundreds of youths barred from there rioted over it. In the P.A., however, the Arabs bar Jews and even destroy Jewish holy sites. Their complains are hypocritical (Arutz-7, 10/13). The Muslim Arabs create security risks by their intolerant violence. Then they complain about security measures against them.


The P.A. complained that Israeli soldiers did not stop Jews from entering al-Nabi Yossef Mosque in Nablus, and from praying there for a long time. The mosque is on the site of Joseph's Tomb. First Muslims had stormed the Tomb and destroyed it. Then they built a mosque on the site. Now they have the nerve to complain that Jews went there (IMRA, 10/13). They attacked Jews at Rachel's Tomb, too.

Typical Arab Muslim intolerance and hypocrisy!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 31, 2006.

Do you remember when Yassir Arafat's PLO elite guard "Force 17" kidnaped and assassinated America's Ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel, his aide George Moore, the French Charges d'affaires Guy Eid?

Arafat gave the order on March 2, 1973 to execute them. Arafat's voice was intercepted by Israeli Intelligence and it was Ariel Sharon who passed that tape on to America's CIA.

Force 17 of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) machine gunned them to death.

Nothing was done; Arafat wasn't promptly arrested or assassinated because 'somehow' Arafat became the darling of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department and the other Arabists of high office in the U.S. Government. Therefore, Arafat was designated to be spared retribution - no matter what he did. Apparently, the U.S. State Department (wrongly) thought Arafat was malleable and amenable to "land for peace", so they thought (wrongly) that they needed him to make peace.


The organizational structure of the PLO is like a Medusa, multi-headed snake. Yassir Arafat's main 'group' is "Fatah", a reverse acronym from the Arabic name Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini (literally: Palestinian National Liberation Movement). Fatah means "conquest" or opening in Arabic. Fatah is a major Palestinian political party and the largest organization of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) a multi-party confederation.

Several of the known groups are:

Fatah armed factions;

Black September (the group named for the 17 month action begun September 16, 1970 when King Hussein of Jordan attacked and expelled Arafat's PLO to prevent him from seizing the Kingdom);

Tanzim (militant 'new guard' young street fighters - both men and women) led by Marwan Barghouti, now in Israeli jail for multiple counts of murder of Israelis, conspiracy to murder and membership in a terrorist organization (Bargouti was also general secretary of Fatah in Judea and Samaria);

Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades (suicide bombers, young radical militants);

Fatah Hawks; and Force 17, the protective elite guard for the VIPs of the PLO - especially Arafat.

Additional and more radical groups are part of the PLO and, therefore, the PLO is responsible for their actions, even if they seem to deny their radical cohorts:

Abu Nidal's Fatah-Revolutionary Council;

Abu Musa's group, the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine);

the PFLP-GC (General Council);

Hamas and Fatah's "Young Guard".

Some commentators say that some of these factions were considered rebellious and outlawed by the Fatah official bodies but, I believe that is a spurious assertion to hide their collaboration with the most heinous of PLO factions' crimes. Documents found in Arafat's Muqat'ah compound prove Arafat knowingly sponsored all these factions and their attacks against Jews.

Force 17 members illegally acquired arms and explosives for Palestinian groups loyal to Arafat, to carry out terror attacks, resist Israeli military or police forces and protect Arafat. Proof of these actions were allegedly found when IDF forces besieged Arafat and Force 17 during Operation Defensive Shield (June 2002) in the Muqat'ah compound in Ram'Allah and broke into PA files. (1)

You should know that in many Arab Muslim Palestinian families, each member (usually sons and father) may belong to a different terror organization in order to protect the family from retribution by one or the other terror factions.


So, why has this President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condollezza Rice and other cohorts of the American "Shadow Government" directed the arming of the PLO's Force 17. They were the murderers of the American Ambassador, Cleo Noel, and now Bush wants to pay them several million American taxpayers' dollars to arm and train - to fight Israelis - their self-declared enemies: men, women and children, soldiers or civilians.

It will be the job of the CIA to train Force 17 in murder, theoretically, to protect the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) was Arafat's earliest and closest associate through all of Arafat's days of murder and chaos as the Father of the modern global Terrorist organizations.


Abu Mazen was Arafat's chief second-in-command for 40 years. and the PLO fund-master for many Terror operations, including the Olympics Massacre September 4, 1972. Arafat, with Abu Mazen coordinating the funds and the plans, sent the Black September Terrorists, led by Force 17, to the Olympics in Germany, where they committed the Munich Massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches.

They were led by Ali Hassan Salameh, COMMANDER OF FORCE 17 and Abu Daoud, who still lives in hiding and has said that "the [Munich] operation had the endorsement of Arafat." Daoud writes that "Arafat saw the team off on the mission with the words 'Allah protects you'". (2)

Yes indeed, the U.S. is repeating its idiocy. As it protected Arafat, now it protects Abu Mazen by arming and training Force 17 who are on their way to becoming the next world-wide Al Qaeda.

Except that within Force 17 there is a mix of Terrorists from the different factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood. When Hamas and the others make their move, they will likely assassinate Abu Mazen and the Americans will say the equivalent of: "Et Tu, Brutus?" Abu Mazen will probably be assassinated by those Force 17 guards closest to him.

President Bush, are you getting your advice from your father's buddies, his Secretary of State James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman and that oily gang who represents Saudi interests? You started your Presidential career looking like your own man but, now it appears that you have slid into being a puppet for other interests. Too bad.

You were absolutely right to take on the fight against Global Terror because it is surely a "Clear and Present Danger" to America and the rest of the Free World. But somehow, you have been convinced to see the attributes of the Muslim Jihadist nations. What a legacy you have created! Too bad. Funding and training Force 17 who murdered America's Ambassador on orders from Yassir Arafat, father of Global Terrorism, is a great embarrassment for America and all Americans.

There is no doubt about whom President Bush is paying and training. Force 17 was Yassir Arafat's elite guard and a terrorist group who went out on assignment to murder, blow up Israelis and all the things that terrorists are known to do. To cast them as merely "guards" of the arch terrorist, Arafat, does not give them the credit they deserve. They were class A killers, as demonstrated by their murder of the American Ambassador in Khartoum and to carry out the Munich massacre. Those were only two of their operations, all known and assisted by Abu Mazen who acted as the Banker for these terrorist actions.

Are you pondering how President Bush can consider spending millions on Force 17, training them with American technology, methods and weapons? Some of their spokesmen have already stated they will join Hamas and Hezb'Allah when the fighting against Israel begins again.

We should look back briefly to the time when the U.S. armed and trained the Afghanis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The result was America was simultaneously training the Taliban, Al Qaeda and equipping Osama bin Laden with a ready-made military force. America achieved the short-term goal of expelling the Soviets who were then under Gen. Alexander Lebed but we reaped a greater terrorism that led to many terror ops against the Free World including 9/11, London commuters, Madrid trains, 2 American embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the American barracks in Saudi Arabia, the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers, etcetera.

Is this then where American tax-dollars go? To build another Al Qaeda called Force 17? I wonder why the Media has so assiduously avoided asking any question about employing, training, arming and doubling Force 17 to approximately 6,000 men?

Dubya, what ever made you get in bed with elite killers who, one day will turn on America, (although it already did years ago when they murdered our Ambassadors)?


1. "FATAH" http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/fatah1.html

2. "MUNICH MASSACRE" Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Munich_massacre

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Mgr, October 31, 2006.
This was written by Caroline Glick and appeared in the Jerusalem Post yesterday.

Last week Iran began enriching uranium in a second network of centrifuges. Just as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dropped nearly all pretenses about his intention to achieve nuclear weapons, so too he makes it clear daily that he intends to use such weapons to annihilate Israel.

The world's reaction to Iran's behavior is depressingly instructive. Russia tells us that we are being paranoid and continues to build the Bushehr nuclear plant. The Europeans cluck disapprovingly and threaten to pass a weak, "reversible" sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council whose main target is American security hawks. For his part, US President George W. Bush continues to adhere to the call for sanctions.

And so we have Israel. With Iran speeding up its program, Israel may have as little as six months to launch a strike on its nuclear facilities before they can start churning out atomic bombs.

Unfortunately, at this critical moment in Israel's history, we are led by Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Tzipi Livni. Although Olmert claims that he is taking every step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, through his government's actions in recent months, he has steadily undercut the IDF's ability to take decisive action against Iran.

Over the past two and a half months, the Olmert government has deliberately and willingly enabled Israel's encirclement by hostile forces.

Deployed along Israel's northern and southern borders, these forces constrict Israel's ability to maneuver, and prevent the IDF from taking preventative actions against Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Gaza thus increasing the risks that Israel will face in the event that action is taken against Iran's nuclear facilities and constraining Israel's ability to stealthily launch any attack.

Nearly 10,000 French-commanded UNIFIL troops today protect Hizbullah in south Lebanon. And increasingly, they do so while provoking Israel. Last week two incidents took place between German naval forces and the IAF. Last Tuesday and Thursday IAF jets were scrambled when a German naval helicopter entered Israeli airspace after taking off from a German naval ship off Rosh Hanikra without permission or prior coordination.

What is most remarkable about the story is its repetition. Last Tuesday the German helicopter elicited a strong Israeli response. Rather than desist from provoking the IAF, the Germans repeated their action on Thursday. So what could have been viewed as a regrettable incident was transformed into a provocation.

Germany's hostile behavior is par for the course with UNIFIL. Two weeks ago French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie called the IAF's overflights of Lebanese airspace "extremely dangerous," and threatened that France's forces in Lebanon were liable to fire on the IAF flights "because they may be felt as hostile by forces of the coalition." By word and deed, UNIFIL forces are making clear that they view the IDF, not Hizbullah as their enemy. As they increase their provocations against Israel, UNIFIL forces turn a blind eye to weapons being smuggled daily to Hizbullah from Syria. Were Israel to attempt to take action against Hizbullah or Syria to prevent them from attacking in anticipation of an Israeli strike on Iran, there can be little doubt how UNIFIL would respond.

AND THERE is little that Israel today can do about UNIFIL. Olmert and Livni have been UNIFIL's most enthusiastic cheerleaders. They expended Israel's political capital convincing these hostile forces to perch themselves at our border. They then promised the Israeli public that the French would protect us. They are not in a position today to make demands.

And then there is Egypt.

Over the weekend, Egypt announced that it was deploying 5,000 troops (or "police" forces) along its border with the Gaza Strip in northern Sinai. The deployment was necessary, Egypt announced, to prevent Israel mounting a serious operation against the massive weapons smuggling that is quickly providing Palestinian terrorists with the means to transform Gaza into south Lebanon.

The fact that Egypt wishes to prevent Israel from stemming the flow of weapons to Gaza - which Egypt itself is supposed to be cutting off - should tell us all we need to know about Egypt's intentions. But apparently the government and Southern Command weren't listening. Sunday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz denied that Egyptian forces had been deployed along the border. An IDF commander in the Southern Command strangely expressed satisfaction at Egypt's move arguing that with the larger force Egypt would finally take action to prevent the arms transfers. The Foreign Ministry assured the public that the peace treaty with Egypt allows Cairo to deploy an unlimited number of "policemen" in the Sinai.

It is hard to decide which is more frightening, Egypt's move or Israel's response to it.

As MK Yuval Steinitz, former chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee explains, Egypt's sudden decision to deploy a massive force along the border is a strategic threat of the first order to Israel. "Egypt," he explains, "is taking advantage of the weakness and incompetence of the government."

Over the past decade, Egypt has been assiduously preparing its military for war against Israel. From the ideological indoctrination of its forces, to its massive armament programs, to the relocation of its military installations, units and logistical bases to both sides of the Suez Canal, to the training of its troops to fight "an unnamed country on Egypt's northern border," Steinitz warns that Egypt has done more than Iran to ready its forces for war against Israel.

Rather than protest Egypt's actions, successive Israeli governments have swallowed whole Egypt's strategic deception. Egypt protests friendship and pretends to combat terrorism and prevent weapons smuggling into the Sinai.

Yet under this friendly guise, Egypt has legitimized Palestinian terrorists and stood behind the massive weapons smuggling operations. As Steinitz puts it, "Egypt is to Palestinian terrorism what Syria is to Hizbullah.

"The weapons to the Palestinians are brought in through Egyptian ports and El-Arish and are imported by land from Sudan. Those latter imports have to traverse Egypt on their way to Gaza. There is no way that the Egyptian government is not colluding with the weapons shippers."

AS STEINITZ notes, over the past eight months the weapons being shipped to Gaza have been sharply upgraded. Egypt today is overseeing the import of sophisticated anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as upgraded Katyusha rockets to Palestinian terror groups.

And now Mubarak is sending 5,000 "policemen to the border." As Steinitz notes, Israel has no way of knowing who these forces are, whether they are police or commandos or infantry or anti-aircraft units. He warns, that "If Israel does nothing to prevent their deployment today, there is no reason to doubt that in a year or two there will be tens of thousands of Egyptian troops along the border with Israel."

As Steinitz notes, not only does every single Egyptian soldier deployed along the border have a job to do in time of war, today they are perched along the border with the Negev, where, as the government turns its back on them and the IDF applauds their deployment, they are within striking distance of some of the IDF's most important military bases and strategic installations.

Since 1993, Israel's leftist governments have consistently followed a strategy of transferring responsibility for our national security to our enemies. First it was Yasser Arafat who was supposed to fight Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Now it is his deputy Mahmoud Abbas, UNIFIL and Mubarak who are all supposed to fight Israel's enemies. Far from learning from our bloody experience that our enemies have no interest in protecting us, in recent months, the Olmert government has expanded tenfold our reliance on our enemies.

As if having hostile Europeans guarding genocidal Iranian proxies in the north, and hostile Egyptians guarding and arming genocidal Palestinians in the south weren't enough, Sunday it was reported that the Olmert government is considering allowing thousands of armed PLO terrorists from the Badr Brigade in Jordan to relocate to Gaza.

It doesn't have to be this way. Although barring a major Hizbullah provocation, it isn't clear what Israel can do against the UNIFIL forces now enabling Hizbullah to rearm, Israel can still prevent the Egyptian deployment. If the government loudly protested the move and publicly requested the Bush administration order Egypt to remove its forces, Mubarak would do so. But in light of the Olmert government's mishandling of every military challenge Israel has faced since it came to power just six month ago, it is hard to imagine it will act responsibly.

But really, we don't have to worry. Olmert won't let Iran get nuclear weapons.

Contact the poster at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Frankfurter, October 31, 2006.

It's now out that the American security coordinator in the territories, General Keith Dayton, has been giving secret training to the Palestinian Presidential Guard. It's part of his program to provide "support" to the Palestinian Fatah faction in its internal struggle with Hamas.

The initial training was conducted by American military instructors in a military camp near Jericho, for some 400 men. And now Dayton has asked the Quartet to put in place a program that will have Egyptian, British and perhaps even Jordanian instructors to train the force loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, helping it to grow to some 6,000 men.

Dayton seems to have managed to help his masters to forget the history of the Presidential Guard and its elite Force 17 unit, and is probably hoping that the Quartet will also have a spot of amnesia.

He has also sidestepped the conclusions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that, before the addition of more than 35,000 troops in the last 3 years, the Palestinian Security Services were overstaffed, out of control, and an insurmountable burden on the Palestinian economy. Of greater concern, though, is that Force 17 is well known for its involvement in terror activities.

In this context, the experience of previous US training efforts is of interest. Journalist Mathew Kalman revealed in the San Francisco Chronicle in early 2005 that as far back as 1998, the CIA spent tens of millions of dollars, contracting secret training for hundreds of Palestinian Security Service personnel, including members of Force 17. Kalman managed to get hold of this "graduation picture" of one of those courses. Look at the fellow kneeling fourth from the left in the front row. Kalman identified him as Raafat Bajali -- a member of the terrorist Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who was killed in a "work accident", while making a bomb. Fortunately, he took fellow Al-Aksa terrorist Nedal Zedok with him

And standing in the back row, second from the left, is Khaled Abu Nijmeh. He was one of Bethlehem's most-wanted Palestinian militants in the city, suspected of involvement in a string of suicide bombings and shooting attacks against Israelis. In May 2002, he was one of 13 gunmen escorted from the Church of the Nativity siege in Bethlehem, flown to Cyprus and then to exile in Europe. Several of his fellow deportees received their salaries from the Palestinian Security Service payroll. Nijmeh proudly told Kalman of his membership in Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades alongside his job as first sergeant in Palestinian General Intelligence. He was very pleased with the CIA training that helped him learn the trade. "I was not alone. Many Palestinian security people were trained by the Americans. We hope they will continue helping us."

Well, now that our memories have faded a little, it seems that Nijmeh's prayers are being answered. The Americans are once again training tomorrow's terrorists.

David Frankfurter is a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East. To subscribe to his 'Letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@iname.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/

To Go To Top

Posted by Tsila, October 31, 2006.

This was written by Magdi Allam and translated from the Italian by Lyn and Lawrence Julius. The original appeared in Corriere della Sera online.

Israel is the keeper of a mutilated Arab identity, the repository for the guilty consciences of the Arab peoples, the living witness to a true history of the Arab countries, continuously denied, falsified and ignored.

Seeing Pierre Rehov's documentary film 'The Silent Exodus' about the expulsion and flight of a million Sephardi Jews helped me gain a better understanding of the tragedy of a community that was integral and fundamental to Arab society. Above all it has revealed to me the very essence of the catastrophe that befell it, a catastrophe which the mythical Arab nation has never once called into question. In a flash of insight I could see that the tragedy of the Jews and the catastrophe of the Arabs are two facets of the same coin. By expelling the Jews who were settled on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean centuries before they were arabised and islamised, the Arabs have in fact begun the lethal process of mutilating their own identity and despoiling their own history. By losing their Jews the Arabs have lost their roots and have ended up by losing themselves.

As has often happened in history, the Jews were the first victims of hatred and intolerance. All the "others" had their turn soon enough, specifically the Christians and other religious minorities, heretical and secular Muslims and finally, those Muslims who do not fit exactly into the ideological framework of the extreme nationalists and Islamists. There has not been a single instance in this murky period of our history when the Arab states have been ready to condemn the steady exodus of Christians, ethnic-religious minorities, enlightened and ordinary Muslims, while Muslims plain and simple have become the primary victims of Islamic terror.

Underlying the Arab 'malaise' is an identity crisis that neither Nasserist nor Ba'athist pan-Arabism, nor the Islamism of the Saudi Wahabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, Khomeini and Bin Laden has been able to solve. It's a contagious identity crisis, spreading to and taking hold of the Arab and Muslim communities in the West.

I remember that around the mid-1970s the Arab exam in civic education taken in both state and public schools in Egypt defined Arab identity thus: "the Arabs are a nation united by race, blood, history, geography, religion and destiny." This was a falsification of an historical truth based on ethno-religious pluralism, an ideological deception aimed at erasing all differences and promoting the theory of one race overlapping with a phantom Arab nation in thrall to unchallengeable leaders. It was directly inspired by Nazi and fascist theories of racial purity and supremacy which appealed to the leadership and ideologues of pan-Arabism and Islamism. It is no wonder that in this context Manichean Israel is perceived as a foreign body to be rejected, a cancer produced by American imperialism to divide and subjugate the Arab world.

The historical truth is that the Middle Eastern peoples, in spite of their arabisation and islamisation from the 7th century onward, continued to maintain a specific identity reflecting their indigenous and millenarian ethnic roots - cultural, linguistic, religious and national. The Berbers, for example, who constitute half the population of Morocco and a third of that of Algeria, have nothing or very little in common with the Bedouin tribes at the heart of Saudi or Jordanian society. When in 1979 Egypt was sidelined from the Arab League for signing a peace treaty with Israel President Sadat restored its Pharaonic Egyptian identity which he proudly contrasted with its Arabness. Here was an isolated but significant attempt to recapture an indigenous identity - advertising historical honesty and political liberation while saying 'enough is enough' to rampant lies and demagogy. Before the screening of the 'Silent Exodus' in the Congress Hall in Milan, a gentleman in his

Seventies came up to me and said, in perfect Egyptian dialect: "I am a Jew from Alexandria. I have recently been in Tunisia and Algeria. I have to say that people there are not like us, they don't have the sense of irony that distinguishes us Egyptians." I smiled and replied that indeed, the Egyptians have a reputation as jokers. They are capable of laughing at anything, including themselves.

What struck me was the "us" - "us Egyptians": even if we were both Italian citizens, he a Jew and I a Muslim. It reminded me that just after the 1967 defeat, I discovered by complete accident that the girl I was in love with - we both were 15 - was Jewish. For me she was a girl like any other. But for the police who submitted me to intensive interrogation she was a 'spy for Israel' and I was her accomplice.

In fact 'the Silent Exodus' testifies that anti-Semitism and the pogroms against the Jews of the Middle East preceded the birth of the state of Israel and the advent of ideological pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism. It infers that hatred and violence against the Jews could originate in an ideological interpretation of the Koran and the life of the prophet Muhammed taken out of context.

It would be a mistake to generalise and not to take into account that for long periods coexistence was possible between the Muslims, Christians and Jews of the Middle East, at a time when in Europe the Catholic Inquisition was repressing the Jews and when the Nazi Holocaust was trying to exterminate them. In the same way, one cannot ignore Israel's responsibility together with Arab leaders in the emergence of the drama of millions of Palestinian refugees and the unresolved question of a Palestinian state.

The fact remains that of the million Jews who at the end of 1945 were an integral part of the Arab population, only 5,000 remain. These Arab Jews, expelled or who fled at a moment's notice, have become an integral part of the Israeli population. They continue to represent a human injustice and an historical tragedy. Above all, they are indicative of an Arab civil and identity catastrophe. That is why to recognise the wrongs committed towards the Arab Jews - as the maverick Libyan leader colonel Gaddafi has recently done - by objectively rediscovering their past and millenarian roots, by finding again their tolerant and plural history and by totally and sincerely reconciling themselves with themselves, the Arabs could free themselves from the ideological obscurantism which has relegated them to the most basic level of human development and has changed the region into the most problematic and confict-ridden on earth.

Contact Tsila at tsilagroup@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 31, 2006.

More on politics and the treason of the NY Times.

An unbelievable "estimate" of 601,027 was published this month (Oct., 2006) in the NY Times, repeated by e.g. the BBC and Guardian in UK. This speculative conjecture about the total number of Iraqi deaths since 2003 followed a similar speculative conjecture by the UK Medical journal, the "Lancet".

All of these 'estimates' are so far beyond the count that arises from a perusal of hard evidence that one cannot even call them 'speculatve'. They are fiction.

Both the NY Times and the Lancet "estimates" were based on interviews with a very limited number of homes, in the middle of savage sectarian war, primarily in the areas of Baghdad and Anbar, reflecting an almost microscopic percentage of the population, and having no methodology for correcting unreliable information.

The narrowness of the sample, the very small number of households interviewed, and the credulity of the interviewers (who unquestioningly accepted the respondents' assertions that MOST of the deaths were caused by allied forces, even as Sunni terrorists were blowing up Shi'ite mosques full of worshipers), all clearly undermine any scrap of veracity that the NY Times numbers might have been able to claim.

According to Tom Carew (below are selections of his article.), there are 3 serious estimates available.

1. The [strongly anti-war] Iraq Body Count (IBC) keeps a runing total on its web-site, based on published media reports, and it provides a range of estimates, since there are different figures for some incidents. Their total [from 2003 onwards] is now 49,760 - at the maximum. Their minimum estimate is over 44,803.

The New York Times' figure of 601,027 is 12 times the Iraq Body Count group's highest estimate.

2. Another web-site which counts Coalition and Iraqi Forces dead, also gives a partial estimate for civilian dead. That runs only for 2005 on, and is now at 18,689 for 2005+2006 to date, or about 28 a day.

What makes the Oct NY Times estimate totally daft is the range of no less than 367,294 - from 426,369 to 793,663, with an estimate of 601,027. It comes from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US. They interviewed 1,849 families in 47 neighborhoods. Iraq has over 24,000,000 people. The "survey" claimed that these had 547 deaths against 82 pre-war. That suggested a death rate rise from 5.5 to 19.8 per 1,000. Saddam's mass murder of Kurds and Shias was never counted or published. And any rise includes ordinary murders.

The Lancet, (Sept, 2004) had used 988 families, in 33 clusters of 30 each, 7 clusters being in Baghdad, for its 5.139 million people.

"Daft" is not the right word. The Lancet and the Times are lying to their readers.

3. There are however, some other serious estimates. The highly reputable Brookings Institute in the USA publishes an Iraq Index. It gives a table that suggests 67% of "civilian" dead [27,439] were in the 2 outstanding hot-spots of Baghdad, or Anbar Province to the West. It also showed that out of 2,280 police dead, 626 were in Baghdad, and 211 in Anbar.

Brookings also published an interesting estimate, which significantly upped the Iraq Body Count [IBC] estimates.

Brookings suggested that "ordinary" crime increased the 2003-2005 "violence" toll from 19,500 to 42,100, and it quoted a UN estimate [using Iraqi hospital or morgue data] of another 19,900 dead in 2006 to 31 Aug, giving an overall total of 62,000.

Even with the Brookings increased estimate, The NY Times is still 9.7 times that estimate.

As media reports are most unlikely to be complete in such violent conditions, the IBC, using only media reports, is likely to be far too low, and so Brookings is probably about right.

A warning was not heeded from the Lancet work. Their interviewees alleged most dead were caused by Coalition Forces - the bombing of mosques, and car-bombs would suggest otherwise.

Iraq today is 4 lands. The Premier League for Order and Peace is the 3 Northern Kurd Provinces - the real and undoubted success of the whole episode - and totally ignored by anti-West bigots. Their long nightmare, which long preceded Saddam, is finally over, and their brand of Islam is unveiled.

10 Provinces in the East and South, both Sunni and Shia, are troubled, but conditions could be described as fair to poor.

3 more, North and South of Baghdad, and in the NW, are definitely bad.

2 of the 18 Provinces, Baghdad with 5.139m, and Anbar with 1.1m to the West, are very bad indeed.

It is in these 2 of the 18 that most of the killings took place; and it was in these two areas that the polling took place. To leverage percentages of these provinces and apply them to the total population of Iraq is not just flawed methodology -- it is nonsense, or mendacity.

Iraq's population is estimated at 24.8 million people. the microscopic samples used by the NY Times and the Lancet render their ridiculously exagerated body counts, standing in sharp contradistinction to the much smaller counts offered by three reliable sources, complete fiction, if not actual fabrication.

The methodolgy of the NY Times and Lancet was flawed and bespeaks the quite irrational assumption that taking a poll of houses in the very worst areas of Iraq (Baghdad and Anbar) during the very worst regionial violence, and then multiplying those numbers by a factor equivalent to the percentage of population in all of Iraq, will give an accurate count of total casualties.

I wonder why the NY Times would produce such a ridiculously exagerated body count just a month before Congressional elections.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 31, 2006.

The stationing of a Multi-National Force (MNF) in Southern Lebanon constitutes a liability, and not an asset. It has been demonstrated by a recent confrontation between Israel's air force and a German battleship off the coast of Lebanon, by the French threat to hit Israeli aircraft on intelligence missions over Lebanon, and by UNIFIL's refusal to disarm Hizballah.

The MNF would create a short-term false sense of stability, while weakening Israel's long-term national security. It is destined to fail, to undermine Israel's war on terrorism, to strain Israel's ties with member nations and to erode Israel's strategic and deterrence posture in the US and in the Mideast.


In 1993, the US military evacuated Somalia following the lynching of US soldiers in the streets of Mogadishu. In 1984, the US and the French military retreated from Lebanon following the blowing up of the US embassy and Marines headquarters in Beirut, by Syria and PLO-assisted Moslem terrorists. On the other hand, UNIFIL has refrained from any confrontation with Hizballah, hence sparing itself the wrath of terrorists. The MNF is expected to follow in the footsteps of UNIFIL, since its soldiers do not intend to sacrifice their lives on the altar of Lebanon's stability and Israel's security.

In 1967, the UNEF aborted its presence in the Sinai Peninsula, as a result of Egyptian pressure, thus paving the road to the Six Day War. UNDOF has been stationed in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights since 1974, and will stay there as long as it serves Syrian interests. It will evaporate from the scene as soon as Syria changes its mind. Contrary to the precedents of Sinai (where the MFO has been stationed since the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty), Kosovo and Bosnia, there is no agreement, on the role of the MNF, among the key parties to the conflict. Iran, Syria and Hizballah tolerate MNF's presence as along as it facilitates the reconstruction of Hizballah's capabilities, the weakening of Israel and the undermining of US interests in the Mideast. The inherent disagreement among the key parties is a prescription for failure, which would result in an unpredictably unilateral withdrawal by the MNF, suiting the timetable of terror organizations and regimes and adrenalizing their veins.


UN Security Council Resolution 1701 has facilitated the continued flow of missiles, other weapon systems, ammunition and personnel to Hizballah through the Syria-Lebanon border and via the Mediterranean. The interpretation of 1701 is not in accordance with Israel's understanding; it is dominated by the UN and to by the nations comprising the MNF. It is much closer to Hizballah's interpretation, and much farther from Israel's interpretation. Therefore, the MNF does not consider the disarming of Hizballah and the enhancement of Israel's security to be among its duties. On the other hand, the MNF focuses on the safeguarding of its own soldiers -- hence no confrontation with Hizballah -- and observing Lebanese sovereignty. Hence, the MNF is not equipped with military hardware and intelligence, required to combat terrorism. It does not intend to arrest terrorists, to confiscate illegal weaponry or to seize missile launchers without the specific approval by the Lebanese authorities, which would not dare agitate Hizballah or Syria. Just as the presence of UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon advanced the fortification of Hizballah since the 2000 withdrawal by Israel, so has the presence of MNF and UNIFIL facilitated the reconstruction of Hizballah capabilities since the 2006 evacuation by Israel. The international military presence serves as a human shield for terrorists and a human obstacle for the IDF, which is reluctant to hot pursue terrorists through MNF lines and to bomb terrorists bases cushioned by thousands of MNF and UNIFIL personnel, which is stationed around them.


Finger-pointing, tension and crises between Israel on one hand and the UN and countries comprising the MNF on the other hand will become a daily routine, especially if the MNF will be stationed also in Gaza and Judea & Samaria. Further deterioration would be caused by possible MNF casualties, which could be blamed on Israel. Does Israel need headlines about French, German, British or US soldiers killed on Israel's borders?! Does Israel wish to forfeit its classic image as a country, which seeks foreign military systems, but rejects the employment of foreign soldiers for its own defense? What a celebration would that be for Anti Semites, who have blossomed during displays of Jewish weakness and receded during displays of Jewish daring?

Turkey and India do not request/allow international troops on their borders with Syria and Pakistan, in their battle against Kurdish and Islamic terrorism. They realize that the presence of such forces on their borders would constrain their sovereignty and their military maneuverability. They understand that the willingness to pay a heavy price on the altar of sovereignty constitutes a prerequisite for sovereignty, and therefore they have earned strategic respect, while targeted for diplomatic criticism. On the other hand, Israel's reliance on counter-terrorism subcontractors, in order to combat Lebanese terrorism (MNF) and Palestinian terrorism (Palestinian Authority), has frustrated Israel's solid friends in Washington, who have also been disappointed by the results of the recent war in Lebanon. They are concerned that the defiant Israel -- of Entebbe and Ozirak -- is gradually transformed from a producer of national security, which extends US military arm, into a consumer of national security, which needs the US helping hand.

Israel should reassess the presence of the MNF in Southern Lebanon and examine why did pre-1993 Israeli Prime Ministers consider the presence of international forces on Israel's borders a liability and not an asset.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, October 31, 2006.

This was written by Joseph Farah. He is founder, editor and CEO of World Net Daily. His latest book is Taking America Back.

A tenured professor at the University of Chicago recently claimed Israel was to blame for the September 11 attacks and for the U.S. war in Iraq. The assertions by John Mearsheimer were met with an amen chorus from colleagues at New York University and Columbia. "The Israel lobby was one of the principal driving forces behind the Iraq war, and in its absence we probably would not have had a war," he explained. Later, he said Al Qaeda's "animus to the United States stemmed from U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. "Imagine what a peaceful world in which we would live if we could only rid ourselves of that annoying little Israel.

That is the essence of what we hear throughout much of academia. That is the essence of what we hear at the United Nations. That is the essence of what we hear from the so- called international community. That is the essence of what we hear from a vast segment of the world press. While it is an undeniable truth that Israel is on the front lines of the global Islamic Jihad, surrounded as it is by hostile neighbors and active terrorist organizations sworn to its destruction, I would love to hear one of these anti-Israel twits explain what the Jewish state has to do with the following conflicts:

  • Afghanistan -- Far from Israel, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are battling U.S. coalition forces in an effort to re- establish their Islamic dream state -- the one that actually gave us Sept.11.

  • Algeria -Far from Israel, Islamic guerrillas continue to attack a government dominated by fellow Muslims.

  • Bosnia -- Far from Israel, it is now a home for Islamic terrorists thanks to the international community that handed it over to Muslim rule.

  • Central Asia -- Far from Israel, Islamic radicals are trying to spread Shariah law in states formerly part of the Soviet Union.

  • Chad -- Far from Israel, unrest is growing largely because of a refugee crisis started by the radical Islamic regime in neighboring Sudan.

  • India -- Far from Israel, Islamic radical groups regularly set off bombs, while India contests with neighboring Islamic Pakistan for control of Kashmir.

  • Indonesia -- Far from Israel, Islamic terrorists are a constant threat in the most heavily populous Muslim state in the world.

  • Kosovo -- Far from Israel, Islamic radicals burn down churches and persecute Christians.

  • Nigeria -- Far from Israel, Muslims in the north fight for more control over the government and the nation's vast oil reserves.

  • Philippines -- Far from Israel, Islamic guerrillas in the south are fighting for their own country and, of course, the forced expulsion of non-Muslims.

  • Russia -- Far from Israel, Islamic terrorists have attacked airliners, schools and other civilian targets in their fight for an independent, Islamic Chechnya.

  • Somalia -- Far from Israel. Tribal fighting continues in another former playground of Osama bin Laden. Islamic radicals fight for Shariah law to bring order.

  • Sudan -- Far from Israel, Muslims in the north slaughter Christians, animists and even other Muslims in a war that has already killed millions.

  • Thailand -- Far from Israel, a small population of Muslims in the south totals only about 3 percent, fight for a separate Islamic state. A recent military coup installed the country's first Muslim leader, who suspended the constitution.

  • Uganda -- Far from Israel, Muslim rebels in the north, aided by Sudan, have challenged the government.

Maybe political science professors can tie Islamic terrorist acts against Egypt's government and inside Lebanon and targeting the Saudi kingdom to Israel -- because it's in the neighborhood. Maybe they can persuade some people that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had something to do with Israel, though Saddam Hussein posed little real threat to the Jewish state. But, how, I wonder, do these geniuses discount the raging Islamic Jihad on the march from the Eastern to the Western edge of the globe?

PS (One can't help but wonder how much Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al are paying these "professors" for promoting this obvious destructive propaganda, attempting to effect are own will to continue the inevitable war against militant Islam) -- jsk

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 31, 2006.

It is about time these people woke up and began to organize. However, if all they intend is to replace the Yeshah Council with their own, not much will change. In order to save the Jews of Yeshah and the State of Israel from disaster, a fundament change in direction must happen.

This is called "Activists Meet to Establish Yesha Council Alternative to Thwart Future Withdrawals," and appeared in Arutz-Sheva
(www.israelnationalnews.com). It is archived at

IsraelNN.com) Several extra-parliamentary right-wing groups came together for a meeting Monday night in Beit El, attended by representatives of the bulk of Judea and Samaria's towns and outpost hilltop communities.

The attendees agreed to establish a new umbrella group called Maginei Eretz, Defenders of the Land, in order to "restore the Israeli prime minister's ability to tell the world that he simply is unable to destroy Jewish communities because there is a large number of people who believe the Bible to be true," said Kiryat Arba attorney Elyakim HaEtzni.

HaEtzni lamented that the stance of the Yesha Council that the State of Israel has the mandate to relinquish parts of the Land of Israel "has left us dangerously exposed. What is even more dangerous is that they have convinced the government that they have control over the half-million Jews living over the Green Line -- that they can ensure any withdrawal goes smoothly if such a government decision is made."

To Go To Top

Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, October 31, 2006.
From today's Statfor Report.

EGYPT: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will visit Russia on Nov. 1-3, Egyptian Ambassador to Russia Izzad al-Seyed said. Mubarak will discuss the situation in the Middle East and Egyptian-Russian relations, including cooperation in the energy industry and the civilian use of nuclear power, al-Seyed added.

This is a very significant report. Egypt has seen that the West's counter-measures concerning Iran's nuclear programme has been totally ineffective. They cannot, in their estimation, allow Shia to "out gun" Sunni, and Egypt always claims to lead Sunni (as opposed to Saudi Arabia). So they are now going to Russia, the sponsors of Iran's programme, to get their own. Russia, of course, sees no reason to not grant their request -- after all, the US taxpayer is going to pay for it! [mbm]

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 30, 2006.

The article below summarizes what I have been writing about the EU....it is on the verge (next few years, next ten years, next twenty years) of submitting to the Islamic take-over being engineered by the European Arab League (EAL) and its proxy fighting arm in the banlieux of various EU cities....even as current EU leaders cooperate with the EAL and sign the secret treaties that give the EAL ascendency in determining EU foriegn policy (cf. Bat Ye'or for details: Eurabia).

But Mr. Belein adds an insight that would never have occured to me:

" (The Dutch author quoted by Belein)... is overwhelmed by a 'feeling of sadness.' 'I am not a warrior," (the author) ... says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.'"

When faced with the destruction of his civilization, his culture, his religion, his language, his whole way of life, all he feels is sadness. No outrage, no anger, no sense of need to stand up and defend what is his, and what should be his children's and grand-children's. He has succumbed. He cannot muster the strength and the courage to fight for his people, for his family, for himself, for his future and the future of his people.

With too many like him, Europe is doomed....And so are its Jews:

"....(it is true)...that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit...This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission -- just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead."

In other words, the Jewish minorities in Europe will have no majority population defending them or sheltering them against the brutal Jew-hatred of many European Moslems. The Jews of Europe will be forced to either emmigrate, convert to Islam, or be killed.....thanks to the submissive EU leadership that would rather kiss their future goodbye than resist the lure of mega-petro-dollars and stand up to the threat of the Islamofascist take-over.

The Dutch author says he is not a warrior, and then almost rhetorically asks: "but who is?". Obviously, his self-excusing question refers only to Europeans. He knows that Americans are warriors. They fought and died for European freedom twice in the last 65 years, and once in South Korea, and in Kuwait (and never asked for any more land in return than what they needed to bury their dead: so much for American "Imperialism"!). He must also know that Israelis are warriors. They have been fighting and dying for their very existence for the past 75 years.

So he has from whom to draw inspiration. But he chooses not to. He chooses instead to submit, and to hate those who do not submit.

When Europe is gone, in which direction will the iIlamofacists turn their WMD gun-sights? This is called "The Rape of Europe" and was written by Paul Belien and it appeared October 25, 2006 in the Brussels Journal.

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: "We are watching the world of yesterday." Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness." "I am not a warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working." But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission -- just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 30, 2006.

My mother uses to say, "it is difficult being a Jew" It is difficult to be "the chosen ones," especially when you were chosen and still are, to be the target of every singly thing go wrong, and every atrocity jnown to mankind. Was my mother right? Unfortunately, she was!

As the result of the Holocaust, Germany's Jewcentricity and any negative slur against Jews does not go unanswered in the law courts or in the court of public opinion; however it does not stop Germans and the rest of the world from carrying on their Jewcentricity case-in-point endeavor.

Why don't the world begins building up a strong case on the Islamo-Fascism [NO]-conspiracy --- rather reality theorists? In other words go pick on those one should pick on and for once and for all LEAVE the [convenient] Jewish scapegoats alone!

This article is called "When Jews is News" and it was written by Suzanne Fields and it appeared in Jewish World Review today.

"Jewcentricity" is a word that sounds like it was coined by an embittered anti-Semite. But it's actually the inspiration of Adam Garfinkle, a Jew, writing in The American Interest magazine to call attention to a phenomenon that has roots in anti-Semitism and runs from the silly to the sublime: " . . . the idea, or the intimation, or the subconscious presumption . . . that Jews are somehow necessarily to be found at the very center of global-historical events."

"Jewcentricity" is most evident in the recycling of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," a fictitious text commissioned by the czar's secret police for a Russian audience at the end of the 19th century, describing a fanciful cabal of Jews who plan to take over the world. Some critics of the neoconservatives, some of whom are Jewish, cite the protocols, so called, in their accusations that Jews have hijacked American foreign policy. Others, critical of Israel, hyperventilate over the power of the "Israel lobby."

"The Protocols" have naturally become a best seller in several Muslim countries, including Turkey and Egypt, where they were turned into a television series. ("Semitic Sex in the City," however, it was not.) "The Protocols" were featured on the Iranian stands at last year's book fair in Frankfurt "to expose the real visage of this Satanic-enemy," along with an abridged edition of Henry Ford's literary thriller, The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem (which never made it to the screen). "The grip of the Jewish parasitic influence," asserts the preface of the new edition, "has been growing stronger and stronger ever since [Henry Ford's time]."

Serious examples of "Jewcentricity" are reflected in the media obsession with Sen. George Allen's Jewish mother, who was born in Tunisia and barely escaped the Holocaust, and before that, with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's Jewish roots in Czechoslovakia. The national newspapers and television networks spent considerably more time investigating the senator's "blood" parentage and its likely effect on his re-election campaign than the blood being spilled in Darfur. "Why?" asks Adam Garfinkle. "Because . . . Jews is news and there are no Jews in Darfur." That doesn't slow down the conspiracy theorists in other countries, with or without Jews, from obsessing over the myth of sinister Jewish power.

Germany's Jewcentricity is of a completely different order. No negative slur against Jews goes unanswered in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. This has hardly eliminated prejudice against Jews. In an anti-Semitic prank with echoes of the Third Reich, a high-school student in eastern Germany was forced by bullies not long ago to wear a sign around his neck in the school yard: "In this town I'm the biggest swine because of the Jewish friends of mine." The teacher reported it, the chief of police was firm in his outrage, and the state minister of the interior promised an investigation. Germany does not tolerate public exhibition of Nazi symbols.

But the strain of anti-Semitism that many thought would vanish after the horror of the Holocaust has again risen again in the Middle East and among European fellow travelers of the Islamists, whose rhetoric targets Israel in a way that Hitler would readily recognize. Israel is the euphemism for the demonized Jew. The Jews become, as Jonathan Rosen observed in The New York Times, "interchangeable emblems of cosmic evil."

It's not simply an empty gesture that maps available in Middle Eastern countries show Israel erased. Hezbollah demonstrated its capacity to send rockets into Israel, and the Iranian nuclear threat is aimed first at Israel.

Jews remain convenient scapegoats as they continue to haunt the fantasies of rationalizers and haters who want to avoid responsibility for their own culpability. In the 1930s, Jews were blamed for everything that went wrong in Germany (and later in Eastern Europe). Today they're perceived as the seminal cause of Islamic terrorism, subject to the same old media stereotypes that thrived in Nazi newspapers. Getting rid of the Jews in Europe wasn't enough.

"Jewcentricity" serves a specific purpose both in the Middle East and in Europe. It unites the Muslims against a common enemy and conceals their own divisions and discontents, which would be there even if there were not an Israel to hate. Increasing Muslim populations in Europe threaten the peace in ways that absent Jews do not. But we can blame the Jews, anyway.

The Nobel Prize-winning Hungarian novelist Imre Kertesz observes that Europeans mask their criticism of Israel in mournful tones about the Holocaust but use the language that led to Auschwitz. "Because Auschwitz really happened, it has permeated our imagination, become a permanent part of us," he says. "What we are able to imagine -- because it really happened -- can happen again

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 30, 2006.

My interest in Omar Barghouti was sparked by a letter sent by listmember Dr. Charlotte Berkowitz, who wrote me:

"In the October issue of the widely read journal _PMLA_ (Publications of the Modern Language Association of America) is an article by Omar Barghouti, a doctoral candidate at Tel Aviv University, accusing Israel not only of specific outrageous crimes against Palestinians, but of finding authority for those excesses in the Halakhah and in the Torah. I will be grateful if you will encourage professors and graduate students who are members of MLA to write letters addressing this irresponsible, unbalanced and dangerous essay from a variety of perspectives. "

I admit, Dr. Berkowitz aroused my curiosity. So, I did a web-search for Mr.. Barghouti and was shocked by what I found.

First, Mr. Barghouti identifies himself as a Palestinian. This, despite the fact that he was born in Qatar and grew up in Egypt. His claim to being a Palestinian stems, like other Palestinian wannabees (the late Edward Said most prominent among them) from his parents, who he says fled a West Bank village to which they always "longed to return." Their longing, however, has not actually prompted them to do so. They live in Jordan. They were, in fact, shocked when their son decided to leave the U.S. behind and move with his wife to Ramallah. The first time he touched down in "Palestine" was in 1993, in his thirties. By then, he had finished a degree in Columbia University in Electrical Engineering, something which apparently has not hampered his claim of academic expertise in philosophy. He is now allegedly a Ph.D candidate in philosophy (ethics, no less) at none other than Tel Aviv University. .

For unknown reasons, this Israeli university has taken him in (thus allowing the Jewish State and Zionists all over the world to subsidize his education) and supplied him with the academic credentials he is now using to head organizations calling for the boycott of Israeli institutions of higher learning, Israel's cultural exports, such as dance, and which call into question the very legitimacy of the Jewish State to exist at all.

Mr. Barghouti is in favor of a one-state solution: "Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouti12132003.html .

He is a leading proponent of an academic boycott of Israel: "The most urgent type of support the international community can provide to the Palestinian academy is to adopt various forms of boycott against Israel's academic institutions...some argue that... it is still necessary for Palestinian academics and intellectuals of all people to maintain and foster open communication channels with their Israeli counterparts, to debate, to share, to convince, to learn, to overcome the "psychological barriers" and ultimately to reach a common vision and a common struggle for peace. I beg to differ. Those who imagine they can wish away the conflict by suggesting some forums for rapprochement, détenté, or "dialogue" -- which they hope can lead to authentic processes of reconciliation and eventually peace -- are either clinically delusional or dangerously deceptive." He delivered this gem at a conference at London University entitled:"Resisting Israeli Apartheid." peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2004/12/omar-barghouti-why-boycott-israel.html

Mr.Barghouti makes clear: "It is not the occupation of the West Bank that is the problem, but the existence of Israel itself: " ..what seems to escape the mainstream opinion makers is that during the current intifada, the Israeli army has crossed many of its former red lines, committing crimes that are reminiscent in form -- though certainly not in scale -- of Nazi crimes against European Jews." As for the Israeli Left? "What left? Those in Israel who officially call themselves "the left" -- the Zionist left, more accurately -- easily make the far-right parties in Europe look as moral as Mother Teresa... - on the JFJFP website....

Even in his extracurricular activities, he is consistent. While continuing his engineering work, he became interested in a folkloric dance group that strove to revive Palestinian music and dance. The El-Funoun Palestinian Popular Dance Troupe "has no specific political agenda," he told an ABC News journalist when the troupe toured the U.S. But, surprise-: 'A number of the dances illustrate beatings and rebellion with a drumlike beat that symbolizes pain and mourning.' In one piece, a barefoot dancer vanquishes his repression by kicking aside a military boot that sits in the middle of the stage. Barghouti said that because of the Israeli military occupation, politics had crept into all aspects of Palestinian life."

Now a dance expert, in addition to an expert on ethics, Mr.Barghouti wrote letters to respected magazines like Dance Insider, nothing to do with dance, of course; he has only one agenda: "I read your article in the Dance Insider with interest. As to your question regarding whether Israeli dance companies should be boycotted 'until Israel stops bombing Lebanon,' my answer is yes, but for far longer, until Israel fully abides by international law and fundamental human rights, ending its occupation of Palestinian land, recognizing the right of Palestinian refugees to return and ending its system of racial discrimination against Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel."

Mr. Barghouti, far from being a humanist and an intellectual, is a red-neck propagandist of the worst order, hatred oozing out of every pore, given legitimacy and support by the very institutions and people whom he wishes, and at every turn, attempts, to destroy. Those who pretend not to understand this, who publish his work and invite him to academic conferences would do well to become more familiar with this man and his work, rather than to continue to be complicit.

In the meantime, he continues to milk his Tel Aviv University connection to the humanities, in which as far as I can see, he has so far earned no degrees. In 2005, he was invited - the sole member of an Israeli university - to the Conference on Human Rights and the Humanities, held at The Graduate Center, The City University of New York. He was also invited by the Rockefeller Foundation to meet in Bellagio, Italy to discuss --academic boycotts! He is a man invited in the name of academic discourse, the very discourse he rejects. He accepts the largess of an Israeli University, which incredibly bestows legitimacy upon his hate-filled, bigoted rantings, a university he wishes to destroy. He does the same to the United States, which took him in and gave him the opportunity to learn in one of its top universities. In his article:"9/11, Putting the moment on human terms" he says:"Plainly put, your ancestors are responsible for the genocide of Native Americans and for the wicked slavery enterprise. Your democratically elected governments are accountable for unspeakable crimes worldwide, from Hiroshima and Vietnam to Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why your national flag is the most popular combustible item in rallies around the world. It has nothing to do with hating you as a people, or even envying your "way of life." It has everything to do with the fact that your representatives have systematically plundered other nations' wealth, destroyed their ways of life - killing and injuring masses in the process."

Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and others to whom he will no doubt be applying for Post-Doc grants in the event he actually earns a Ph.D (being a doctoral student can last forever) should therefore beware. Mr. Barghouti has proven time again in article after article that his only true expertise is being a "professional Palestinian." The biggest danger he poses is that of allowing inferior minds such as his to take over the discussion about intellectual freedom and democracy and the Middle East conflict, because people like him are such expert manipulators.

Israel has been condemned recently for refusing to let in other West Bank students to its institutions of higher learning. The case of Sawsan Salameh from Anata in the West Bank who wanted to learn chemical engineering at Hebrew U comes to mind. Mr. Barghouti makes it eminently clear that the refusal to allow such students into Israeli universities is an understandable decision, akin to America refusing visas to Muslims wishing to take flight instruction.

I cannot conclude before putting the following matter before you. Barghouti is the name of a rather well-known family. Marwan Barghouti headed the Al Aksa Martyrs brigade, responsible for such terrorist attacks such as the May 27 murder of Ruth Peled and her fourteen month old granddaughter ,Sinai Keinan, as the baby sat in her carriage outside an ice cream parlor in Petach Tikva. And the April 12th bombing of Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, which killed Nissan Cohen, 57, Rivka Fink, 75, Suheila Hushi, 48; Yelena Konrab, 43, Ling Chang Mai, 34, and Chai Siang Yang, 32, and injured 103.; as well as many more despicable terrorists attacks for which he is currently serving five consecutive life sentences in Israeli jails. I wrote to Omar Barghouti and asked him if this was a relative of his. I did this because in light of his blanket condemnation of Israel and his defense of Palestinians,I think that - ethically and morally - his relationship with Mr. Marwan Barghouti, is relevant. His response:"Please do not contact me again."

I am delighted to accede to that request.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah 15, October 30, 2006.

This comes from AINA
(http://www.aina.org/news/20061029141418.htm). It was translated from Arabic by AINA

(AINA) -- According to the Assyrian website www.ankawa.com, a 14 year old Christian Assyrian boy, Ayad Tariq, from Baqouba, Iraq was decapitated at his work place on October 21. Ayad Tariq was working his 12 hour shift, maintaining an electric generator, when a group of disguised Muslim insurgents walked in at the beginning of his shift shortly after 6 a.m. and asked him for his ID. According to another employee who witnessed the events, and who hid when he saw the insurgents approach, the insurgents questioned Ayad after seeing that his ID stated "Christian", asking if he was truly a "Christian sinner." Ayad replied "yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner." The insurgents quickly said this is a "dirty Christian sinner!" Then they proceeded to each hold one limb, shouting "Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!" while beheading the boy.

The poster can be contacted at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by , October , 2006.

Oy Vey Britain! They lost is with their Islamists! One case is the British veiled teacher, who unhinged MP Jack Straw, admits that when she was interviewed for the job by the school male governor, she did not wear the veil. Later, she insisted that she must wear it in the classroom! Also listen to the way she speaks and determine for yourself whether this woman should be teaching English, teaching anything!

Click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTNWf5Q2Zo OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTNWf5Q2Zo&mode=related&search= and view / listen to the entire interview. Listen all the way toward the end. This woman should be a teacher? Ha! she maybe qualified for a supermarket checker job...

This article was written by Val MacQueen and it appeared October 27, 2006 on TCSDaily
(http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102706C). British-born Val MacQueen has lived in Texas where she was senior editor of Business & Energy International and in Singapore, where she was a TV critic. She now lives in the south of France and Mexico.

In the last few days in Britain, three events have caused what was already a small crack in the paper-thin edifice of "multiculturalism" in Britain to widen to a noticeable fissure.

First, 14-year old British schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested for trying to get a good grade in her group science project. She had been placed with a group of students only one of whom spoke any English. When they began talking what she deduced was Urdu among themselves, she realized she had no hope of completing the project. She went to her teacher, and prefacing her request with a diplomatic, "I'm not trying to be funny, but ..." she asked to be moved to an English-speaking team. The teacher reacted violently, raising her voice in the classroom to shout, "It's racist! You're going to get done by the police!"

The 14-year old was reported to a police officer on the school premises and the next day she was arrested, taken to the police station and told to take the laces out of her shoes and take off her jewelry. She then had her fingerprints taken and she was formally questioned. "It was awful," she said later, when she'd been released, the police having shown more sense than her teacher.

This news item created a storm of anger in Britain. But, the incident was quickly followed by another. Aishah Azmi, a teacher's assistant in an Episcopalian school who was tasked with helping recently arrived Urdu-speaking children to learn English, was asked to remove her niqab (full facial veil) in the classroom. She refused. She was told that the children needed to see her lips and mouth as she pronounced the English words they were supposed to be learning. She refused on religious grounds. The school, conciliatory for fear of being accused of racism, told her she was free to wear the veil in corridors and the staff room, but she should remove it when teaching foreign children English. She refused again, saying that as there was a male colleague in the classroom, she could not remove her veil in his presence.

Ms Azmi was sent home and her salary suspended. There is a broad school of thought in Islam that wearing the veil is not a religious requirement. Indeed the full facial veil is banned in public by the governments of both Turkey and Tunisia. In Tunisia, a woman may not enter a public [government] building wearing even a headscarf.

Ms Azmi was interviewed on British television by seasoned newsman Peter Sissons, who did not give her any breaks. For those who find it difficult to understand her accent, her final sentence is, "Yes, but only for five minutes." Liberal London Times columnist David Aaronovitch described her as a black belt in passive aggression.

As night follows day, she took the school to an employment tribunal, which came to an atypically swift conclusion that her religious rights had not been abused, although they awarded her around 1,100 (around $2,000) for "hurt feelings". She is now requesting taxpayer-funded legal aid to fight her case all the way up. However, the local Labour MP, a Muslim, has backed the school.

The third incident that has shaken the wafer-thin facade of multiculturalism was the case of a Christian worker at a British Airways' check-in counter. She wore a small cross, barely the size of her thumbnail, to work and was sent home for refusing to remove it. British Airways cited their rule of no jewelry and no religious symbolism except if it is hidden under the uniform. Ms Nadia Eweida claims that the BA rule clearly means "no Christian symbolism" as Sikh male employees are allowed to wear their much larger steel bangles with their livery, unhidden. Indeed, they are allowed to wear their turbans to work if they wish. And Muslim women can wear headscarves.

Ms Eweida has announced her intention to defend her right to wear her miniature cross by taking BA to court. Meanwhile, she has been suspended without pay by an unrelenting British Airways, which also publicly reprimanded her for calling attention to the incident.

These three incidents, coming over a space of a few days, have torn wide open a fissure which became visible for the first time, when Member of Parliament Jack Straw, until last month a stout devotee of multiculturalism suddenly wrote an article in his local paper. Jaws dropped all over Britain when Straw wrote his defense of the reasons he has begun asking Pakistani women constituents who visit his office to discuss problems to remove their veils. His point, of course, is that it is difficult to talk to someone whose facial expressions one cannot judge. Tony Blair has also now admitted that the veil makes him uneasy. With the bandwagon gathering pace, London mayor and keen adherent of multiculturalism "Red" Ken Livingstone, knocked the population of London over with a feather when he said on BBC's Radio 4 that he would like to see Muslims giving up the veil, although he didn't think this should be imposed "from the outside".

Wearing the veil accords the wearer what British columnist Melanie Phillips refers to as a "radical imbalance of power" in that it gives the veil-wearer the advantage of reading the facial expressions of others, while keeping her own reactions hidden. It is beginning to be viewed in Britain not as a symbol of female subjugation, but as a weapon of aggression and radical Islam. The British-born mothers of these young Pakistani-heritage veil-wearing women did not wear the veil.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 30, 2006.


Libel tourism is the seeking of favorable jurisdictions for lodging baseless and malicious libel suits against others from different jurisdictions. The Saudis seem to have adopted London (Londonistan) as the center of their efforts to silence Western investigative reporting and criticism. Many American authors and publishers were sued in the UK, and most chose to apologize and retract instead of going through a very costly legal battle. The Saudis got what they wanted -- no more reporting on their terror financing.

Sheikh Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, a former Saudi banker, is a libel tourist who has sued or threatened to sue dozens of authors, in England. He won a case against N.Y. scholar, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, by default; she refused to acknowledge the British court. Instead, she is countersuing in New York, to deafend her First Amendment (freedom of expression) (IMRA, 10/15 from American Center for Democracy).

Background: Palestinian Arabs -- the Hamas, PLO, and others - complain of being poor. Yet, the have paid millions to encourage suicide bombing. Where do they get money for that and their other terrorist activities? Ehrenfeld identified Sheik Mahfouz' foundation, the Muawafaq foundation, as having transferred ostensibly charitable funds to suicide bombers and their families.


The month's toll was 20 Arabs killed in Hamas-Fatah clashes (Arutz-7, 10/23).


"New Voice on Right in Israeli Cabinet is Likely to be Loud," headlined the N.Y. Times about Avigdor Lieberman. PM Olmert stressed that basic government policy won't change, but the Times wondered how the now ideologically diverse Cabinet would govern (Greg Myre, 10/23). If Lieberman were so right-wing, how come he abandoned all his conditions for entering the Cabinet the day after he stated them? For the job!


Egypt claims to have intercepted a shipment of arms, 100 kms. away from the Gaza border, where Bedouin intended to smuggle it in via tunnels (Arutz-7, 10/22).

The brief did not indicate that Egypt showed evidence of its claim, which would be a first.


A low-cost, Egyptian college dormitory requires veiled women to show proof of identity. Some Muslims criticized the order. The university claims that veils may be used by men to sneak into female quarters, by women not entitled to the subsidy, and by terrorists. Some women and Muslim thinkers contend the veil is not obligatory (IMRA, 10/24).


Iraq extracts enough oil to finance its needs, including a refinery that would save it the high price of imported, refined products. Corruption by officials and smuggling by rebels and gangsters leaves Iraq too little. Smuggling supports the insurgency (IMRA, 10/9).


Israeli military planners think that Syria either would try to bluff that it is about to go to war, in order to lure Israel into Golan-conceding negotiations, or it would launch a sneak attack, as Egypt did in 1973, which it expected to lose (though it nearly won), but which gave Kissinger an excuse for getting concessions for the Arabs from Israel.

The planners indicate they have worked with the government to identify Syrian targets in advance. These would be extensive, including government facilities and even water reservoirs. Unlike the Lebanon war, during which Israel fought Hizbullah but not the Syrian Army, naturally this war would oppose it to the Syrian army.

Syria, alone has more troops than Israel, 3,700 tanks (some that it could afford to buy when Russia cancelled Syria's $14 billion military debt), and an array of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass-destruction, probably chemical. Israel has moved some forces up the Golan, to guard against a sneak attack (IMRA, 10/9).

My analysis is that Israel is indicating the types of targets in advance, so that the head of Syria would not suppose that any diplomatic success would compensate for having a ruined country. Not that he would care about the damage to his people, but he would care about their consequent resentment of him. He also has to consider that too resounding a defeat would deprive him of diplomatic leverage.

If Egypt came in at the same time, however, the results might be different.


Both Presidents appeased those enemies of the US and of peace. The difference is that Clinton talked in a more friendly manner with the first two than does Bush. Because Bush seems to be truculent, the Democrats criticize him (IMRA, 10/10).

Nobody is thinking these issues through. They are playing politics with them.


Bhajar is a village that had straddled the border between Israel and Lebanon. As a result of the 1973 war, Israel annexed the Lebanese part of the village along with the Golan, and granted Israeli citizenship to the Arabs in the former Lebanese part. When PM Barak withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon, he also turned the former Lebanese part back to Lebanon. As a result, residents may go from one country to another, without inspection. Smugglers took advantage of such access and Hizbullah used it to spy on Israel. Israel had to put a fence around the village (Arutz-7, 10/10). Such an obvious mistake by Barak, Israel's "most decorated soldier." Not its smartest chief.


The West minimizes funding of the P.A., purportedly because Hamas won't recognize Israel and the peace accords (i.e., Hamas is too unpalatably warlike for the West to get away with it). Abbas said Hamas must recognize Israel's authority enough to work with but not enough to recognizing Israel's legitimacy.

Now Hamas is said to be considering recognizing Israel and the Oslo accords, but adding a proviso that this recognition must be consistent with the "interests" of the P.A., letting Hamas continue "resistance" (i.e., terrorism against Israel (Arutz-7, 10/11).

With that two-faced talk, Hamas hopes to give the West an excuse to pretend that now its government is responsible and peaceable. It probably was encouraged by Sec. Rice's praise for Abbas as willing to recognize Israel, the day after Abbas told his fellow Arabs that he was not willing to recognize Israel. She accepts great duplicity against Israel. Is she a dupe or duplicitous?

The US does not make a consistently decent leader of the Free World.


Just as the myopic lacks broad vision, so do the under-educated. Israeli youth know little of Jewish history and of the Jewish people's right to their homeland. When they hear Arab propaganda denying Israel's right to exist, it makes sense to them, since they lack the facts to see through it.

So said former Chief of Staff Ya-alon. Mr. Ya-alon has been issuing various thoughtful warnings. In an effort to do something about the propaganda problem, he is assisting a Jewish education effort (Arutz-7, 10/11).


A number of leftist Jewish intellectuals and rich individuals praise Hizbullah as being defensive and prick Israel as being unworthy of national existence. Among them is Noam Chomsky, who said that Israel and the US threaten Iran, so Iran must develop nuclear weapons. An Israeli leftist called Hizbullah a champion of resistance, but what she calls resistance means murdering innocent women and children (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/11). "Resistance" to what? Israel left Lebanon. Hizbullah is an aggressor.

Chomsky has it backwards. First Iran began developing nuclear weapons, in violation of signed agreements. Then the US asked for sanctions against Iran.

A well-meaning Jewish acquaintance told me he thought that the Tony Kushner movie, "Munich," was a great one. I pointed out that Kushner equated the Israelis in it with the terrorists. The acquaintance defended the movie's equating, by suggesting that Kushner merely treated the characters as human beings. I said that terrorists are not so much human beings as hate-filled savages, like the Nazis. Would he approve of a move that treated the SS for their "human" side? In addition, the movie lies about Israel and falsely makes the Israelis seem ashamed of their duty.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 29, 2006.

Hopefully unwittingly, President Bush has been advised to train and arm Force 17, first formed by the original Father of Terrorism, Yassir Arafat. But, before we deal with that, let us remind ourselves of how America built the Frankenstein Monster in Afghanistan, first to fight the Soviet Union.

The U.S. trained the Afghanis to fight like well-trained terrorists. She provided them with Stinger missiles, automatic weapons, explosives and then the CIA trained them to shoot with accuracy, blow-up tanks, planes and anything else that moves. All of that, equipment and training, flowed directly into the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

America created the Islamic Frankenstein Monster that turned on America - ending with 9/11. The blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is now in prison for life for murder in the first World Trade Center's Twin Towers attack, planning to bomb what they now call "New York landmarks" when they were the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Nations, the FBI building and prominent New York leaders. (1)

But first, the CIA/FBI tasked him to recruit Muslim would-be terrorists for Islam, "Jihadists", a new word for what the Arab world had always called "assassins". The blind Sheik recruited the Muslim terrorists (called "Mujahadin" - fighters for Islam) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. After that war, they flooded the Free World (easy to do, it was so "Free"). They flowed into America, Europe, increased pressures on all governments - even the Muslim ones. They set-up shop in what's called "sleeper cells". They infiltrated the Universities, Colleges, Media and even the Governments of the world.

The CIA trained them in America with all the know-how needed to be superb terrorists. In the end, the U.S. succeeded in training them to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan but, the price we paid was that we created an army of world-wide, world-class Islamic Terrorists who just happened to hate America - their foster parents.

After that Afghanistan War, these terrorists scattered. Some went back to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq. While others went underground in America, England, France, most of Europe. Wherever they went, it was like a cancer that metastasize throughout the body. They developed sleeper cells and trained others and so it goes - through today.

Some University professors have alleged that Israel is to blame for 9/11 and the U.S. war against Iraq, according to John Mearsheimer and his colleagues at New York U. and Columbia. Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily asks that these "anti-Israel twits explain what the Jewish State has to do with the conflicts in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Central Asia, Chad, India, Indonesia, Kosovo, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand and Uganda. These countries are all far from Israel but they have Islamic terrorists, radicals, guerrillas, rebels have attacked airliners, schools, tourist sites, other civilian targets, especially Christians - challenging their host governments, striving for a Muslim state with Shariah laws. As Farah says: "I wonder how these geniuses [university professors] discount the raging Islamic jihad on the march from the East to the West? Do they really think all of this bloodshed is about a tiny, fictional nation of Palestine? Who really believes any of this global fighting will stop if and when Israel ceases to exist?" (2)

Back to Force 17. Bush and his advisors to include his father's old cronies, still think they can buy the trust of the Arab Muslims. Some will recall when CIA Director George Tenet sent in CIA operatives to train Palestinians in electronic intercepts, sniper shooting, bomb-making, etc., on the theory that Arafat's Palestinians would coalesce his 9 separate Secret Services to fight or penetrate other Terrorist groups, like Hezb'Allah or Hamas. Instead, they turned their guns and training on Israel. American leaders remained silent and continued to fund Arafat.

If you are getting the idea that this thinking was short-sighted, even stupid, you would be right.

The CIA training succeeded in elevating Arafat's terrorists to effectively kill Israeli Jews. Well, now that Arafat's gone; Tenet is gone but, President George W. Bush's advisors and the Arabist State Department is still there, ready to fund and train Force 17 to, theoretically, protect the current President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen).

President Bush, not exactly a scholar or historian has forgotten the earlier lesson of Afghanistan where we created the Al Qaeda Monster and trained it to kill.

Are we to repeat history by arming and training Arafat's old Force 17 boys to protect Abu Mazen? Would it surprise President Bush to know that Abu Mazen's Fatah terrorists and Hamas' terrorists work together? Just as in Iraq where government forces (trained by the U.S.) work as police and soldiers during the day and at night join various militias to maraud and kill both their own people and American soldiers on patrol or helping to re-build Iraq. What Bush, his advisors and the Arabist State Department refuse to grasp is that they are Islamic Brothers under the skin and that America, Europe, Christians and Jews are the groups' enemies. One day we will have to again fight Iraq as it slides into the mind-set of Islamic "Jihad" (Islamic Holy War).

So now Bush, under CIA and military guidance will be building another Al Qaeda Monster in the form of Force 17. Earlier Ehud Olmert, Israel Prime Minister (who right now has only a 7% approval rating) under the thumb of Secretary of State Condollezza Rice allowed a shipment of 3000 automatic rifles and a million rounds of bullets to be transferred across Israeli borders escorted by IDF troops into the hand of Fatah. Now the U.S. will ship in more tonnage of weapons for Force 17.

Olmert (being the fool that he has shown himself to be), agreed to protect Abu Mazen with this weapons' transfer, some of which have already been used against Israelis. In prior years Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres under the Oslo they conspired to create, also armed the Arab Muslim Palestinians who used those weapons to bomb and shoot Israeli soldiers and civilians. As a result the Arab Muslim Palestinians killed more that 1700 Israeli Jews, wounded thousands more, many maimed for life. This is the "peace process" Oslo bought since the Israelis signed away a good piece of her sovereignty in secret (from the Israelis in the government and the people) Oslo Accords on September 13, 1993 - as well as political control over Jericho and Gaza.

Then with Oslo 2 they also gave away control over 7 cities. The Arab Muslims didn't even begin to keep the stipulations in the First Oslo Accords. Jewish synagogues (the ancient Jericho synagogue) and Kever Yosef (Joseph's Tomb) were desecrated and destroyed.

Bush and Abu Mazen selected Jericho as one of the two training grounds for Force 17. Up to now Jericho has been quiet but adding a few thousand Force 17 Police/Military 'cum' terrorists will change all that. A few thousand Force 17 strutting about with weapons courtesy of America and Israel will bring Jericho down to the level of Jenin and Nablus.

It has been reported that the Bush camp intends to double Force 17 manpower to somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 to 7,000, all trained by CIA and U.S. Forces. What wasn't reported was that they are already the beneficiaries of Russian weapons, funneled from Syria and Iran through Egypt. (3)

You do know that Sharon and Olmert forced evacuation of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from the homes, farms, factories, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even cemeteries. Despite that, the wasteful sacrifice of those 10,000 lives and jobs, the Gush Katif and Northern Samarian total eviction and destruction of 25 communities has failed miserably. The tonnage of weapons and explosives armed both Fatah and Hamas to the teeth, denials notwithstanding.

When, not if, Israel has to go back into Gaza and the 7 cities over which the Pals have control, in order to stop the attacks of Kassam rocket attacks, bombings, shootings and to confiscate the weapons, Israeli soldiers will pay a heavy price - again - over the same land they fought and died for over the 60 years - all for the Sharon-Olmert stupidity.

Everything that Sharon-Olmert did as a self-serving tactic in Gaza has made Israel extremely vulnerable. Hezb'Allah and Syria have sent in advisors and trainers to teach the Palestinians how to use longer range Katyusha Rockets and other Terrorist tactics. Isn't it wonderful, American-trained Force 17 will be working side-by-side with Hezb'Allah, Syria and Iran to train the Palestinians of Gaza to be the next Al Qaeda and Taliban ideological Islamic "Jihadist" forces. Good work, George, no doubt they will be grateful for the training when they activate the cells in America to blow up our cities.

I cannot help but wonder if Washington really believes that eliminating Israel will in any way stop Islamic Global Terror. Will the Bush family, James Baker, the Arabist State Department have an explanation when the Terrorists we trained blow up the Saudi oil fields? Will there be an American "Mea Culpa" when the Iraqi soldiers we have trained join Iran's Shi'ites in the War against America and Israel - using Iran's alleged nukes?

President Bush has remained virtually silent as Russia's President Vladimir Putin returns to his former ways as a KGB officer during the Cold War by arming Iran with nukes and missiles - much of which has been transferred to Iranian and Syrian proxies...Hezb'Allah. The Russians train terrorists; America trains Terrorists. Is there a difference?

Some will recall how Arafat's forces similarly strutted around Amman, Jordan threatening the locals and the Jordanian kingdom, breaking all agreements with King Hussein - until the King's brother sent the army to literally butcher them and force them to flee into Lebanon. That was called "Black September" although it took 17 months.

Arafat then set up his own "terror state within a state" in Lebanon, creating a 12 year Civil War which killed 100,000 Christians and Muslims. Hezb'Allah has followed Arafat's example by embedding their troops and explosives in civilian apartment buildings, hospitals and schools.

As the Force 17 is being trained, naturally other "Mujahadin" (fighters for Islam) will migrate into these areas to either be employed or simply to absorb the training which will pass from Force 17 to the "Mujahadin" - and from there to Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Syria, the Islamic Jihad, and the mix of "Mujahadin" terrorists presently in Iraq.

Americans seem to have this naive idea that once they train Arab Muslims to blow up something that the technology and training will stop there. Of course, it never does and then America sends her young soldiers to fight America's own technology and training.

We in the Free West (especially Israel and America) seem unable to learn from these repeated mistakes.

It is likely that Abu Mazen will be assassinated, either by Hamas, his own Fatah or Force 17. Then you will see a merging of these seemingly separate groups to attack Israel. As is said in Arabic: "My enemies' enemy is my friend."

This then will be part of the Bush legacy, along with that of his advisors who counseled him to fund and train Force 17.


1. "Rabbi Kahane's Murder...CIA - State Department - Saudi Arabia - Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman & the World Trade Center Bombing" by Emanuel Winston JEWISH NEWS July 1993

2. "Islamic Rage Has Little To Do With Israel" by Joseph Farah JEWISH PRESS Oct. 13, 2006

3. "Palestinian Militant: We'll use American Weapons Against Israel" by Aaron Klein JEWISH PRESS October 13, 2006

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Fried, October 29, 2006.

This was written by Clifford D. May who is a a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. It appeared on National Review Online October 27, 2006 and is archived at

Hamas may not have funds to pay the salaries of civil servants and improve social services for Palestinians. But resources to fund its propaganda efforts? That, evidently, is not a problem. This month, the terrorist organization that governs Gaza and the West Bank launched a satellite television station.

The new station will be broadcast by Arabsat, majority-owned by the Saudi government. Arabsat, along with Nilesat, owned by the Egyptian government, already distribute the programming of Al Manar, the television station of Hezbollah.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Manar have all been officially designated by the U.S. government as terrorist entities. Meanwhile, the Saudi government runs commercials in the U.S. claiming to be America's "ally" in the War on Terrorism. And the Egyptian government presents itself as our moderate Arab friend -- in exchange for billions of dollars in American aid.

The Hamas television station is called "The Light of Al Aqsa." Thanks to the Saudi government, its broadcasts will be available throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe as well. A senior Hamas official, Fathi Hammad, was candid enough to say that its mission would be to challenge "the Western culture that has invaded our territory."

If the model for Al Aqsa is Al Manar, it will feature a steady drumbeat of vilification and dehumanization of Americans, Israelis and Jews. It also will glorify suicide bombing, help recruit terrorists, raise funds for terrorist operations and directly incite terrorism.

Why is Hamas doing this now? One strong possibility is that Hamas expects to soon be at war -- with Israel, certainly, but also possibly with Fatah, the Palestinian organization it defeated at the polls early this year.

During the recent war in Lebanon, Al Mana proved an effective weapon for Hezbollah. Through its broadcasts -- and with the help of its Saudi and Egyptian satellite providers -- Hezbollah was able to drive its messages to the Arab world, into Europe and beyond. Among those messages: that Israel was intentionally targeting civilians, rather than Hezbollah fighters. That false charge diverted attention from the fact that Hezbollah was using Lebanese Christian and Muslim civilians as human shields, while also firing missiles at the Jews and Muslims who coexist peacefully in the northern Israeli city of Haifa.

Hamas wants to have the same communications capability, particularly if the conflicts it has been cultivating escalate. The relationship between Hamas and Fatah's leader, Palestinian Authority Chairman president Mahmoud Abbas, has been growing increasingly tense. Hamas Interior Minister Said Sayam has accused Abbas of planning a coup and has announced the deployment of a new, armed operational force in the West Bank where Fatah support is strongest. Abbas has reportedly ordered PA security forces to prevent such deployment.

At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is deciding what he needs to do to stop the Kassam missiles that have been raining down from Gaza virtually every day since the Israeli withdrawal from that territory more than a year ago. Also on his to-do list: blocking the smuggling of arms into Gaza through the Philadelphi route and Rafah crossing, destroying the anti-tank missiles and industrial explosives already smuggled into Gaza, and demolishing the tunnels that Hamas has been building in the direction of Israel's security fence.

In addition, Israelis would like to secure the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, a soldier captured in June by Hamas combatants operating on Israeli soil. This week, Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, accused Iran of paying money to Hamas to make sure Shalit's captivity continues.

In these circumstances, Hamas wants the ability to deliver its spin directly to Arab audiences, to win their sympathy and support, to raise money and perhaps recruit volunteers. And it wants to use satellite television to reach deep into Europe to incite Arabic speakers -- for example in the suburbs of Paris where French police are taking casualties daily in what they term an "intifada;" in London, where British security officials are desperately trying to track proliferating al Qaeda cells; and elsewhere in Europe where radical jihadist activity is on the rise.

The Europeans appear to be doing little to stop the Saudis and Egyptians from helping Hamas and Hezbollah incite terrorism. By contrast, it will not be surprising if -- besides missile factories and weapons warehouses -- the Israeli army soon targets Hamas television studios. And should a Palestinian civil war break out, it is not hard to imagine that Fatah might do the same.

Contact Milton Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 29, 2006.

French Islamofascist civil violence as prelude to what awaits the UK and USA.

A bit more than a year ago, French Moslem immigrant youth staged almost 4 months of riots and assaults and arson in areas around Paris. The violence spread quickly to other French cities, and then to other Western European cities. Moslem youth were quoted as saying that they would soon take over (Germany - the quote came from rioting German Moslems); that they would soon be in the majority and would then rule Europe; that they hated their host countries; that they would soon see shari'a law in these countries; that the non-Moslems of their host countries were sub-human....inter alia.

Reporters documented the process whereby older ring-leaders signaled the rioting youth via text-messaging, where messenger-suppliers rode on motor-bikes from banlieu (ex-urban slum quarter) to banlieu carrying boxes filled with gasoline bombs ready to be launched, where the violence in one banlieu was exported to another by the rioting youths at the commands (some verbal and some via text-messaging) of apparent ring-leaders who were clearly older and very well organized.

European newspapers treated the violence, clearly related to Islamic supremacist ideology, as 'civil disturbances' -- thanks in part to pressure from al-Walid bin-Talal (Saudi multi-billionaire prince and part owner of Ruppert Murdoch's communications empire).

Even now, a year later, French press still assesses the issue in terms of the "...immigrants not properly assimilating" and the government not "...doing enough to integrate the immigrants". And most French media sources deny any Moslem character to the riots.

Yet, before their eyes, per the descriptions in non-French news sources, the French are faced with a bona fide Moslem anti-French civil uprising.

The violence actually never stopped. It was reduced since January of 2006, but nightly car-arson has been commonplace in the banlieux, and police fear to enter unless in full riot-prevention force. Over the past few weeks it has resurfaced and now threatens to reach the levels of last October. Moslem youth in Moslem-dominated slum-quarters have the temerity to launch attacks agianst police with complete impunity. Thousands of vehicles are torched, thousands of police have been wounded, but no arrests are made.

No one can predict the future....but the dynamic seems clearly to be going in one direction. As French government response continues to be appeasement and apology and the obfuscation of the Islamo-fascist nature of the riots; and as Moslem youth and their leaders learn that they can break the law with impunity; it is likely to be only a matter of time before French Moslem leaders demand that the Moslem-dominated banlieux outside of Paris and elsewhere in France (outside of many major cities) become "Moslem only" enclaves where Shari'a is enforced even when it is contrary to French law.....and where French law is not welcome and will be repulsed with violence and arson and murder.

Multiply that by the number of such banlieux throughout France, and comparable Moslem-dominated slums in other western European countries where Moslem violence has exploded in the past and has gone un-addressed, ignored by the law enforcement agencies and the government even when the lives of host-country citizens are taken, or threatened.

It is this phenomenon of the unchecked rise of Moslem violence and localized power which gives substance to the assertions by some commentators that within the next few decades, Europe will become a Moslem-dominated sub-continent.

How does the French experience relate to the USA and the UK?

I think that we in the USA and in the UK are at an earlier stage of that same process....a process that already reached its denoument in Bangladesh and Somalia within the past few months: infiltrate peacefully; then push for power, control, concessions (and declare that any who resist are 'islamophobic' or 'racist'); then when the Moslem population has reached a tipping point in the larger host society, start the violence, topple the government, and replace it with Islamofascist rule. It has worked for 1,375 years in scores of countries from Mauritania to India. And it worked over the past few years in Bangaldesh and Somalia. And it is in the process of working now in the Philipines and parts of western Europe.

We are not at the stage of "tipping point" where Islamofascist leaders start the violence.....

.........But we are going through stages similar to those experienced in Europe two generations ago....and in Bangladesh and Somalia just a decade ago.

Our Somalian-American Moslem taxi drivers, encouraged and organized by the Moslem Brotherhood, suddenly seek to apply their version of Shari'a to their taxi cabs.

Our major mainstream universities receive mega-grants from Moslem sources, and suddenly certain Christian groups are not welcome on campus - both in the USA and the UK.

The governance of these same universities, beneficiaries of mega-grants from Moslem sources, turn a blind eye to pro-Islamofascist indoctrination in classrooms and Moslem-organized anti-Semtic rants and violence on campuses -- both in the USA and the UK.

Moslem PACs pressure local municipalities for "Moslem-only days" at local public swimming pools and at some amusement parks - both in the USA and the UK.

Moslem groups co-opt anti-war demonstrations and turn them into anti-Israel and anti-Jewish demonstrations.

Moslem groups pressure textbook companies to rewrite history so that Islam's bloody and violent past can be obfuscated, and 1,300 years of conversion at the point of the sword can be mendaciously mis-represented as joyous mass conversions to Islam by people who had seen "the radiant face of Islam".....and some USA textbook companies comply!

Moslem groups pressure local public schools to include teaching of Islam such that it violates the state-church separation sections of our Constitution. And the school systems comply....even as they prohibit Church groups from lobbying for the teachiing of Christianity in the same way!

Moslem groups pressure and co-opt a variety of political and social organizations (Green Party, Churches, Universities, National Lawyers Guild, even local women's shelters and teachers' organizations and municipal trade unions) to undertake political action against Israel which is completely unrelated to the missions of the organziations....and the organizations comply!

Moslem PACs pressure our judges to ignore the criminal brutality of female genital mutilation and the 'honor killings' of young Moslem women in our own country, because these gynophobic crimes are the cultural norms of Moslem societies from which the perpetrators originated.

Moslem candidates run for public office at congressional levels, and the press (and political opposition) ignore these candidates' connections to CAIR and Hamas - moreso in the UK than in the USA, but here too.

In short, Moslem public affairs groups and other social and religious and political leaders, some funded by oil sheikhs, some connected with terror groups (and especially with the Moslem Brotherhood - the founding force behind 20th and 21st century islamofascist terrorism), are pushing the envelope in many directions at once, on many different levels, in localities across the USA and on the federal level as well.....pushing to create a legitimacy for Moslem anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Christian and anti-Western norms and mores.

Every victory, whether in a public swimming pool or a public school or a public political office, or on the streets with the co-opting of anti-war demonstrations.....every victory sets the stage for the next escalation; and every escalation brings with it the expanded and enthused anti-Jewish and anti-Israel and anti-Christian and anti-American rhetoric that has come to typify the Islamofascist imams of mosques and anti-Israel rabble-rousers on campuses, throughout the USA and Canada and Australia....which in turn lead to more presssures and more demands and more escalation.

One cannot know that France's tragic situation will be replicated in the USA or the UK. But it seems clear that the forces leading in that direction are on the rise.

The first article below is a New York Sun editorial and is called "France's Permanent Intifada." It appeared October 27, 2006. It is followed by three articles from French news. Compare them

Only days after the violence in the Paris suburbs erupted onto the world's front pages a year ago, these columns described the battles between the Muslim youths and French police, in a November 4, 2005, editorial,"Intifada in France." We wrote: "If President Chirac thought he was going to gain peace with the Muslim community in France by taking an appeasement line in the Iraq war, it certainly looks like he miscalculated. Today the streets of the French capital are looking more like Ramallah and less like the advanced, sophisticated, gay Paree image Monsieur Chirac likes to portray to the world, and the story, which is just starting to grip the world's attention, is full of ironies. One is tempted to suggest that Prime Minister Sharon send a note cautioning Monsieur Chirac about cycles of violence."

The "Intifada" label was dismissed in many quarters. On November 5, John Lichfield in Britain's Independent wrote "from the centre of the world's most beautiful city" that "despite the inflammatory rubbish written by some right-wing commentators in the French press about a 'Paris intifada', this is not an Islamic insurrection or a political revolution of any kind." He predicted that the riots "will burn themselves out in a few days, just as they have before." The Washington Post editorialized on November 8 that " It's not the European version of an intifada: Islamic ideology and leaders play no role in the disturbances." Bernard-Henri Levy wrote on November 9 in the Wall Street Journal that "this is not, thank heaven, a matter of an Intifada wearing French colors."

Well one year later, the riots are still going on, and the French themselves are now calling it an intifada. France's Interior Ministry reported that almost 2,500 police officers were "wounded" in the first six months of the year. Rescue workers need police escort in the Muslim dominated suburbs. The AP recently reported from Paris: "On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized, and no arrests were made. The recent, apparently planned ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent state of conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods."

The head of a police trade union Action Police, Michel Thooris, recently told the interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, that the situation in the slums can be described as a "permanent Intifada." Almost every day police cars are pelted by, among other objects, Molotov cocktails. Mr. Thooris told journalists that "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists." He said that "Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of 'Allah Akbar' (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned," the AP reported.

We recount this not out of any schadenfreude. But all our lives, we have thought of France in a certain way, as Charles of Gaulle once said. We would actually like to see the Fifth Republic come to its senses and see that its interests are with the rest of the Free World and that appeasement is not an answer, not in France, not in Israel, and not in Iraq. We are not with the anti-immigration movement.

One of France's faults is what we, in one of last year's editorials, called its "failure to integrate its immigrant Muslim community." It's a community that "lives in areas rampant with crime, poverty, and unemployment, much the fault of France's prized welfare system Immigration into a country with a dirigiste economy is a recipe for trouble, which is why supporters of immigration into France have long warned of the need for liberalization."

But there has been no liberalization. The French labor market is as inflexible as ever. Unemployment still is in the double digits, and it's highest among the immigrants and minority populations. All this, as we noted, "is compounded by the image France projects of itself to its Muslims, which one can surmise is the reason why Muslims see rioting as the solution to any grievance." Monsieur Chirac didn't join the war in Iraq out of fear of his domestic Muslim population. And so, "unsurprisingly when faced with some unhappiness they believe they can pressure the French state into submission."

The way out for France is two-fold. Firstly to reform its welfare state and allow the Muslim dominated slums to integrate into French society. The second is to send a signal to the French Muslim community that France doesn't buckle under threats, that it sees itself as part of the West, allied with America, Israel, and the Free World. On a domestic level, that means employing Mayor Giuliani-style "zero-tolerance" policing in the suburbs. On a national level, France would do well to send troops to fight the Islamists in Iraq and prove themselves to be true members in the coalition in the war on terror. As it is, France is learning the profound truth of which President Bush has begun speaking in respect of Iraq - if we retreat, the enemy will follow us home.

[Compare above to French coverage below (DML)]

"Hundreds march in French suburb one year after riots"
Oct 27 1:58 PM US/Eastern, Agence France Presse

Hundreds of people marched in a silent tribute to two teenagers whose death exactly one year ago sent a wave of urban riots surging through France, sparking the country's most serious social crisis in 30 years.

French authorities were on alert for a new flare-up of violence after youth gangs, some carrying handguns, torched -- and in one case hijacked -- three buses near Paris on Wednesday, but police reported no major trouble overnight.

In Clichy-sous-Bois, the poor northeast Paris suburb where the riots erupted on October 27, 2005, around 1,000 people, most of them youngsters, filed quietly Friday morning past the spot where the two boys died.

"Once again, France and the world are watching us," the mayor of Clichy Claude Dilain told the crowd. "We need the calm, dignity and courage that are visible here to prevail. Let us show them who we really are."

"Let's not give anyone cause to point the finger at us," added local association leader Samir Mihi.

Many of the marchers wore white T-shirts printed with the words "Zyed and Bouna, Dead for nothing."

Zyed Benna, 17, and Bouna Traore, 15, both from immigrant families of African descent, were electrocuted as they hid from a police patrol in a power sub-station.

Riots broke out in Clichy that night, quickly spreading to dozens of immigrant-populated suburbs in the Paris region and beyond.

Night after night for three weeks, youth gangs clashed with police, torching more than 10,000 cars and firebombing 300 buildings in around 275 towns, until order was officially restored on November 17.

With the approach of the anniversary, police and local mayors have warned that the conditions that led to the riots remain firmly in place in the poor out-of-town neighbourhoods, plagued by unemployment of 30 to 40 percent.

Nationwide, police were under orders to be vigilant but to keep their presence low-key, to avoid encouraging confrontations with youths, officers told AFP.

France's tough-talking Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy vowed Thursday following the bus attacks that the government would mobilize all the forces at its disposal for the security of public transport users.

On Friday, Sarkozy told reporters in southern France that "there is no anniversary" to celebrate -- saying his prime concern was for ordinary people "who do not smash things up (but) who count too."

French and international media have been scrutinising the Paris suburbs for signs of a new outbreak of violence -- despite warnings that the television cameras could spur young rioters on.

Around 60 journalists joined Friday's march in Clichy-sous-Bois, where the boys' families led mourners past their old school to inaugurate a monument in their memory.

Last year's riots -- which led the government to declare a state of emergency, a measure not enacted since the Algerian war half a century earlier -- cast an unforgiving spotlight on France's trouble in integrating its Arab-origin and black communities.

Badly shaken by the crisis, the government promised measures such as an extra 100 million euros (125 million dollars) for local associations, bigger training schemes and a crackdown on racial discrimination for jobs.

But a chorus of voices has warned of the inertia that dogs French policy towards the "banlieues," as the suburbs are known.

With six months to go to France's presidential election, the festering situation is certain to be a main campaign theme.

The opposition Socialist Party accuses Sarkozy, the centre-right presidential frontrunner, of being part of the problem because of a tough line on law and order that has made him a hate figure in the "banlieues."

Sarkozy argues that left-wing welfare policies are at the root of the crisis -- and that a liberalized economy combined with positive discrimination is the only way to provide jobs and hope.

"France: Police Preparing For Replay Of Paris Muslim Riots"
October 23, 2006

Last year on Thursday, October 27, people took to the streets to protest at the deaths of two Muslim youths. Two days earlier, three youths in the northeastern Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois saw a group of police, and ran. The police, who were questioning a group of other youths who had broken into a building site, denied that they had given chase to the three Muslim youths. The three climbed an eight foot wall, to hide inside an electricity sub-station. They hid inside a turbine. As a result, all three became electrocuted. Two of the youths, 17-year old Ziad Benna and 15-year old Banou Traor died, and the third, Metin, was hospitalized.

What followed was the worst rioting that Paris had seen since the 1960s. By the time the civil unrest had officially ended on November 21, more than 9,000 vehicles had been incinerated, along with countless garbage bins. Hundreds of police and firefighters had been injured. Some had been shot. Public buildings, including synagogues and Jewish schools had been burned by the predominantly Muslim rioters.

The riots had spread within the first fortnight to include several other towns, including Dijon, Amiens, Arras, Lille, Brest and Toulouse. Imitations of the rioting had taken place in Belgium, in Antwerp and Ghent. A church had been set on fire in Drome in the south of France, and at least two mosques had been attacked in retaliation. The worst incident occurred when a 56-year old disabled woman was set alight on a bus in Paris within the first week of the disturbances. She had petrol poured on her, and received 20% burns.

Since then, there have been threats of a resurgence of the civil unrest. On May 29, riots broke out in the suburb of Montfermeil, Paris. About 100 youths armed with sticks and baseball bats fought police and tried to attack the home of the mayor, Xavier Lemoine. In April, Lemoine had introduced anti-hoodlum measures, prohibiting gatherings of more than three youths at any one time in the town center of Montfermeil. The youths shook the gates of his home and smashed windows. The rioting continued for another night, and then died down.

On Tuesday, September 17 youths ambushed a riot police (Compagnies Republicaines de Securite, or CRS) vehicle in Corbeil-Essonnes in the southeast of Paris, as they patrolled the Les Tartarets housing project. The two people from the vehicle were beaten and one (pictured) was hospitalized.

On Sunday, October 1 seven police officers were injured in clashes with youths in Les Mureaux, in the western outskirts of Paris.

On October 5, the Telegraph reported that the head of a police union, "Action Police", stated that: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

"We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

On October 13 at Epinay-sur-Seine, another Parisian suburb, another police patrol was ambushed by youths wearing masks. three police were subjected to the attack. One needed 30 stitches to his facial injuries after being struck by a rock. In Aulnay-sous-Bois on October 20, two police vehicles were attacked with stones, iron bars and molotov cocktails. One police officer required stitches to a head wound.

The signs of violence are increasing. On Sunday at Grigny in Paris, a bus from the public transport group RATP was set on fire and destroyed (pictured, below left), along with three cars. 30 youths had surrounded the bus, ordered its passengers to dismount, and torched it. Fire-fighters who tried to put out the blaze were pelted with stones. Two people were arrested, including a 13 year old.

Yesterday, Associated Press stated that for the first six months of this year, there had been 2,458 incidents of violence against police nationally, compared to 4,246 in the whole of 2005.

Today, the French newspapers Le Figaro and Le Monde carry articles warning that police fear that riots on the scale of those which took place last year are ready to flare up again.

In one article from Le Figaro, voices the concerns of the French General Intelligence Agency (Renseignements Gnraux or RG). These have compiled a 17 page document entitled: "Inventory of issues in the sensitive districts." The report states that the conditions which caused the riots last year are still in place and highlighted their concerns for the le-de-France region. This is the area of greater Paris in the south, including districts such as Essonnes, which saw large amounts of arson and physical assault on officers last year.

For the past fortnight, the ministry of the interior has been on high alert, and warning that the slightest slip-up, even verbal, could ignite the powderkeg of unrest.

The RG warns that much responsibility for potential rioting lies in the hands of the media. It mentions a persistent rumour that journalists are scouring the estates in the suburbs, looking for incidents of unrest to report on, thus adding to the tensions.

They also point to the upcoming school holiday of All Saints' Day (All Hallows, on November 1), combined with the end of Ramadan, as days of potential unrest. On November 1, "many urban young people will be left to their own devices and will have greater freedom to cause unrest." RG states that the end of Ramadan, tomorrow, will invoke "a certain tension in the young people".

RG notes that the initial focus of last year's rioting soon became blurred, and observe that "there is no solidarity between districts". They state that there is no proof that the youths have an organized agenda, and claim that notions that the rioters kept each other informed via weblogs was a product of the imaginings of a few "idealists" of solidarity whose notions collide with the interests of those in the underground economy.

Le Monde questions the ways that reporting of the problems of the "Banlieues" has changed over the past year. Media treatment of incidents against police appear at first sight to be no different, states Jean-Marie Charon, a sociologist from a think-tank entitled "Discussions on Info". He states that the media is still lacking a sufficiently detailed and analytical approach to the long-term issues affecting the troubled suburbs.

Media which have dedicated teams or who report on the suburbs when there is no crisis still remain the exception, Charon states. Herve Guilbaud, French editor of Agence France Presse news agency says that the banlieues "are a world in their own right, which has its codes, its rules. We are possibly a bit more vigilant. We examine all the sparks. We try to take a low profile, so as not to be instrumental (in events), particularly in this pre-election period." AFP has "a network of reporters comprising 8 journalists stationed in the suburbs, with an additional reserve of advisors and freelance journalists. This set-up has not changed. But even with this set-up we are not necessarily ultra-powerful."

Le Monde also discusses the findings of the RG., as does Nouvel Observateur, both drawing on the information leaked in Le Figaro. The RG suggested to the prefectures of potential risk areas that there should be youth facilities available at night in the suburbs, so that young people have somewhere to go other than the streets. RG also recommended that garbage can collections should take place during the days when expected unrest may develop. These were frequently set on fire last year.

Additionally, the RG recommends that all unused cars should be removed from trouble spots. In the event of trouble, residents' associations must be used to relay calls for calm.

It also notes that the incidence of youth crime has increased this year, with 50,000 incidents carried out by young people in the first six months of 2006. In the region of Seine-Saint-Denis, which saw the first outbreaks of rioting last year, there have been marked increases of attacks against persons and property, and note that increasingly young delinquents are seeking to directly challenge the representatives of authority.

In another article, Nouvel Observateur discusses an incident which took place at Aulnay-sous-Bois in the Seine-Saint-Denis district.

Police heard reports of an explosion in the area on Saturday night around 11.30 pm, and when they arrived, flaming projectiles were thrown at them by about 15 youths. A 17 youth was questioned. As police went to question another youth, a second explosive device placed in a container caused flames to shoot 30 feet into the air, stated witnesses. Police reinforcements were called, and with the intervention of 50 CRS and police, calm was restored. No police were injured in what one officer described as an ambush. Aulnay-sous-Bois has about 20,000 people under the age of 25 living there. The suburb is generally regarded as peaceful.

"500 Extra Police Sent to Paris Suburbs" By Jean-Marie Godard Clichy-Sous-Bois, France (AP) - Oct 27, 2006 Associated Press

French officials pledged to deploy hundreds of extra police on buses and streets in restive Parisian suburbs on Friday, the first anniversary of rioting that raged through heavily immigrant housing projects on the outskirts of cities nationwide.

The interior minister promised to put officers on buses serving some Paris suburbs after rampaging youths, some toting pistols, burned three buses after forcing off the passengers.

A police union said more than 500 extra riot police have been assigned to the capital's suburbs.

The attacks, and recent ambushes of police, have raised concern about the changing character of the violence, which appears more premeditated than last year's spontaneous unrest, and no longer restricted to the housing projects.

Last year's three weeks of riots were sparked by the Oct. 27, 2005 deaths of two boys of African descent, who were electrocuted in a power substation in Clichy-sous-Bois, northeast of Paris, while hiding from police.

The rioting, which hit projects primarily populated by people of Arab and black African descent living outside France's big cities, was fueled largely by anger over entrenched discrimination against immigrants and their French-born children, many of them Muslims from former French colonies in Africa. Despite an influx of funds and promises since then, disenchantment still is rife in those communities.

About 10 attackers - five armed with handguns - stormed a bus in Montreuil, east of Paris, early Thursday and forced the passengers off, the RATP transport authority said. They then drove off and set the bus on fire. The bus driver was treated for shock, the RATP said.

The handguns were unusual - last year's rioters were armed primarily with crowbars, stones, sticks or gasoline bombs.

Late Wednesday, three attackers forced passengers off another bus in Athis-Mons, south of Paris, and tossed a Molotov cocktail inside, police officials said. The driver managed to put out the fire.

In yet another attack Wednesday night, between six and 10 youths herded passengers off a bus in the western community of Nanterre and set it alight.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, a leading contender for next year's presidential elections, pledged to assign police officers to protect public buses. He said he hoped to avoid suspending public transport to sectors judged to be high-risk.

Marc Gautron, national secretary of the UNSA police union, said Parisian suburbs overall would have more than 500 specially trained riot officers for the anniversary weekend.

"It's better to be over-prepared than to come up short," Gautron said. "We want to be able to make the maximum number of arrests if a bus or a person are attacked."

Unions demanded that the RATP allow drivers to stop work in case of imminent danger. "We will take measures that become necessary to avoid sensitive neighborhoods," Francois Saglier, director of bus service, told reporters. The drivers feel "worry but at the same time a great sense of responsibility," he said.

Sarkozy said he would meet with public transportation officials and asked police to "mobilize all resources" to protect the transit system.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin urged a swift, stern response, but also said France should "revitalize" troubled neighborhoods.

France's inability to better integrate minorities and recent violence are becoming major political issues as the campaign heats up for next year's presidential and parliamentary elections.

Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, who is considering whether to run in next year's presidential election, said Thursday that recent attacks demonstrate "a desire to kill."

"Some individuals are looking for provocations, and sometimes go further," she said on i-Tele television. She acknowledged people facing unemployment and overcrowded housing "have trouble finding their place" in society.

A silent march through Clichy was planned for Friday morning, along with other memorial events. The police union Alliance called on Thursday for officers to stage protests in front of city halls across France on Nov. 13.

"Police cannot be the only ones to confront the difficulties of the suburbs," said Alliance secretary general Jean-Claude Delange.

Candidates for the opposition Socialist Party's presidential nomination criticized the government's handling of the suburbs during a debate Thursday ahead of next month's party primary.

Former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius said the recent flare-up showed the government's policies are a "total failure."

"One year ago, Bouna and Zyed were burned to a cinder," he said, referring to the two electrocuted boys. "Nothing has changed" since then.

A judge investigating the electrocutions summoned several police officers to testify, France Info radio reported Thursday. It was not clear how many officers received summons.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mrla, October 29, 2006.
by Egon Flaig, FAZ, 15 September 2006 Translation by Diotima

This is the full translation from the German of Egon Flaig's article, "Der Islam will die Welteroberung" published by Western Resistance.com. It was translated by Diotima.

"For we want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again, who were lucky enough, to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam's lap. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be".

These are not the words of Al Qaeda, they were taken from the programme formulated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, in a speech. The Brotherhood today has millions of adherents and spread out far beyond Egypt. Its intellectuals are working in Europe and the United States; they count as "moderates" and are treated accordingly by the media. Re-conquest of "lost" territory according to plan is part of the agenda of states, i.e., is political communities, fighting about territorial power. How can it be part of a religion's programme? Is Islam a religion like any other?

Since the beginning of the classical period between the ninth and the eleventh century Islamic jurists have divided the world into two parts, namely the "House of Islam" and the "House of War". This dichotomy is independent of where Muslims live in large numbers, or even form the majority, but depends on where Islam rules supreme - by applying Shariah - or where it does not rule. So, this dichotomy is not religious in nature, but political. Between these two parts of the world naturally exists a state of war, until the House of War is no more and Islam rules the world (Sura 8, 39 and 9, 41). Thus, according to classical teaching, for the Muslim community there is a duty to wage war against the disbelievers, until those either convert, or submit. This war is called jihad.

While Jesus' missionary call meant to convert all peoples, but to leave their political order untouched, Islam's aim is to submit all non-muslims politically, but to leave their religion untouched, if it is a religion of the book. God's general call to jihad is based on surah 9, 29. It is true, though, that minute factions of Islam did not accept this interpretation. The Shiites accept it, but demand that a true imam must lead the Muslim community (and has been waiting for such a one for more than 13 centuries), so that for the time being they only feel bound to defensive jihad, in the case of attacks on the Muslim community.

On the other hand, the other factions, e.g. the so-called Kharijites, have radicalized the content of Sura 9.29: for them, jihad is an individual duty of each able-bodied Muslim, which counts as a sixth pillar next to the other five cardinal duties. In the consequence of such teachings: when everyone has to either take part in the collective war against the unbelievers, or, should the Muslim community be too weak for the time being, has to wage war alone or in small groups, then assassinations and terror attacks are right. What the Kharijites demand for offensive jihad, most proponents of orthodox Sunnah-teachings demand for defensive jihad: when Islam is being attacked, or islamic territory is being invaded by infidels, jihad becomes an individual duty, e.g. a fatwa of the Grand Mufti of Cairo's Al-Azhar university - against Israel - leaves no doubt about that.

Any enemy power that acts according to the Hague rules of warfare and strictly distinguishes combatants and non-combatants will be in great difficulty. The state of war lasts so long, until the House of War is destroyed, and the world is conquered. This is why Majid Khadduri calls Islam a "divine nomocracy on imperialist foundations". Peace treaties, which Islamic rulers closed with non-Islamic rulers, were only considered as cease- fires; this is why as a rule, they were only closed for no more than ten years. Two schools of jurisprudence permit no more than three to four years of peace. The short deadlines made it possible for the militarily superior Muslims to constantly blackmail their adversaries; this way throughout the centuries huge amounts of money and humans went to the Muslim side.

When the paradigm of power shifted, Muslim rulers had to change their practice. Thus in 1535 Suleiman the Magnificent made a peace with the French king which was to last for the lifetime of the Sultan - a break with tradition. Christian theologians tried to define, in the face of a plurality of states, what could be deemed a "just war" and what could not be deemed such. To wage war just in the interest of faith for the most part was not considered just. For Muslim scholars on the other hand, the "house of Islam" is a political unit, which does not permit internal war, therefore only war for the subjugation of infidels was considered legitimate and even a duty, as the famous fourteenth-century scholar Ibn Chaldun categorically states: "In Islam the jihad is prescribed by law, because it has a universal calling and is supposed to convert all of humanity to Islam, be it of their own free will, or by force".

The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with the Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of Islam and of Old Testament Judaism. Of the six general commands on destroying the Canaanites, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the destruction of the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities. The other four concern driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them. We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: in 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).

The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it. The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye'or's evaluation therefore is more than justified: "Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest". Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.

The incredible speed, in which in 90 years an Arabian empire spanning from the south of France to India developed, with no single conqueror guiding the expansion, is unique. The world's most successful imperialism was admired by no less than Hegel: "Never has enthusiasm as such done bigger deeds". If "enthusiasm" could do such a thing - what was its source? The answer is simple: martyrdom. Something happening in 963 in Constantinople may illustrate this: the emperor Nikephoros Phokas had just swept the Muslim invaders from Crete; now, he was planning a big war, to liberate eastern Anatolia and northern Syria from Muslim rule. A council should help him: he pleaded with the bishops, to elevate soldiers dying in the war to the status of martyrs. Paradise would then have been assured for those soldiers. The patriarch stood up against the emperor: no church council could be empowered to anticipate God's decision, only God could decide on eternal salvation.

A scene of historical significance. The emperor knew what was at stake. Again and again, the Byzantians had to witness the Muslim troops fighting with a ferocious courage that the Christians could not emulate. Fallen Muslims were considered martyrs of the faith and marched straight to paradise. The concept of a martyr is fundamentally different in the two religions. Christian martyrs imitate the passion of Jesus, passively submit to torture and death; Muslim martyrs are active fighters.

Decisive for the warriors' acceptance of death was the firm promise of eternal salvation for those who die for the faith (surah 4, 74-76). Muslims should withstand a tenfold force (surah 8, 66-67); retreat was judged to be acceptable by later scholars if the enemy was at least double as strong, as Khadduri describes. As the decisive factor in any war is the fighting human being and his readiness to sacrifice himself, being on a par technically with the Arabs and Seljuks - in the long run, they had to succumb, if their morale was not of the same kind. Higher readiness to die is an enormous advantage in a fight - foolhardy operations can be waged and dashing maneuvers to surprise and confuse the enemy; in that way, victory can be forced, that is technically and materially almost impossible, and battles are won, that would be lost under the usual circumstances.

Nikephoros knew about the military consequences of surah 4, 74-76; he was the first who tried to correct the conceptual military disadvantage of the Christian religion. But the bishops of the Eastern Church found themselves incapable of manipulating their theology in a way to create warlike martyrdom. This was it. The Byzantine emperors had to wage their heavy defensive wars against the permanent Saracen and Seljuk aggression without the help of religion, where they needed that help most.

Only the Western Church changed the theological-political situation: when Pope Urban II called the first crusade in 1095, he promised the Christian warriors forgiveness for their sins: fallen crusaders avoided divine judgement and were put on a par with martyrs in that respect, although they were denied that name. The Pope as head of a monarchic church did just that, what the Council of Eastern bishops had not been able to do: he dispensed salvation. The papal church now could have the kind of "holy war" Islam had been waging for centuries. What is the difference between Crusade and jihad? A Crusade could only be called by the Pope, and thus remained a rare occurrence - compared to the countless, never-ending and ubiquitarian jihads of the Islamic world. And the goals of the Crusades remain precisely defined; in November 1095, Urban II defined reason and aim of the crusade: "it is obvious, we must give help to our brothers in the east as soon as possible. The Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have invaded the realm of Romania (Constantinople) and by invading the lands of these Christians ever more deeply, they won seven battles, killed or captured a huge number of the Christians. If you don't oppose them now, the faithful servants of God in the Orient will not withstand this storm much longer". The first Crusades were meant to either help Christians in need, or to liberate the holy places in Palestine or to liberate Christians that had been subjugated by Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslim scholars always kept firm to their final goal, to conquer the "house of war" and subjugate all infidels.

Urban II was right. Had Constantinople fallen in 1100, the enormous military power of the Turk armies would have plagued Europe four hundred years earlier. Then the manifold European culture probably would never have been: no free urban constitutions, no constitutional debates, no cathedrals, no renaissance, no scientific boom, because in the Islamic world, free - Greek! - thinking was dying just at this time. Jacob Burckhardt's evaluation - "A stroke of luck, that Europe as a whole could ward off Islam" - means, we owe about as much to the Crusades, as to the Greeks' victory against the Persians. But, have the Crusades not been abused? Certainly. Crusades "derailed" and were "abused", like the one that led to the conquest of Christian Constantinople in 1204. But that happened much more often with jihads. When slaves became scarce, emirs did not merely wage wars against non-Muslim peoples, who had to be enslaved anyway, but more and more often against Islamized peoples, under the pretext, that they were no true Muslims. That happened mainly in Africa and against black Africans, e.g. when first in 1468 Songhay and then the Moroccans in 1552 invaded Mali, or when in the 18th century religious reformers waged their jihad against Muslimized Hausa cities, which led to the creation of the Sokoto-caliphate - containing the third largest number of slaves after Brazil and the American south. Africa to this day suffers from the consequences of this permanent jihad with its genocides and mass-enslavements Well, and what was the political order that the Muslims waged their holy wars for with such vehemence and success? For Shariah. A political order, which for one strictly separates masters from the subjugated and secondly takes political and social order away from human influence for the most part. Let's talk about the first aspect: According to the Shariah, the Muslims are masters, the followers of other "book religions" - Christians, Jews, Parsees, Buddhists, are subjugated, Dhimmi. These were not religious minorities, but huge majorities, especially in Syria, Anatolia or the Christians of North-Africa. The subjugated were not allowed to carry weapons, they were unarmed, thus not 'real men'. Christians and Jews had to wear special colors or pieces of clothing (this discrimination was the origin of the "Judenstern") so as to be visibly "dhimmi"; they were not allowed to ride on horseback, only on mules, to remind them of their subjugation; they paid a special tribute (jizyah), that they had to pay personally, while being given a slap on the head. They had to let themselves be beaten by any Muslim, without being allowed to defend themselves; if a dhimmi retaliated, his hand would be cut off, or he would be executed. A dhimmi's witness did not count against a Muslim, who only had to pay half the fine for any crime committed against a dhimmi, and could never ever get executed for any such crime. On the other side, the most cruel methods of execution were reserved for the dhimmie.

Even the discrimination against the Jews, installed by the Western Church in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, four hundred years after Islam, and which seems so barbarian to us, did not intend and did not lead to such a degree of humiliation and demeaning of people. A special horror was brought by the Turkish rule: from 1360 up to a fifth of Christian children were abducted into slavery. They were forcefully converted. The number of slaves through four centuries must have been millions; hundreds of thousands of choice boys among those were raised to be fanatical Muslims and elite fighters, the notorious Janissaries: a politic meant to systematically increase the Muslim population and slowly exterminate Christians. It was successful. "Dhimmitude" put non-Muslims in a state of radical "otherness". To call people in this state "second class citizens" is a euphemism.

In the same way national socialism divided humans into master-race and subhumans on racial grounds, so Shariah did it on religious grounds. As the first world-religion, Islam created an apartheid, where Christian or Parsee majorities were colonized and slowly Islamized. Islamic tolerance meant: tolerate the subjugated as humiliated and demeaned. All this is well known via studies about "dhimmitude". But who wants to hear about the millions of victims? Islam religiously "cleansed" huge territories: the second Caliph made the Hijaz, Arabia except Yemen "judenrein" and "christenrein"; the alternative was either to convert, or to be forced into emigration. Except for some Old Testament cases no religion ever before had done that. In the same way the Almohadis and Almoravids "cleansed" Spain after the breakdown of the Caliphate in 1031: tens of thousands of Jews and Christians had to either convert or flee to the Christian north of Spain, or the Levant. Certainly, English and French kings and the kings of Spain later on did the same - they applied the Muslim recipe in doing it. And the pogroms? Since the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) waves of persecution again and again hit the Orient and North Africa, where Jews and Christians were forcibly converted, kicked out or massacred. The destruction of churches went on and on right until the century before last. Slowly, the rosy picture of Muslim Spain created by European anti- imperialism in the 19th century loses its fake colors. A scrupulous study of documents shows a different picture below that. In 889 in Elvira and in 891 in Seville, there were massive pogroms against Christians. In Moroccan Fez in 1033, 6000 Jews were massacred. 1058 Christian Antioch was forcefully Muslimized with torture and threats of death.

The first large pogrom against Jews on European soil happened in 1066 in Muslim Granada, 1500 Jewish families were killed. In 1135 the Jewish quarter of Cordoba was burnt down, it might be good, not to know the number of people massacred then. In 1159 all the Christians in Tunis had to chose between conversion or death. At this time, the vital Christianity of North Africa was completely wiped out. The pogroms in Christian lands are nothing to be proud of in European history, but their scope lags behind the ones in the Muslim world. We urgently need a comparative study of religious oppression.

Let's talk about integration of the Jews? Nowhere under the rule of Islam, not even in the Spanish Caliphate, were Jews citizens of their own cities, they always remained subjugated. In some German cities - Worms, Augsburg and others - during the high Middle Ages the Jews were citizens, albeit of special legal status. They had the right to carry arms and were better off than poorer Christian people. Right until the 14th century, when their situation got worse, they were far better integrated than Jews in Muslim Spain could ever hope to be. Who thinks highly of political integration cannot but prefer Augsburg to Cordoba. All this has been well known in academic circles for fifteen years. But who wants to hear it?

To ignore the past means to re-live it. He who keeps on spreading the fairytale of Muslim tolerance, stands in the way of those Muslim intellectuals, who seriously work towards a reformation of Islam, which started out so promisingly in the 19th century. He steals away their chance to overcome a past, which threatens to become a horrible present. If the reformers could achieve a radical de-politicization of Islam, the Muslims could become real citizens of their states. That would leave the highly spiritual religion, which fascinated not only Goethe. Hegel called Islam the "religion of the sublime". It could become that.

Contact Mrla at Mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 29, 2006.

It is Chai time to reduce the per barrel price of oil! Chai is the Hebrew word for life, built from the number eighteen. If the per barrel price of oil is reduced to even Chai times two or thirty-six dollars, prospects for a secure life in Israel, and indeed throughout our dysfunctional planet, will be immensely improved. Fossil fuel drenched Iran continues to spin nuclear fuel-producing centrifuges while a foolish fuel-addicted world threatens to impose superficial sanctions, in effect does nothing, to stop the revolving test tubes from hell. Meanwhile, a Dr. Strangelove obsessed Persian President Mahmoud AhMADinejad, that farcical fascist Farsi-spewing fanatical Shiite of 'lets wipe Israel off the map' fame, and his turbaned crew of misogynist mullahs, may very well consider detonating a test tube baby nuke-to-be or two or three, setting the stage for an imagined twelfth Imam, in all his gory magic sword-wielding glory, to descend on a hotter-than-hell glowing earthly surface, direct from that Islamic paradise in the sky, to slay all remaining non-believers, and declare this purified putrefying planet a Jew/infidel free zone, safe for AhMADinejad, those malevolent mullahs, and all their Koran reciting Shiite Muslim minions to live happily ever after, entertained indeed by malleable Allahland virgin groupies ever willing to divest themselves of their de rigueur burkas. Amazingly, all those nukes-to-be are to be paid for with petrocurrencies, extorted from citizens of those very infidel industrial nations to be fried or subsequently slain by the magic sword-wielding Imam, at today's sixty dollar plus per barrel 'bargain basement' price.

There is one slight tweak to this scenario, just in case AhMADinejad and his hot to trot motley crew of mullahs get cold feet. In a saner moment they might grasp the fact that Imam the infidel slayer and his radiant virgins may not wish to truly radiate, thus will not show on game day, exposing Iran to massive doses of its own nuclear medicine prescribed by attacked industrial nations, especially number one on the attacked list Israel. Since these Shiites would rather not reside within a sovereign state morphed to a melting parking lot, they might very well opt to supply kindred spirit fanatical friends such as Hamas and Hizbullah with nuclear warheads, sit back and swear 'not me' after those jihadist jackals launch missiles of death at Jews and perhaps one day others in the crosshairs of their hatred. Would any threatened or someday likely fired upon 'infidel' nation direct its wrath at Tehran with no obvious smoking nuclear gun, still dependent on a stable flow of oil, leaning on a burning Israel, probably the initial target of those terrorists, to cool its jets as well?

All this can be prevented by substantially reducing the price paid for extracted fossil fuel. Thirty-six dollars per barrel (or less) would deprive Iranian psychopaths of surplus funds to finish building their nuclear arsenal, as all revenues would now be needed to buy basics for restive especially youthful revolutionary minded Muslim masses, even now less than enthralled by a sputtering economy, who otherwise would tar and feather a government most cannot stand anyway. Sunni Muslim OPEC regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia, would be wise to take note of the double Chai suggestion, themselves threatened by muscle-flexing in your face Shiite Iran, bearing in mind that the thirteen century long Sunni Shiite grudge is alive and well, and a nuclear erstwhile Persia ain't exactly what the House of Saud's indoctrinating Koran ordered. I suppose if all else fails, and fossil fuel revenues do not substantially fall, Israeli jets can start warming their engines. Doing nothing is not an option!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Likud-Herud of the United Kingdom, October 29, 2006.

"Greetings to any Palestinian who may be reading this. My name is David White. I am a citizen of New Zealand, a small, Western, nominally Christian country in the South Pacific Ocean. I am not Jewish, or Christian, I guess I'm vaguely agnostic.

Writing this letter is a good way for me to discuss the horrible mess in the Middle East, spell out as many relevant points as possible concerning the state of the Palestinian people, and to see what can be made of them. I don't speak Arabic, so I can only communicate with English-speaking Palestinians.

There aren't many here in NZ, though, and I haven't yet met any. I don't know how many will ever see these words, but, here's hoping someone does.I have a post-graduate university education, and I suppose I could be called an intellectual. Unfortunately, many such people have supported abhorrent ideologies such as Nazism, and continue to support Communism, so I refuse to describe myself in this way. I don't want to be considered as another "trendy leftie" academic, as we would say in NZ. So, unlike many university-educated types, I am anti-totalitarian, pro-peace up to a point, pro-democracy, pro-capitalism.,(except the capitalists running Enron), and sceptical about the "cult of victimhood." I'm quite safe here in New Zealand, and no-one I know has been killed by a Palestinian.

My perspective of Palestinians is something like this - you're Arabs (of course), mostly Muslim, but with a Christian minority. Many of you live outside Gaza/West Bank, mostly in Jordan and other Muslim countries, with some groups living in Western countries as well. You feel that you have been wronged by Israel and are fighting to destroy them.

As for my perspective on Israel, I see them like this: They are a mainly Jewish, small, free-market democracy with a large Arab minority surrounded by hostile Arab dictatorships. They have an ancestral claim to Israel, their state was created as a refuge from persecution, they have a right to exist, and, having survived a holocaust in Europe, they should not have to sit still and wait for another one in the Middle East.


Over the last few months, the conflict in the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank has turned into a war between the Palestinian people and Israel. (I will not apologize for using the term "disputed", as I believe it reflects a rather complicated situation more accurately than "occupied").

Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, seems to be something like this: You have no state of your own, and you are fighting a war against those you call "Zionist oppressors" and "colonial imperialists", in order to create a Palestinian state. Accusations of massacre and human rights violations by the Israeli Army are being tossed around like confetti. Your late leader, Yasser Arafat used to brag that he would "martyr" himself rather than "surrender", and that bungling and incompetent organization, the United Nations (again, no apologies for venting personal opinions), is trying to do what it is constitutionally incapable of doing, i.e. "saving future generations from the scourge of war".

The Israelis see things differently, of course. For them, it's a simple battle for survival. They offered you a state, and you attacked them instead. They have occupied Palestinian towns, have fought it out with various armed groups, and desperate attempts are being made by the US, other Arab countries and the UN to break the so-called "cycle of violence". As a result, the Palestinian situation at the moment generally, can be explained by putting it into New Zealand idiom, put bluntly, the Palestinian people are buggered. Munted. Stuffed. Rooted(American equivalent=screwed. British equivalent: done over). It's like this: Yasser Arafat had turned down the Israeli offer of a Palestinian homeland in Gaza and the West Bank. You want, or Arafat claims that you wanted, a Palestine "from the river to the sea;" in other words, "all or nothing".

There is one insuperable obstacle to this- Israel. No matter how eloquent your arguments or numerous your martyrs, no matter how many European diplomats are angered by, or UN resolutions are passed against, Israel, the Israelis are not going to pack up and leave. The only way you will get the Palestinian state you want is by destroying Israel.

This is what you have been trying to do since 1948, and the current "intifada" launched in 2000 is your latest effort. However, the Israelis are not standing there and letting you kill them. They are fighting back, and if they have to choose between their own survival and yours, guess which choice they'll make.

A vast wringing of hands, a great fluttering of Diplomats. That has been the overall response to the disaster you have created for yourselves. You, the Palestinian Arabs, are obviously hoping for some kind of international intervention to save you. As we in New Zealand would say, "Get Real!".

The European Union and the UN have demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past their incompetence and total incapacity to take any sort of firm action without American leadership. Ask your Muslim brothers of Bosnia-Herzegovina, about how effective the EU and the UN were in protecting them without American intervention. In spite of the impression that American diplomatic efforts have created, the US will not take sides against Israel, and will eventually abandon its futile attempts at evenhandedness. If they do join forces militarily with Israel in their war against terrorism, your fighters will be snuffed out like candle flames.

As for your "beloved Arab brothers" in the Middle East, they make a great deal of noise about your "liberation struggle", and have sent money and arms, but have not sent a single tank to save you. Their diplomatic proposals are ones that could have been offered at any time, and are aimed at benefiting them, not Palestinians. The Egyptians themselves will not declare war on Israel unless they receive $100 billion to cover their costs.

Do you really believe that the rest of your Arab Muslim brothers think you are worth that much? Do you really believe they will put your interests ahead of their own? Although your friends and Arabs in Europe are passing sanctions and burning synagogues in your support, not a single EU warship has sailed to your aid, and not a single NATO aircraft has dropped a single bomb on your "Zionist oppressors".

I have noted that large numbers of people, including university educated intellectuals support the Palestinian cause. Don't be misled by this. No matter how many western intellectuals, news media and international organizations may support the Palestinian struggle, none of this matters because America stands by Israel.


How did you get into such a mess? As you yourselves would say and have indeed said on many occasions, it isn't your fault. It's always the "Great Satan" America, and it's "Lesser Satan", Israel, that you blame for all your woes. Everything that you do, such as your "martyrdom operations", are described as the products of your "rage" at being "dispossessed of your land", and of your "helplessness" in the face of "Zionist" might.

There are only 300 million Arabs against over 5 million Jews! How unfair! How unjust, that so many can do so little against so few! A number of Western commentators have put Arab failures down to numerous cultural factors, not the least being Islam. Your religious beliefs in martyrdom and jihad, coupled with a total inability to accept any blame for your own predicament, have combined to do you great and lasting damage.

Look closely at why Western countries such as Israel have succeeded, and Muslim countries have not. Western countries are free-market democracies. Muslim countries (other than Turkey) aren't. Surely that should tell you something.


As I said, I do not, and I will not, support the Palestinian cause. Why not? I have a number of reasons, and here they are:

1. You have made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that you intend to destroy Israel and kill or drive out its Jewish population. This is genocide, pure and simple. You justify this by saying that Israel has committed many crimes against your people, and that you seek "justice". I say this in response- NOTHING WHATSOEVER is an acceptable justification for genocide. Loss of land, humiliation at being militarily defeated - others have suffered these and moved on to create new nations and opportunities for themselves.

Examples abound - the Germans thrown out of East Prussia in Europe,1945, the Nationalist Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 1949, to name but two. Germans and Taiwanese have coped with military defeat and the loss of land. They haven't warred with their neighbours, nor have they launched terrorist attacks upon them. Both countries have more wealth than any Arab nation. Why can't Palestinians cope? Are Germans and Chinese better able to deal with adversity than Arabs?

2. You have accused the Israelis of "genocide" against you. Here's a question for you: Israel has atomic bombs and powerful military forces. If they really, truly wanted you all dead, they could easily do it. Why haven't they? If the Israelis went all-out, you would be, as we say in New Zealand, "dog tucker". Why did they spend so much time negotiating with your leaders? Because Israel wants peace and secure borders. You refuse to give them even those. You plan genocide and accuse Israel of the same crime. Prove it!

3. The use of terrorism. Killing people for being Jewish is despicable. Terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are also despicable. (At this point, I'd like to pause and get a question of nomenclature cleared up, regarding those Palestinians who kill themselves and others with explosives strapped to their bodies. You call them "martyrs". Western media sources and academics debate the precise term to use in describing them. Others, including the Israelis, call them terrorists. I have a better, more appropriate term. I prefer to use the word "kamikazes". The original kamikazes appeared in 1944, in the war in the Pacific. They were Japanese Navy and Army pilots, organized into "Special Attack Units" with orders to crash their planes into American warships, in the hope of destroying them - "one plane, one ship". Their initial impact was similar to that of the Al-Qaeda attacks on New York Twin Towers and the Pentagon-shock and horror. (I noted that many Palestinians appeared on Western TV celebrating the September attacks). Note: The American response, in both cases was not the one hoped for.

Once the shock had worn off, the US set out to destroy the kamikazes, and terrible destruction was rained down on Japan, ending only with 2 atomic bombs. You know what is happening right now in Afghanistan to the Al-Qaeda group.

4. Using children as suicide bombers. Anyone who teaches children to kill themselves in suicide attacks is not worth supporting under any circumstances. For you to do this to your children is an abomination. A commentator on a Web magazine said that if the Palestinians laid down their arms, they would get peace and land. If the Israelis laid down their arms they would be killed. You know that is true, even if most of Europe doesn't.

Your cause is evil, because it seeks destruction at any price. Genocide is not justice. Sacrificing your own children for the sake of your leader's personal ambitions is wicked. THAT'S WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT YOU.THAT'S WHY I STAND WITH ISRAEL.


The Second World War in Europe ended with Hitler's suicide. He was replaced by Admiral Doenitz who quickly made peace with the Allies. Japan's leader, Emperor Hirohito, decided on surrender rather than see his nation destroyed.

If Arafat had chosen surrender, though, will the rest of the Palestinians go along with it? He died. Did the war end? If the answer to both of these questions is No, then the Palestinian people are doomed. Do you really prefer death as a people? Do you fully comprehend what you are doing? If you are indeed aware that the path you have embarked upon leads to destruction, and if you have freely chosen to walk in that direction, then as a people you are truly beyond hope.

Are Palestinians really going to be a "Kamikaze Nation"? Are you really going to give Israel no other option except your destruction? If they must choose, then as Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld said, "better a terrible end than terror without end".

Do not think that kamikaze tactics can get you what you want. The Israelis can tell you all about Masada, if you ask them. Remember what happened to the Japanese at places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Palestinians deserve better than the current mess you are in now - but before you can be given anything, you must offer a sincere peace, you must stop teaching your children to hate, you must stop believing that "victimhood" justifies everything and - above all other things - GIVE UP ISRAEL! Accept that you will never go there again except perhaps as workers or tourists. Accept that Jews are human beings too. Accept the verdict of 1948 and learn to live with it. Invest in banks, not bombs. Build computer chips, not Kalashnikovs. Teach science and mathematics, not hate. Look to the future, not the past. Stop blaming Americans and Jews for all your problems, and take responsibility for your own actions. Read those parts in the Quran about living with the "peoples of the Book".

Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime minister, is quoted as saying "there will be peace in the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel". Every time I see pictures of Palestinian children waving guns and wearing dummy explosives, then I can only say she is right. The alternative to peace is not victory but death. Think about it - before it's too late.

From an Infidel to Those Who Submit, and are living in the Holy Land - May God grant you steadfastness in the face of things that cannot be changed, the capacity to cope with those that can be changed, and the wisdom and the ability to tell the difference.

David White, Auckland, New Zealand

Contact the Likud-Herut at info@likud-herut.org.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, October 29, 2006.

Israel provides free medical care for Palestinians at Israeli hospitals but UN blames Israel for not allowing Arabs to get there fast enough.
The article below was distributed by CN Publications
(http://cnpublications.net/2006/10/29/un-agency-faults-israel-on- palestinian-health-care/#more-222)

The article comes from Arab Medicare News group

Pregnant women must get urgent access to health care in occupied Palestinian Territory says UNFPA

United Nations (New York)
September 5, 2006

(ArabMedicare.com News) UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, an international development agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity, expresses its deep concern about recent reports of delays at Israeli checkpoints of women in labour, which have resulted in forced roadside births, and even death of some women and infants. It urges that civilians with urgent needs should have access to health facilities and that humanitarian organizations be allowed to work freely to alleviate the suffering of the people, especially women and children. More than 68 pregnant Palestinian women had to give birth at Israeli checkpoints during the last six years, leading to 34 miscarriages and the death of four women, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

A recent report by the Ministry shows that since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, pregnant Palestinian women in labour are often prevented by Israeli forces from reaching hospitals to receive appropriate medical attention. As a result, 10 per cent of women who wished to give birth at medical centres have had to spend two to four hours on the road before reaching a hospital, while 6 per cent spent more than four hours. The normal time, before the Intifada, was 15-30 minutes.

"These figures underline the need to put an end, once and for all, to the agony of pregnant Palestinian women held at Israeli checkpoints." said Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Executive Director of UNFPA. "It is urgent to facilitate access by pregnant women to life-saving services, as stipulated by international humanitarian law."

According to the Ministry's report, there are currently 117,600 pregnant women in the Palestinian territory, including 17,640 who suffer from difficult pregnancies due to the lack of prenatal and postnatal care. Inadequate medical care during pregnancy, says the report, is the third leading cause of death among Palestinian women of childbearing age.

UNFPA has been helping pregnant women avoid suffering at the checkpoints by training health personnel and equipping them with delivery kits to provide services within their communities. It has also formed local community support teams to assist health providers and raise awareness of the availability of delivery services.

The latest Israeli military incursions into the Gaza Strip, which started on 28 June, have compounded the suffering of the Palestinian population in general, and women and young people in particular. Damage to the Gaza infrastructure, including health, communication and transport facilities, and power sources, has been extensive. Facilities and services, including those of health, have not been able to function properly, and the Strip's 1.4 million inhabitants have been left without electricity.

UNFPA continues to work with its partners on providing the Gaza population with essential emergency services and supplies. That includes restoring health facilities, purchasing reproductive health supplies and other essential drugs to support the Ministry of Health, and providing psychological and clinical services to women and their families. Source:

Contact IsraelZwick at israel.zwick@earthlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 29, 2006.

Greg Myre, a New York Times journalist, is not alone when suggesting refugee camps still exist within today's Gaza. In a 10/19/2006 article buried within the International section of this 'world class' newspaper, entitled 'Israeli Troops Find 5 Tunnels in Gaza Strip'. Myre asserts "In northern Gaza, where Israeli troops are trying to halt Palestinian rocket fire, two Palestinians were shot dead overnight near the Jabaliya refugee camp ..." The Scarlet R, deeply etched within the psyches of so-called Palestinian Arabs generation after generation alas does not disappear, even though such Arabs now dwell within Israeli ceded territory, a presumably fledgling sovereign Palestinian state. Indeed, many Western news commentators still bizarrely refer to a multitude of Gaza's communities as refugee camps. Apparently, you can take the Arab Muslim boy out of a refugee camp but you can't take the refugee camp out of the Arab Muslim boy, at least per such commentators. What a shonda! Indeed, the images of poor Palestinian waifs abused by big bad Israeli occupiers is likewise deeply etched within the psyches of many news reporters, refusing to cede that charade even though such Arabs do not fit the standard definition of refugee, generally assigned to stateless humans fleeing political oppression. Furthermore, so-called Arab refugees, who are in fact not refugees but citizens of Gaza, apparently can be excused for launching rockets into the territory of their Israeli 'oppressors', at least with tacit approval from some anti-Semitic sympathetic journalists who will always depict Israel as the big bad bully.

Indeed, by using the aforementioned media illogic, are not all Israelis, in fact all Jews, themselves refugees by virtue of having ancestors forced to flee their homes located in one or another hostile nation over the centuries? The term refugee itself, politically useful in this instance to bash Israelis, enables Gaza dwellers to retain an air of victimization, surely antagonistic to their long-term self-interests. How beaten down are these Arabs, encouraged by hand wringing apologists, including those in the media that should know better, that they cannot at least attempt to shed that label of refugee, exerting some effort to turn their miserable lives around, and cease blaming Israel for their problems? No self-respecting humans, provided with citizenship among kindred spirits and an opportunity to better their life in a sovereign state, would cling to those suffocating stigmas associated with insecurity, oppression, and homelessness. Yet many residents of Gaza do. Most insidiously, without the willingness of such humiliated Arabs to be used as a cudgel to bludgeon Israelis, how might certain reporters and media moguls justify their conscious or subconscious contempt for the Jewish State, ironically at the expense of that very cudgel? Gullible audiences and profiteering media owners are the last refuge of such journalists and editors, vindicating their manipulation of language, buying into and buying the very illusions they craft. What indeed has happened to honest purveyors of information, ever concerned at accurately portraying facts on the ground? Are such rarities perhaps professional refugees in search of media outlets with integrity?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Mrla, October 29, 2006.

This was written by Don Feder and it appeared in GrassTopsUSA

I should seriously write a book called, The Idiots Guide To Not Thinking Seriously About Islam.

It's hard to find a subject where mushy thinking is more in vogue -- where political correctness conquers reality more thoroughly. People actually are afraid to think seriously on the subject, because the logical conclusions are too frightening for many to contemplate.

And so, there's no place where comfortable clichés are more readily deployed.

Probably the most glaring illustration of inanity here were recent comments by his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, the 14th earthly incarnation of Larry, Moe and Curly.

On leaving a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of Tibetan Buddhists told reporters that we can't hold all Muslims responsible for the misdeeds of a few.

The Lama: "Nowadays, I often express that due to a few mischievous Muslims' acts we should not consider all Muslims as something bad. That is very unfair."

Expanding on this dazzling analysis, the Dalai Lama continued: "A few mischievous people you can find from all religions -- among Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists. To generalize is not correct." O.K., now I know this will get me scratched from the invite list for Richard Gere's New Year's Eve party, but I just gotta ask: When was the last time a bald guy in a saffron robe threatened to kill someone he believed had insulted the Buddha?

While we're at it, when was the last time a gang of Talmudic scholars tried to blow up anything? Did the Vatican put out a fatwah on "DaVinci Code" author Dan Brown? The last holy war committed in the name of Christianity was over 800 years ago. If Hindus behead hostages, I've somehow managed to miss it.

"A few mischievous Muslims" makes kidnapping, torture, beheadings, bomb plots, mass murder and death threats sound like schoolboy pranks. It's September 11, 2001, and some high-spirited Muslim merrymakers just crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, slaughtering 3,000 innocents. What a lark! Here are some recent examples of Muslim high-jinks:

  • In Iraq, Father Paulis Iskander, a Syrian-Orthodox priest, was kidnapped by a few Muslim pranksters. After good-naturedly torturing him, they beheaded the priest. This was in retaliation for Pope Benedict XVI's quote of a 14th century Byzantine emperor. Jihadists apparently missed the Catholic-Orthodox schism (1054 AD) -- or maybe all Crusaders look the same to them.

  • There are 1 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq -- but not for long. They've been targeted by every side in the civil war. On September 24th, two bombs exploded in St. Mary's Cathedral in Baghdad. Earlier, a church was bombed in Basra.

  • Muslims celebrated their holy month of Ramadan by racking up an impressive body count -- more than 1,600 dead in 280 separate terror attacks in 17 countries. As I recall, for my bar mitzvah, I didn't kill anyone. But I did hurt someone's feelings on Passover, once.

  • In a recent column, former New York Mayor Ed Koch reports on a meeting he had with Pope John Paul II in the early 1990s. Forthright fellow that he is, Koch asked the Pope why the Vatican didn't recognize Israel (it did a few years later), Koch says John Paul II replied: "It will happen someday, but it can't happen now. I have a responsibility to the Catholics who live in Koraniclands and who would be in danger if we recognized Israel." This wasn't paranoia. John Paul knew exactly what happens when Muslims get testy.

  • In Germany, the government is starting to crack down on an estimated 5,000 Islamist websites that are "spreading hatred" and "hawking terror." I see, those few mischievous Muslims must all be web-site designers and computer geeks.

  • Then again, perhaps they're all involved in mass communications. The American-Muslim TV network, broadcasting in six states to a potential audience of two million, says its mission is "to improve the image of Muslims in the United States." Recent programming included the broadcast of an anti-Semitic/anti-Christian sermon, with the supplication: "May God destroy them."

  • In Atlanta, Ethiopian immigrant Khalid Adem is on trial for circumcising his then-two-year-old daughter. Female genital mutilation is all the rage among African Muslims.

  • Islamic funsters tend to be particularly hard on the ladies. There are as many as 300,000 runaway girls in happenin' Iran, some as young as 9. It's estimated that 86% of the runaways were rejected by their families after they were raped. In Prophet-land, rape is shameful -- for the victim.

  • Islam's rhetorical war against the hated Zionist entity continues. In Karachi, Pakistan, a few mischievous Muslims -- well, 6,000 to be exact -- marched through the streets shouting "Death to Israel! Death America." That's how Muslim merrymakers celebrate Al-Qods Day (or Jerusalem Day).

  • His Naziness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of 68 million waggish Iranians) continues to assure us that Israel will be "wiped from the map," the Holocaust is a "myth," and any nation that sides with the Jewish state will face the "boiling wrath" of adherents to the religion of peace.

  • On October 24, the Taliban announced it was planning attacks on civilian targets in Europe, in revenge for the invasion of Afghanistan that resulted in toppling its regime. A Taliban commander observed on Sky News television: "It's acceptable to kill ordinary people in Europe because these are the people who have voted in the government.... We will kill them and laugh over them." Like the Dalai Lama said, these guys have a sense of humor.

  • As noted earlier, there is no freedom of conscience in Islam (or freedom of anything else). In Ethiopia, in July, a mischievous Muslim mob attacked a group of Christians in the city of Henno. The victims included two prominent Christians who had converted from Islam. The Muslim scamps used knives, stones and metal bars to reinforce the point that -- like the Syndicate -- there's only one way out of this organization.

  • The Afghans who kidnapped Italian journalist Gabriele Torsello have offered to exchange him for Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert forced to flee the country. His own family wants Rahman dead. Bring back Rahman so we may instruct him in the finer points of Sharia, the abductors of Torsello plead.

  • In Britain, there are veiled threats over the suggestion by Tony Blair and others, that some Muslim chicks stop dressing like they just stepped off a camel caravan (full face veil).

  • Perhaps the Brits are thinking that if their homegrown Sons and Daughters of Allah were more assimilated, they wouldn't be subjected to high-spirited pranks like the 2005 London transit bombings (52 commuters dead) or the foiled August plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound jetliners (with a potential death toll exceeding 9/11)

  • Across the Channel, Robert Redeker (a French high-school philosophy teacher) is a marked man, since the publication of his September 19 piece in Le Figaro, wherein he called the Koran "a book of extraordinary violence" (Hello, Dalai!) and observed that Mohammed was "a pitiless warlord, pillager, massacrer of Jews and polygamist" -- in other words, a 7th century Arabian rascal. E-mail death threats started pouring in the day the article ran. One naughty website published a map showing the exact location of his home, along with photos of Redeker and his workplace. (An e-mail amusingly informed the teacher: "You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred million Muslims are ready to kill you.")

  • All it took was one guy named Mohammed to murder Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, for making a movie about the treatment of women in the wacky world of Islam. Van Gogh was shot, stabbed and had his throat slashed. A note by the killer, pinned to his body, read, "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs."

  • A spokesman for a French police union says Muslim youths are waging a "civil war" against the gendarmes. The Gallic intifada that started last November never really stopped. At one point last year, disaffected "youth," as the French press discretely calls them, were torching 1,300 cars a night, to cries of "Allahu Akbar." Rioting spread to 300 French cities and spilled over into Belgium and Germany. Now, whenever French cops go to housing projects they are assaulted with everything from stones to guns to Molotov cocktails. Nearly 2,500 officers have been injured this year. To return to the Dalai Lama's daft observation, while it is undoubtedly true that most Muslims don't want to jihad us -- there are enough who do. In a 2005 survey by The Daily Telegraph, one quarter of British Muslims said they had at least some sympathy with their coreligionists who murdered 52 random Brits in the July commuter bombings. One-quarter of a million is more than "a few."

Add to this number the minions of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jihad-this, and Army of God-that, the mobs in Tehran, Karachi and Dar es Saalam etc., the ayatollahs, imams, sheiks, mullahs, their blind followers and rabid supporters -- not to mention the Saudis funding radical mosques and madrassahs from Queens to Calcutta and beyond. It all adds up to a whole lot of Muslim mischief-making.

And let's not forget the millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) of Muslims who aren't actually killing anyone, or condoning the killing of anyone (except Jews, of course), who nevertheless think it would be swell if the whole world lived under Islamic law -- with honor-killings and genital-mutilation for all.

Now, here's the really scary part: As Mark Steyn points out in his book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, between 1970 and 2000, while the share of the world's population represented by industrialized nations fell from just under 30% to just over 20%, the mischievous nations (whose principal manufactured products are jihad and general theological nuttiness) went from 15% to around 20%.

What nations have the highest fertility rates? So sorry you asked. (and you will be too when you see the answer) -- Niger (7.46 children per woman), Mali (7.42), Somalia (6.76), Afghanistan (6.69) and Yemen (6.58). Says Steyn: "Notice what they have in common? Starts with an I, ends with a slam." For comparison, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 2.11, about replacement level. That's high next to Canada (1.5), Germany (1.3), Russia and Italy (1.2) and Spain (1.1). Of the 10 nations with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe.

It gets worse. Consider the percentage of population currently under 15 years of age -- a harbinger of future demographic growth -- Spain and Germany (14%), the U.K. (18%), the U.S. (21%), Saudi Arabia (39%), Pakistan (40%) and Yemen (47%).

We're told that Muslims are 10% of the population of France. But of "Frenchmen" under 20, 30% are mischievous. In the U.K. there are more Moslems in mosque each week than Christians attending Church of England services. Forget suicide bombs; they're detonating population bombs. Should we "consider all Muslims as something bad"? Of course not. Should we consider Islam as something bad? That's an entirely different question -- one which politicians, Lamas and the mainstream media studiously avoid -- when they're not babbling about the "religion of peace." And if Islam itself is "something bad" -- if a faith embraced by 1.3 billion people contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us (requiring only the right conditions to germinate) -- what does that say for the future of a world where Islam is the fastest growing religion? Some of us live on comfortable estates in India, writing books about inner-peace and harmony, while contemplating the sound of one hand clapping. Others of us live in the real world.

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 28, 2006.

As you already know, the Arab Islamists have followed Yassir Arafat's fictitious claim to Jerusalem which he made after the 1967 re-Unification of the Holy Jewish Eternal Capital. Arafat wanted an instant history - for the mix of Arab Muslims from all over the Middle East who adopted the name "Palestinian" only after the 1948 Independence of the Jewish State of Israel.

You may recall, it was the Romans who dubbed the Jewish State "Palestina" in order to blot out the Jewish names of Israel and of Judah, the Jewish Kingdoms which filled all the lands West of the Jordan River and some East of the Jordan for thousands of years before the Romans conquered, killed many and evicted the rest in the year 70 C.E.

The custom of the Arabs to make up history to fit their needs is well-established. Even Avraham and all the other Jewish prophets were recently adopted as Muslims. We are told that all children are born Muslim when they are born but, their parents betray Allah by teaching them Judaism, Christianity or any of the other religions practiced on earth.

What is more troubling than the Arab Muslim revision of history is the willingness of the Media, Governments and too many Universities and Colleges to teach Arab Islamist revisions of history, accept great sums of money from Arab Muslim oil-rich countries to pervert the American democracy, way of life, education, freedom of religions and free government. The Arab Muslim oil money can enforce their unsupportable claims - simply because an Arab Muslim says so.

Moreover, they accept frivolous claims of an advanced culture when the facts speak about a primitive war-like people who conquered and parasitically lived off the development of their victims. Even today, when none of the Middle Eastern countries are advanced societies, there is a willingness by the Media and nations to genuflect over the oil they sit on - by happenstance.

Therefore, following Arafat's claim, the Arab nations and their terrorist reputation are claiming Israel's Capital which exited for thousands of years before Mohammed. Now these Islamists terrorize the world as they achieve "critical mass" in their host countries and demand both Recognition as a superior people and want Jerusalem as their new Capital.

With that in mind, I will ask for your consideration as I send successive articles on "Whose JERUSALEM?" You may wish to keep them in a separate file for future reference. Some are:

"JERUSALEM: ....I HATE THE GROUND YOU WALK ON' " October 18, 1996 (10 years ago)
and another mighty epic (long) "ETERNAL JERUSALEM" March 16, 1997

Every nation on this planet has been accorded the unchallenged right to choose which of their cities will be their capital - except for the Jewish State of Israel.

The nations who arrogate to themselves the right to choose their own capital have told Israel that 3000 years of history is irrelevant. Yassir Arafat (supported by oil rich Arab/Muslim nations and oil-consuming nations) has claimed Jerusalem as the capital of his future neo-state of Palestine because, he claims, Jerusalem is Islam's third holiest city.

You may wonder, when Mohammed, the founder of Islam, rejected Jerusalem and chose Mecca, 'Why is this claim by Muslims made now and accepted by the West?' Mohammed never mentioned Jerusalem by name in the Koran, whereas, the Jewish Bible mentions it 667 times and three times daily in prayer facing toward Jerusalem from every part of the world.

There are several reasons: First, because the Jews miraculously reunited Jerusalem in 1967 and made her glow, therefore, now the Arabs want her. Second, Yassir Arafat, born in Egypt, has the task of unifying a people who migrated into Palestine from all parts of the Arab world as the Jews, returning to their ancient homeland, created jobs and improved health conditions. Drawing them under the umbrella of Jerusalem, with her ancient and illustrious history, would give the Palestinians an instant history.

The nations of the world are willing to accept this bit of historical revisionism because they believe (or at least hope) that the Arabs will be satisfied and cease their unending terrorism as a political response.

Great armies have swept through the region, bent on conquering the land of Israel and her capital Jerusalem. But, they craved more than the cold, golden stones of the City. Then, as now, they wanted to own the mystique of the powerful invisible G-d, housed in the Temple built for Him by the Jews. Not having the privilege to confront the Deity, each built their own shrines on the foundations of the destroyed First and Second Temples of the Jewish people, trying to absorb the power of the Jews' invisible Holy G-d. But, while Jerusalem was in their possession, no non-Jewish conqueror made Jerusalem their capital.

While Jordan had control over the eastern part of Jerusalem for 19 years from 1948 to 1967, no Arab leader visited the city and the Jews who lived in areas then controlled by Jordan were forced out or killed. The King destroyed 58 synagogues in what is now called Arab east Jerusalem and used the Jewish burial monuments on the Mount of Olives as paving stones for roads through this ancient Jewish cemetery and splash plates for urinals. The destruction and the severance of Jerusalem from the Jewish people was not merely a wanton act but one considered necessary by the Muslim clerics.

When Arafat complained that the City of Jerusalem was being Judaized, he reflected the Muslim belief that, if the Jews could be separated from their source of strength, they could be defeated...and he was right. Similarly, when the hair of Samson was shorn by the Philistines, he and the Jewish nation became weak and were easily defeated. While we in the West consider these beliefs trivial and mere fables, nevertheless, claiming Jerusalem as Muslim has now become a tenet of their faith which is being manipulated for political reasons.

Herein lies the claim by the Arab nations that Jerusalem is their third holiest city. The Jews have Jerusalem; she makes them powerful; the Arab armies have lost to Israel six times. Therefore, Islam must retake the City in blood - not by treaty. The Jews must not be allowed to have this City as their capital and Jerusalem must be made Muslim as soon as possible. They proclaim this freely and often.

Arafat has repeatedly declared since he signed Oslo September 1993 that: "We will take the whole Land of Israel from the River (Jordan) to the Sea (Mediterranean), and Jerusalem will be the capital of that State and only that State - and whoever doesn't like it, can go drink Gaza (or Dead) Sea water." His maps, stationary, official documents, soldiers' insignias, TV station logos, children's textbooks, etc. all show "Palestine" superimposed totally over the State of Israel.

It must be difficult for most Westerners to understand that an ancient war over who are the Chosen servants of G-d continues on in modern times. Presently, the PC (politically correct) method of separating the Jews from Jerusalem is to demand internationalization and freedom of worship for all peoples. Any first year theology or history student already knows that, every conqueror of Jerusalem denied freedom of worship to all others - until the Israeli Jews reclaimed Jerusalem in 1967. They passed a law which mandates freedom of religion and access to all Temples, Shrines, Churches and Mosques. All are welcome and delighted with their warm reception.

The same cannot be said for the Muslims who have always denied access for Jews who wish to pray at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron and other Holy Jewish Sites. In the Arab world at large, especially Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya the 'people of the book' (both Jews and Christians who follow the Bible) are not hospitably received or simply denied entry.

Regrettably, there are nonobservant Jews with little regard for national memory who are ready to barter Jerusalem, with the unsubstantiated concept that this final concession will bring peace. This is unlikely, since the Arabs suffer the Shame of having lost six wars to the Jews, they must reclaim their Pride through war and not a paper agreement.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Max Yas, October 28, 2006.

Natan Sharansky was a well-known Soviet (USSR) refusnik (the English "refuse" + a Russian suffix) who demanded the right to emigrate. As a prisoner of conscience in the USSR, he spent many years confined in a Gulag in Siberia. He became well known in the West as an outspoken critic of the Soviet system.

Under great pressure from the West, he was eventually allowed to leave and he settled in Israel, where he was elected to the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) and served in the Cabinet. Today he is much in demand as a writer and lecturer.

The following article appeared in the L.A. Times after the Israel-Hezbollah war this past summer. Sharansky's words require no further comment.

Shalom from Max

In the summer of 2000, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin told me a story that I have been unable to get out of my mind. We were meeting in the Kremlin, and I raised the grave danger facing the world from the transfer of missile technology and nuclear material to the Iranians. In Putin's view, however, the real danger came not from an Iranian nuclear-tipped missile nor, for that matter, from the lethal arsenal of any nation-state.

"Imagine a sunny and beautiful day in a suburb of Manhattan," he said. "An elderly man is tending to the roses in his small garden with his nephew visiting from Europe. Life seems perfectly normal. The following day, the nephew, carrying a suitcase, takes a train to Manhattan. Inside the suitcase is a nuclear bomb."

The threat, Putin explained to me a year before 9/11, was not from this or that country, but from their terrorist proxies -- aided and supported quietly by a sovereign state that doesn't want to get its hands dirty -- who will perpetrate their attacks without a return address. This scenario became real when Al Qaeda plotted its 9/11 attacks from within Afghanistan and received support from the Taliban government. Then it happened again this summer, when Iran was allowed to wage a proxy war through Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and northern Israel. But this time, the international community's weak response dealt the global war on terror a severe blow.

Five years ago, after 9/11, such a lack of culpability seemed inconceivable. That was when President Bush abandoned the conventional approach to fighting terror by vowing that the United States would henceforth make no distinction between terrorists and regimes that support them. You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.

In the pre-9/11 world, regimes were rarely held responsible for the actions of terror groups. Now the Taliban regime was being held accountable.

This was critically important for two reasons. First, it recognised that international terrorism relies on the support of sovereign states. It is regimes, after all, that give terror groups territory on which to train, arm and indoctrinate their members, and regimes that provide them critical financial, diplomatic, logistical and intelligence support.

Second, although shadowy terror cells are difficult to eradicate fully and suicidal fanatics impossible to deter, the regimes that support terror groups do have a return address and are rarely suicidal. Thus, holding the Taliban responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda, and elevating the logic for doing so to a central principle in the war on terror, greatly enhanced deterrence. Every single regime was immediately put on notice.

Fast forward five years. Hezbollah launches an unprovoked attack on Israel. It is clear that Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran. It is public knowledge that Hezbollah receives more than $100 million a year from the Iranian regime, as well as sophisticated weapons and training.

Yet Iran has paid no price for its proxy's actions. No military strikes on Iranian targets, no sanctions, no threat whatsoever to Iranian interests. On the contrary, in the wake of the war, there have been renewed calls in the democratic world to "engage" Iran.

Symptomatic of the moral myopia in the West is a farce worthy of Orwell: former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, under whom students were tortured after a 1999 crackdown at Tehran University and whose rule was marked by the continued stifling of dissent, spoke Sunday at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence."

The Iranian regime's intentions are clear. It calls for "wiping Israel off the map" and tells its followers to "imagine a world without America." It seeks to dominate the Middle East. By failing to hold Iran accountable for its brazen support of Hezbollah, the free world has undermined a central pillar in the war on terror and given the Iranian regime a huge weapon for achieving its ambitions. Now the mullahs know they can attack a democratic country with impunity.

Considering the apocalyptic fanaticism of Iran's leader, it is an open question whether the current regime in Tehran is capable of being deterred through the threat of mutually assured destruction. But given how the world has responded to Hezbollah, the point may be academic. For surely Iran would be better served by using proxies to wage a nuclear war against Israel. And if there is no accountability, why stop with Israel?

The road to a suitcase bomb in Tel Aviv, Paris or New York just got a whole lot shorter.

Contact the poster at maxyas@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, October 28, 2006.

This was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared October 26, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post

Time was when sensible folks truly believed that if you venture too far, you'll fall off Earth's jagged edge to the endless void below. By today, though, you'd figure nobody swallows that any more, certainly not in the erudite parts of what we've for centuries recognized as our globe.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society, now largely California-based (where else?). You think FES members are crazy? You'd be surprised to learn that they've diagnosed you as profoundly insane for not grasping reality as they know you should. This isn't a joke. The Flat Earthers are dead-earnest.

As earnest as the Jewish state's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who judges that at this particular juncture - all of Israel's other problems having been so satisfactorily solved - there's no more urgent concern than (again) dismantling "unauthorized settlement outposts." The equally self-absorbed Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik discerns at this particular juncture (of all junctures) that "the opportunity now exists for new alliances. Imagine an alliance with Syria. What leader can afford to miss such a chance?"

This isn't a feminine foible. Israel's male politicians can be as dizzyingly ditzy. Defense Minister Amir Peretz is equally adamant that the outposts must go forthwith for the pressing good of the Jewish collective, while Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter omnisciently reminded the nation's benighted commoners that "we're experienced in paying prices" and are prepared to pay "a hefty price" to Syria.

You kidded yourself that following the summer's trauma there'd be no return to obsequious appeasement - be it of the inane unilateral variety or another land-for-peace chimera? Forget it. It's inordinate to expect that the withdrawal fixation of our agenda determiners would dissipate because of what they incontrovertibly wrought time and again since the advent of their Oslo debacle.

Had reason prevailed they'd be hiding for shame in shuttered rooms. But in our unreasonable milieu they insist on having another go at what failed miserably, keeps exacting a terrifyingly bloody price and imperils our very existence.

For a brief respite after their recent Lebanese lark it almost seemed that even they begin to dimly realize the error of their ways. "The Lebanon war shook me," Itzik candidly admitted, "I assumed that surrendering territory would get us peace. We left Gaza completely. Why do they keep shooting? We left Lebanon. Where's all this hate coming from?... Instead of peace-for-land we got war-for-land."

But the light Dalia saw must have been dimmed by the Syrian allure. There appears about as much likelihood of disengaging her and assorted "peaceniks" from their favorite fables as convincing Californian diehards that the Earth isn't a flat pita.

LATE FES president Charles Johnson made it his mission to persuade us that "science is no more than a delusional, fraudulent religion," which he embarked to "replace with sanity." He recruited converts and contributors from the world over, including from such bastions of modernity and enlightenment as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Israel's establishment elite, cliquey opinion-makers, self-serving trend-setters and bon-ton groupies are no less disdainful of empirical fact. Their premise - that Jews must always pay - is as patently false as the obstinate assertion that we inhabit an oversized rocky pancake.

Theirs is perhaps the root symptom of the Jewish nation's abnormality and inability to behave like other sovereign nations. Nowhere is there another country whose citizens ponder daily what more to offer their foes, what they can cede to appease and how to curry a little favor abroad.

The need to pay for our right to live is a uniquely Jewish syndrome. We alone bear an onus to justify what's a self-evident, inalienable right to any other people. Our obsession to analyze things from our enemies' point of view and understand them is simply unparalleled.

The origins of Jewish guilt for burdening oppressors and assailants and the compulsion to make amends are traceable to the penchant of every local medieval tyrant to oblige Jewish communities to pay exorbitantly for the privilege of not being slaughtered. Jews began to treat such levies as being the way of the world, only to be expected.

That's possibly why Israelis can't conceive of their territory as inviolable as that of other nations - ones situated where they are merely because ancestral tribal thugs or robber barons managed to wrest certain land holdings. Nobody doubts ordinary nations' legitimacy or their continued tenure in their various grabbed real-estate.

The Jewish state's postulate, however, is that it's impermanent and its possessions are currency with which to haggle for reprieve. No other nation pays for its right to exist, buys time or seeks acceptance. No nation would countenance such ignominy.

THE FACT that this land-for-peace hypothesis was repeatedly debunked had utterly failed to change the minds of Israel's Flat Earth fanatics. While we still smart from this past summer's disastrous repercussions of the flight from Lebanon and the evacuation of Gush Katif, our Flat-Earthers lose no time to return to their discredited old habits. We've just witnessed the calamitous consequences of divesting ourselves of strategic assets, but, as with Flat-Earthers, hard-evidence and reality-checks don't count.

Samuel Shenton, reviver of the Flat Earth cause, was unfazed even by photos of Earth from outer space. He judged that "it's easy to see how pictures like these could fool the untrained eye." For him the earth remained a motionless disk rather than an ever-orbiting spherical planet, what appeared like a curvature was "no more than atmospheric refraction" and the moon-landings were a Hollywood hoax scripted by Arthur C. Clarke.

The difference, of course is that Shenton was a harmless loon, who endangered nobody.

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 Nurit Greenger, October 28, 2006.

The free world has lost Britain to Islam! ...and to total insane thinking lunacy! Britain lost its way and rationality is a commodity in short supply there.

Britain politics is poisoned with anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. In times when the USA and Israel's supporting votes and allies are scares, the timing couldn't be worse.

British animosity toward the U.S is partly derives from simple snobbery, believing that Americans are vulgar upstarts, lacking the gravitas that Britain has accrued from a thousand years of history. We shall never forget this when the Brits call for our help, this time to save them from the Islamo-Fascists in their midst.

As an American and a Jew, Britain is another place in Europe that is off my tourism map...Soon there will be no place in Europe for me to visit. What a shame!

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared October 25, 2006 in Jewish World Review
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1006/phillips_us_uk.php3 Melanie Phillips is a columnist for Britain's Daily Mail and the author of Londonistan.

Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism have poisoned British politics. In a world of terrorism, the timing couldn't be worse

Everyone knows that Europe is a continent stuffed with craven, terror-appeasing fromages who loathe America. Britain, by contrast, led by the lion-hearted Tony Blair, is full of stalwarts who stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the defense of the West. Right?

Wrong. Fury at Prime Minister Blair for being President Bush's "poodle" has reached such a pitch that the most successful Labor prime minister in memory is being forced out of office because of his support for U.S. policy in Iraq and Israel. Labor's members of Parliament say his refusal to break with America by calling for an earlier cease-fire in Lebanon was the last straw. The disturbing fact is that Britain is consumed by a rampant anti-Americanism and an allied hostility toward Israel, which are driving public debate into irrationality, prejudice and appeasement.


In a Populus poll last month in The Times of London, 62% said the government should change its policy by distancing itself from the United States, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. An August YouGov poll in The Spectator magazine revealed that while 53% wanted a tougher anti-terrorism policy, 45% wanted to be allied more closely with the European Union than with America. Only 14% supported closer U.S. ties.

As a result, the prospects for the alliance between Britain and the United States in the post-Blair era do not look promising. Despite being an instinctive Atlanticist, Gordon Brown, the most likely successor as Labor prime minister, is thought to be only a reluctant backer of the war in Iraq, according to a new autobiography by former Labor minister David Blunkett.

Meanwhile David Cameron, the new young leader of the opposition Conservative Party, made a speech last month distancing himself from U.S. foreign policy and blaming America for fanning the flames of anti-Americanism. The outcome might be that Britain increasingly snuggles up to the EU over foreign policy while an irritated America, bereft of its principal advocate in Europe, moves toward isolationism. Much of Britain's anti-Americanism is driven by the usual suspects, such as far-left lawmaker George Galloway or newspapers such as the ultra-left Guardian. Galloway, for instance, said during an interview with GQ magazine earlier this year that the assassination of Blair by a suicide bomber would be "morally justified."

Left-wing discourse, now staple fare on the BBC and applauded even by conservatively minded audiences in panel discussions, proclaims that the United States is the fount of Third World oppression and the greatest threat to world peace.

But British animosity toward the U.K.'s most important and historic ally is wider and deeper. Partly it derives from simple snobbery, the long-standing British belief that Americans are vulgar upstarts who lack the gravitas that Britain has accrued from a thousand years of history.

Probe further, however, and you discover anguish at the progressive junking of that history. Schools, for example, no longer teach the history or values of the British nation on the grounds that national identity based on a majority culture is viewed as "racist." Instead, they promote multiculturalism, the doctrine that minority value must have equal status to those of the majority. Loss of confidence in Britain's role in the world has demoralized its governing class so badly that it has come to believe that the nation state is the principal source of all ills from prejudice to war, and that legitimacy resides instead in supranational institutions.

So no international action can be taken without sanctification by that holy of holies, the United Nations. As a result, the British regard Bush's "unilateral" foreign policy with undiluted horror. This is made worse by disdain for Bush himself, regarded as a tongue-tied cowboy who actually believes in G-d -- to the post-religious British, the nearest thing to a certificate of lunacy.

The biggest single cause of British anti-Americanism, however, is Israel. Despite being the target for more than half a century of genocidal Arab and Muslim aggression, Israel is widely perceived in Britain as the regional bully, and its acts of self-defense are viewed as the principal motor behind both the Middle East impasse and Islamic grievance because of its supposed refusal to allow the Palestinians to have a state of their own.

Thus John Denham, chairman of the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee, wrote that Israel's policies were making Britain a target for terror. America brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself, goes this type of thinking, because of its support for Israel -- and the only reason Britain is now threatened by Islamic terror is because of Blair's support for the United States.


This has opened a Pandora's box of anti-Jewish prejudice in Britain.

A recent report by the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism found that since 2000, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Britain. It is now common to read in the news media, for example, that the Jews are engaged in a global conspiracy that has subverted U.S. foreign policy to serve the interests of Israel and put the rest of the world at risk. In April, for instance, The Independent newspaper illustrated an interview on the subject of the "Israel lobby" in America with a picture of the American flag in which the stars of the union were replaced with the Stars of David. The headline: "The United States of Israel." Thus the prejudice against America is inextricably conflated with prejudice against Jews and the Jewish state.

The dismaying truth is that, even after the suicide bombings in London, America's defense of the free world against Islamic terror is widely viewed in Britain as the cause of that terror. The paranoid bigotry that drives the jihad -- that the United States and its Jewish puppet masters make up a giant conspiracy of evil -- is being increasingly echoed within Britain's non-Muslim population. The very idea that weakening the alliance with the United States would be in Britain's interests is madness. But in a country that has lost its way, rationality is a commodity in short supply.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Zionist Organization of America, October 27, 2006.

A new AJC poll has revealed that 81% of American Jews agree that "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel," with only 13% disagreeing. Other findings in the poll include:

  • 56% believe that Israelis and Arabs will never have peace, while 38% believe that they will eventually;

  • 64% agree that the West and Muslim worlds are engaged in a clash of civilizations, while 29% disagree;

  • 66% believe that the United Nations treats Israel unfairly, while 27% disagree;

  • 57% support Israel taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, while 35% oppose it;

  • 91% believe that anti-Semitism is a problem within the United States (26% believe it be a very serious problem), while 9% disagree;

  • 96% believe that anti-Semitism in the Muslim world is a problem (73% believe it to be a very serious problem), while 2% disagree;

  • 53% believe that international anti-Semitism will increase (17% believe it will greatly increase), while 8% believe it will decrease;

  • 89% believe that being Jewish is important in their lives (61% believe it to be very important) while 10% disagree;

  • 76% feel close to Israel (37% feel very close), while 22% do not;

  • 74% agree that caring about Israel is very important part of their being Jewish, while 25% disagree.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "These new poll results show a breathtaking turnaround in attitude by American Jews. When the Oslo process began and for many years thereafter, American Jews felt that the Arab war against Israel was simply about making major concessions by giving away Judea, Samaria and Gaza and parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Arabs. American Jews believed that these concessions would end the problem and bring peace. Now after Israel has given away almost half of Judea and Samaria, all of Gaza and after Prime Minister Barak offered virtually all of the disputed territory and a state; the response was simply the biggest terror war against Israel in its history and the realization by American Jews that Israel's destruction is the goal, not land and a Palestinian state.

"American Jews are now also aware that this is not an isolated conflict but that it fits into a larger pattern of jihadist violence against other Western democracies. In this context, it makes sense they see the threat posed to Israel by Iran and its drive to acquire nuclear weapons as so serious that they support Israel taking action to prevent it from happening. American Jews also are much more aware of the fact that the rise of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide is also part of this larger pattern and that even American Jews are not immune. It is deeply gratifying that the vast majority of American Jews feel that Israel is a very important part of their identity and concerns."

The Zionist Organization of America (www.zoa.org), founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 27, 2006.


In their partisanship, many Democrats have cast "the religious Right" as the main threat to American democracy. I have asked some to define this threat, but they can't. They are blind to the major if not main threats being Islam and the Left. The Left is intolerant, except towards Muslims, at least on campuses, where it expresses antisemitism and physically blocks conservative dissent. It turns education anti-American or dilutes it. "the religious Right" either do not realize that half the Evangelists favor Israel or brush that fact off by rationalizing that the Evangelists imagine that in the "end of days," the Armageddon forewarned in the Bible, Israelis would convert to Christianity. They purport to worry about that, but simultaneously disbelieve in it and also suppose it to be a long way off. Their logic is self-contradictory. A rational policy would be to accept and nurture Evangelist help for Israel, without committing to other aspects of the Evangelist program. Surely that would be a better policy than railing against the religious Right and ignoring the anti-Zionist religious Left, which boycotts Israel.

As Iran develops nuclear power, its President openly predicts the "end of days."

I think events bear him out. Evil is so entrenched, that there is a United Nations Organization largely devoted to it but talking high-mindedly. Americans denounce their own country for not having sweet diplomacy, while ignoring the savage cynicism of China, Russia, and France, which undermine US efforts to reign in Iran and N. Korea.

The US has a partial war against Islamism, which the Democrats keep the Republicans from making effective, and then blame them for not being effective. The US is striving to set up a terrorist state alongside Israel in war and dictatorship. About that Bush policy, the Democrats are uncharacteristically uncritical.

Hamas is planning another war, as is Hizbullah. This time the terrorists know how to be effective. Israel fights ineffectively. Why? (1) It has a misguided conscience about sparing as civilians the most vicious people, imbued with belligerent jihad and increasingly with its genocidal version. Israelis have this misconception and foreigners play on it and pretend that Israel still is too harsh. The conscienceless world distorts the law of war as a pretext for hobbling the Israeli war effort.

(2) Israel wishfully thinks it won't come to war. Its leaders imagine that the Arabs fear it. Nonsense! Why fear a country that fights half-heartedly and withdraws?

(3) Israelis prefer butter over guns. (4) The government has politicalized the Army, promoting incompetents. (5) It diverts its forces to fight against fellow Jews. It also has been diverting its forces against terrorists whom it should have put out of business by thorough eradication, in the first place.

(6) Above all, what Israel needs more of is Zionist vision. Many of its people think it is illegitimate, and don't realize that the Arab claims are illegitimate. Many of them deride the religious Jews, but those Jews have a religious Zionist vision that gives them a normal psychological comfort about the self-identity and mission in life, that enables a proper national self-defense. They are not in charge, however. They are the last prop under Israel, as Russia seems determined this time to destroy the Jewish state and the State Dept. assists in its sneaky way. This is an old scenario. How many times can Israel play the naïf and emerge intact?


The proper way to decide one's viewpoint is to gather the facts and see what they justify. Then one legitimately may present them in support of one's ideology. We've seen that people start out with an ideology, and then argue in generalized ways, without regard to the facts and even contrary to them. Interested groups manipulate factoids and impressions. This is manifest in the rationalizations for Israel's security fence.

The Arabs oppose the fence, because it provides some security for Israel against their depredations. Anti-Zionists abuse the issue for propaganda against Israel. The US micro-manages Israel so as to fence off as few Arabs and as many Jews as possible. This aligns with the State Dept. goal of getting the Jews out of the Territories.

The Sharon regime started a fence without public debate about its value and its placement. Much of what Israel does is in secret and is bulldozed over the people, though the country is called democratic. If Israeli governments were nationalist, honest, and courageous, they would cast off US dictation, assert their national and religious interests, and maintain national security.

The first question is whether there should be a fence. My answers are no, no, and no.

No, the Jewish people is entitled to the Territories, as I've explained many times. Safety from terrorism (and invasion) means keeping the Territories and not the Arabs now in them. Furthermore, the fence leaves a million Arabs living in Israel. They are not separated from the Jews. Therefore the concept of fencing is flawed to begin with.

No, I think that the country is too small to divide artificially. It should extend to its natural borders, which include the Territories. The full country would be much more defensible at the borders, which serve as a natural tank trap and early warning station. They also provide strategic depth for defense. Leaving the Territories in Arab hands, jutting as they do into the center of Israel and right up to Israel's capital is dangerous and therefore foolish. In allowing this, the government is acting ideologically and under pressure, not thinking through the implications and what Israel needs.

No, a fence does not provide much protection, even if built properly. Terrorists can shoot through it and over it, burrow under it, or break through it. Historically, hiding behind walls does not work for long.

But there is a fence. Then the question becomes whether it is being built by Israel for its own needs or to preclude Zionist retention of land. Again the answers are negative.

The Israeli Left, headed by the Supreme Court, has decreed that the top priority for the fence is the convenience of Arab farmers and not national security. That compromises the purpose and value of a fence that is meant to separate peoples but does not. The concept of separating peoples really would require fencing in the Arab communities. As a result of Court and US interference and Israeli officials who are bribed and under threat of prosecution by leftists, the fence keeps many Jewish communities out and Arabs in. Israel is spending a lot for illusory protection. Under State Dept. pressure, it keeps changing the direction and compromising coverage of the fence. Meanwhile, foreigners unsympathetic to Israelis' need for protection from terrorism, and oblivious to the evil of terrorism, rebuke Israel for inconveniencing some Arabs with a fence.


This mini-series has been discussing the fence conceptually. Over the months I have given some examples of the absurdity of the fencing. It is absurd from the point of view of providing security for Israelis, though clever from the point of view of ousting Israelis by making them insecure. Sharon, the Court, and the State Dept. set the fence up by design and by false priorities so as to place many Israelis in jeopardy. That is, it provides jihadists opportunities to get at those Israelis and hampers Israelis' ability to resist. An example I had cited was of a Jewish town situated below an Arab town, such that the Arabs could shoot over the fence into the Jewish town, while the fence kept the Jews from sallying out and removing the Arab marauders. Add to that the fact that the government has deprived Jewish settlers of heavy arms and sufficient small arms for proper defense, while failing to disarm the Arabs, who are the aggressors.

Let's get down to more detail. Details validate the concepts. The show what really is happening, what the fence really does or doesn't, and what kind of a government Israel really has. These observations are provided by my associate in Israel. It is the kind of reporting that one does not find in the newspapers. The media does not provide much news anymore, it quotes selectively what officials say about things.

Along the Maale Adumim road to Jerusalem, the right side is in the Territories and the left side is the Arab town of Issiwa. Issiwa is hostile to Jews traveling along the road, any Jews, for the Arabs hate members of rival faiths, regardless of whether the individuals did anything to them or not. Residents demonstrated their bigotry by throwing rocks at buses and cars of Jews. The violence hurt some people and caused others to have "accidents." At one time, Israel stationed soldiers on the hills around Issiwa, to stop the stone-throwing. The troops are gone, so the assailants are back.

Israel built a second road, to bypass Issiwaa. Israel allowed high-rises on the hilltops there, from which Arabs can walk to throw rocks at travelers or shoot down at them. The security road, itself, has been rendered insecure!

A checkpoint was built along the Maale Adumim road. Arabs living there come out of school and throw rocks at the soldiers staffing the checkpoint. The soldiers had orders not to arrest or fight with the rock throwers. That leaves the soldiers to hide or cower. Checkpoints are not the answer when soldiers are not allowed to be soldiers and Arabs are allowed to be Arabs, i.e., build anywhere and exercise violence. Cowering soldiers invite stoning and destroy deterrence.

Along the old road, Israel built a fence on the Territories side. The hostile Arabs in Azarya can throw stones or commit worse terrorism. The fence, only partly effective in preventing terrorism, is a farce when Arabs are allowed to build high-rises along both sides of most roads and on hilltops. The terrorist-enabling building continues without hindrance from Israel. Why? Appeasement? Political correctness? US pressure?

Also inside Jerusalem, Arabs are integrated in the area of French Hill. Jews there are subjected to attacks from Arabs.

My observations: Settlers have been given a bad reputation by the media, while the Arabs commit violent attacks but escape media scorn them for it. I think that integration, which was recommended for Americans not engaged in civil war, should not be recommended for Israel, where many Arabs are engaged in civil war.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, October 27, 2006.
This article was written by Gary Cooperberg.

There is no greater miracle than the State of Israel. It's so-called leadership hasn't the slightest idea how to lead a nation. Our enemies are poised to destroy us and we are poised to negotiate with our would-be annihilators. There is no such precedent in the history of nations. No nation ever arbitrarily expelled its own citizens from their homes and then handed over a large chunk of its land to its enemies. This brilliant scheme was designed to make the rest of Israel safer. Instead it strengthened our enemies and gave them a foothold inside our country. In spite of the fact that the PLO is receiving enormous amounts of weaponry from Egypt to the autonomous Gaza enclave via tunnels, Israel has no plans to retake this strategic area under its control. The IDF uncovered numerous tunnels, destroyed them and then left! It doesn't take a genius to know that these tunnels will soon be rebuilt.

It is bad enough that we have so many Arab neighbor states which seek our destruction. But how dare we permit an entire enemy population to live within our borders, both with and without Israeli citizenship? Why is it so difficult to see that these people also seek to destroy our country? Why has it become an axiom that Israel has no choice but to live with its enemies in its midst?

The bottom line is that we are, indeed, at war. The problem is that although the Arabs know this, our leaders refuse to accept this fact. When you are engaged in a war of ideologies negotiation is not an option unless one party actually wins the war. It is the loser, having no better choice, who appeals for negotiations. When Israel seeks to negotiate with her enemies she is taking the position of a loser. Such a posture is not lost on our enemies who eagerly use this weakness as another tool in their war against us.

We have nothing to negotiate with the PLO. Our leaders have as their primary obligation the need to defend the nation and its citizens. Those Arabs who consider themselves "palestinians", by definition, are our enemies. Their goal is to turn Jewish Israel into Arab Palestine. This is not a matter to negotiate. It is our obligation to make it clear that such a goal will never see the light of day. Instead our leadership has made consistent policies to encourage our enemies to achieve their goal! While they may honestly believe that their overtures to appease our enemies will bring peace, the truth is that all they accomplish is to convince the Arabs that they can eventually achieve their goal to destroy Israel!

Unless we find a leadership that openly declares the fraudulence of negotiating with the PLO and initiates a policy of removing our enemies from our homeland we will never have true peace with any nation, nor respect from nations who seek our friendship.

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 Aryeh Zelasko, October 27, 2006.

Herein is the root of the problem. Israel is not a "Western democratic nation." It is a third world kleptocracy. So the answer is; Yes this to be your continuing reality until you are willing to act on your anger instead of venting it on pointless article in the Jerusalem Post. Pointless because it is not the reader of the Jerusalem Post who have caused this problem nor is the answer with them. The cause is the treasonous kleptocracy that is arming and protecting our enemies and the answer will come only when the people of Sderot are willing to take direct action to solve their problem.

This article was written by Noam Bedein and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1161811209973& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). The writer, age 24, spent a year in seminary, three years in the IDF and a year trekking around Asia. He recently moved to Sderot to work and study.

Rockets were fired on the southern Israeli city of Sderot on Friday night. No casualties occurred. - Israel Radio News, Saturday night, October 21

I'm sitting in the back of a Sephardic synagogue in Sderot on Friday night. It's a two-minute walk from my rental apartment. This is only my second Shabbat here after spending the holidays at my parents' home near Jerusalem.

I'm thinking to myself, while the prayers are conducted in a thick Moroccan-accented chant, that it will be good to get back to a routine - studies, a morning photography class, a few hours of volunteering with Ethiopian children and my new job in Sderot: briefing groups and journalists and introducing them to the people of this community which has struggled under daily rocket bombardment for the past five years.

While my mind is wandering, I hear the siren go off... Tzeva Adom - color red. We have about 15 seconds to seek shelter.

The congregants, mostly older men and young fathers with children, carry on praying and pay little attention to the siren. All this is "normal," someone whispers.

Anyway, many residents don't have a secure room or shelter to flee to.

The day before, Sderot's chief security officer showed me a map covered with dots indicating the places were the Kassams have hit. He stopped putting dots on the map two years ago, because it was completely full.

AFTER 27 seconds, the synagogue shook with a loud thud. Everyone jumped out of their seats. The shell came down close - real close. Older children ran out of the synagogue to see what damage had been done.

The younger children grabbed their fathers' legs. A 13-year-old boy started to shake and broke down in tears. His father also appeared confused and helpless.

Many children in Sderot suffer from some level of posttraumatic stress syndrome. Some 14 year olds still insist on sleeping in their parents' room; older children have started to wet their beds again; some parents don't allow their children to go anywhere by themselves. There are no carefree hours at the playground.

THE KASSAM on Friday night fell 100 meters from the synagogue into the backyard of a family home. Nearby car and home windows were shattered. A young boy on the sidewalk was wounded by shrapnel.

As I write these words, I'm still feeling a bit shaky. And the thing going through my mind is that no matter how I feel from this one experience, residents of this place have been living with this horrifying reality for more than five years. That Friday night I had a hard time falling asleep. I was thinking of how the Gaza Arab who fired the Kassam had probably been taking cover among civilians, aiming at our unprotected homes and houses of worship.

Like many in Sderot, I am angry. Is this to be our continuing reality? Would any other Western democratic nation put up with such a relentless onslaught? What would they do?

Few people, even in Israel, have a clear idea about what's happening in Sderot. It's not until you've spent at least three weeks getting used to waking up to predawn sirens and worrying each time just how close the rockets are going to fall - will it be three blocks away? The other side of town?

Most people can't imagine what life in this town is like - a place where Jews do not feel protected and rely on daily miracles for survival.

How may people have to get killed before our government finally puts an end to these attacks?

After all, since September 2005, when Israel abandoned the Jewish communities of Gaza, which have now been transformed into terror bases, the civil defense authorities have reported that the enemy has carried out more than 1,000 Kassam attacks.

Twenty-two people have been killed in the Western Negev by what the media insists on calling "home-made Kassam rockets." Routine reports of Kassam rockets falling simply don't capture the sense of siege under which people around here live.

We want people outside of Sderot and the Western Negev to appreciate what it is like for the region's 45 communities. I got my first taste of that fear and sense of abandonment this past Friday night.

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 Martin Sherman, October 27, 2006.

In light of a recent Bir-Zeit University Poll on Palestinian propensity to emigrate, I should like to urge you to (again) peruse the following proposal. [See gray box. (http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/hs_short_eng.htm).]

As you will see they propose a paradigm shift in the approach to the Palestinian issue and its resolution - from the the Political to the Humanitarian.

Moreover, the proposal is couched in terms entirely compatible with libertarian political principles and to the best of our belief constitutes a "win-win" proposal which will:

* Alleviate, and even eliminate, the humanitarian plight of individual Palestinians

* Ensure the continued security and survival of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people

* Provide a significant boost to the economies of the Developing World

* Transform poverty stricken refugees into affluent émigrés

The recent poll conducted by Bir Zeit University impinges directly on the relevance and feasibility of the proposal. The finding of the poll that "44% of young Palestinians are willing to immigrate if given the opportunity" is not greatly divergent from the results of a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Summit in late 2004 which found that a large proportion of the Palestinian population would accept various forms of material inducements to emigrate permanently. These two polls can be accessed respectively at:


We would be extremely interested in responses to this e-mail and in conducting further exchanges as to possible modes to promoting and propagating this initiative. Contact me at ms6747@gmail.com

Jerusalem Summit

Humanitarian Regional Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict


1. The conventional-wisdom paradigm for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed woefully, bringing nothing but misery and despair to both sides -- but particularly to the Palestinians as individual human beings.

2. This conventional paradigm has attempted to solve the conflict by means of a Political Solution involving the establishment of a self governing Palestinian entity on territories in Judea Samaria and Gaza which have been under Israeli control since 1967 i.e. on the basis of a "Land for Peace" approach.

3. Dispassionate assessment of the history of the conflict and its current development will strongly suggest that persisting with attempts to attain a political solution on the basis the conventional paradigm are at best futile - and at worse harmful. Accordingly, alternative modes of resolution must be pursued.


1. Analysis of Palestinian deeds and declarations over the years make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are in effect both unwilling and incapable of achieving and maintaining statehood.

(a) Palestinian Unwillingness: This is reflected in the fact that the Palestinians have rejected every single viable proposal which would have afforded them a state - from the 1947 partition plan to the 2000 Barak proposals.

(b) Palestinian Incapability: The Palestinian national movement has enjoyed conditions far more favorable than almost any other national independence movement since WW-II - widespread international endorsement of their cause, unmitigated support of a superpower in the decades of the Cold War, highly sympathetic coverage by the major media organizations, and over a decade of Israeli administrations who have acknowledged (and at times even identified with) the Palestinians declared national aspiration. In spite of this, the achievements of Palestinian national movement have been more miserable than almost any other national independence movement -- bringing nothing but privation and penury to its people.

2. It is thus far easier to understand Palestinian conduct if one assumes that it is driven less by lack of Palestinian self determination and more by the very the existence of Jewish self determination; less by the aspiration to establish a Palestinian state and more by the aspiration to dismantle a Jewish state.

3. The latter, and seemingly more plausible, explanation of Palestinian behavior -- i.e. rejection of Jewish self determination and the dismantling of the Jewish nation state -- reflects an agenda totally unacceptable by any international standards and thus must be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.

4. Accordingly if the accepted version of the Palestinian narrative -- i.e. a desire for Palestinian self determination and the aspiration for Palestinian statehood -- cannot be reconciled with the history of Palestinian behavior, this narrative also must be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.

5. This issue of legitimacy of narrative is crucial. Indeed the very fuel of the Political Paradigm involving the establishment of a Palestinian state is the perception -- or rather the misperception - of the presently prevailing Palestinian narrative as legitimate.


1. The establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international agenda.

2. However, removing the issue of a Palestinian state from the international agenda will not eliminate the humanitarian predicament of Palestinians residing in Israeli-administered areas.

3. This is clearly an issue that must be addressed and resolved. But it must be addressed not in political terms but in humanitarian ones.

4. Thus, to successfully resolve the Palestinian problem, the Political Paradigm must be replaced by a Humanitarian Paradigm. This, however can only be done if the current Palestinian narrative, which fuels the Political Paradigm, is de-legitimized.

5. Thus, the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue.


1. A comprehensive Humanitarian Solution to the Palestinian issue would entail three major elements:

(a) The dissolution of UNRWA -- which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to their status as refugees;

(b) The termination of ethnic discrimination against Palestinians, living in the Arab world - which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to their status as residents;

(c) Generous relocation grants to Palestinians living in Israeli administered territories on an individual basis and not via any official Palestinian organization.

2. UNRWA is an organization that perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. It is an anomalous organization which exists solely to deal with Palestinian refugees, while all the other refugees on the face of the globe are dealt with by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

3. The organizations not only deal differently with the refugees under their auspices, they each have different definitions for classifying an individual as a "refugee".

4. This difference in definition has far-ranging consequences. For in contrast to the UNHCR definition, which results in a decline in the number of refugees in the number of refugees over time, the UNRWA definition leads to an inflation of the number.

5. In fact, if the UNHCR's otherwise universal definition were applied to the Palestinian case, the number of refugees would decline from 4-5 million to 200-300,000 i.e. by over 90%!!

6. It thus appears that UNWRA is perpetuating the very problem it was designed to eliminate.

7. Accordingly, the dissolution of UNRWA is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive, durable solution of the Palestinian issue.

8. With the dissolution of UNWRA, the remaining, and drastically reduced, number of Palestinian refugees, should be placed under the auspices of UNHCR - in accordance with the accepted practice for all other refugee groups on the face of the globe.

9. Those Palestinians no longer classed as refugees under the new arrangements, must be offered all the privileges afforded all other peoples resident in their current countries of domicile in the Arab world -- including the right to acquire citizenship.

10. In order to do this, a vigorous diplomatic and media campaign must be mounted to induce Arab governments to end their harsh discriminatory behavior towards the millions of Palestinians domiciled in their countries and absorb them into their societies as fully fledged citizens. After all, even the Palestinians assert (in the opening paragraph of their National Covenant) that they are "part of the Arab Nation".

11. As for the Palestinians resident in Israeli administered territory, there is only one reasonable and feasible alternative that will facilitate:

(a) extricating them from their dire humanitarian plight;
(b) free them from the yoke of generations of misrule by their leadership;
(c) ensure the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.

12. This is a generous relocation and resettlement package to allow them to build a new life for themselves and their families in countries preferably, but not necessarily exclusively, with similar religious and socio-cultural conditions.

13. In order to minimize the ability of organized Palestinian interest groups to impede the success of such an effort, the offer of financial inducement to emigrate must be "atomized" -- i.e. made to individual Palestinian breadwinners on a one-to one personal level and not on a communal level via some formal Palestinian entity.

14. A survey conducted among the Palestinians in Nov. 2004 indicates that only about 15% of the Palestinian population resident in Israeli administered areas would reject such an offer outright. By contrast, over 70% would accept some form of material compensation as an inducement to emigrate permanently from the areas currently under Israeli administration (see

15. The economic cost of such a policy of generously financed humanitarian relocation and resettlement would be eminently affordable and would compare favorably with almost all other settlement proposals on the table today. Indeed, its total cost would be around 50% of the present total US outlay on the War in Iraq!!

16. Indeed, given Israel's present level of GDP, it is an initiative that it could well undertake on its own over the next decade to a decade and a half. It should be realized that this is the period that has elapsed since the initiation of the Oslo process -- which has brought nothing but failure and tragedy at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

17. Of course, if the US, the EU and other developed nations were to contribute to this effort, it could be implemented in a far shorter space of time and with almost no burden on the world economy.

18. Quite the opposite, the Palestinians arriving in their new countries of domicile will not be impoverished refugees but reasonably affluent migrs. The funds that they would be bringing with them would provide a considerable boost for the economies of these nations -- most of which would be developing countries with a pressing need for such a substantial influx of funds.


The proposed initiative constitutes a "win-win" proposal which will:

Alleviate, and even eliminate, the humanitarian plight of individual Palestinians

Ensure the continued security and survival of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people

Provide a Significant Boost to the Economies of the Developing World

Transform poverty stricken refugees into affluent émigrés

The article below was written by Joshua Mitnick and it appeared October 25, 2006 in the Christian Science Monitor

A poll shows that a third of Palestinians want to leave because of violence and economic woes

BIRZEIT, WEST BANK -- Ahmed Hushiyeh holds degrees in political science and communications, and dreams of becoming a photojournalist. But after a futile search for a job, the young Palestinian works as a janitor at his alma mater, Birzeit University.

He is saving money in the hopes of moving to Europe, enrolling in another university, and finding work. Political paralysis during Hamas's brief tenure leading the Palestinian government and escalating violence between rival security forces has convinced Mr. Hushiyeh that his career path lies abroad.

"I am not optimistic. The situation is only deteriorating. Maybe outside, the opportunities are much better," he says. "Every young man wishes to have a job and have a life. But when he sees what we have here: occupation, siege, a low standard of living, security crisis - all of this creates a desire to leave. I want to get out of this crisis."

Like Hushiyeh, a growing number of Palestinians are openly saying they'd like to leave the West Bank and Gaza if given the chance, raising concern about the possibility of a Palestinian brain drain. The sentiment, which flouts the long-held Palestinian belief that Israeli occupation can only be resisted by staying put, is yet another indication of the deepening despair since Hamas was elected to run the government.

This desire to flee also comes amid ongoing violence in the Gaza Strip. On Monday, Israeli troops killed at least seven Palestinians in one of the deadliest days of fighting following the June 25 capture of an Israeli soldier.

Birzeit University pollster Nader Said, who has monitored emigration attitudes for 12 years, says the percentage of Palestinians willing to relocate once hovered just below 20 percent. When that figure jumped to 32 percent in a September survey, Mr. Said says he was shocked.

The catalyst, the pollster says, has been Palestinian disillusionment following Hamas's half-year in government. "What the Israelis were unable to do - try to push the Palestinian out of the country - the internal strife is achieving," he says.

Even more telling, adds Said, is that the percentage surges to 44 percent among Palestinians in their 20s and 30s. Among young men, it surges beyond 50 percent.

Malik Shawwa, a consultant specializing in obtaining Canadian visas, says his workload has jumped by two-thirds over the past seven months as more Palestinians ask about leaving. "This is the most important subject in the Palestinian territories," he says. "It's not just a matter of a lack of jobs. It's the situation. They're not secure. They don't trust the government."

Among Palestinians, the mere mention of hijra - Arabic for emigration - is enough to stir up painful memories of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war that left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians stranded outside the newly independent Israeli state.

"Emigration means that you are escaping the occupation and that you don't want to liberate your land. It's a shame on you," says Abdel Nasser Najjar, a columnist for the Palestinian daily Al Ayyam. "Now it's different. There are many pressures: economic pressure and psychological pressure. Many people are speaking out."

Riad Malki, the director of Panorama, a Ramallah nonprofit that promotes democracy in the West Bank and Gaza, confesses that he is giving more thought to the idea of relocating. But the broader trend of an exodus by the middle class and young males stirs up fear that Palestinian society may be stripped of its next generation.

"We are going to lose the dynamo of the Palestinian state," he says. "If we lose them how will we set up the offices of Palestine?"

But there are no signs that a critical mass of Palestinians is leaving just yet. The distance between pondering a move and acting on it remains considerable because of the hurdles in establishing residency in a new country. "For the most part, it's a very loud protest statement against the political actors," says Said. "Palestinians have given [Hamas and Fatah] an opportunity to deliver."

And yet, there is evidence that Palestinians are acting on this sentiment. The Ramallah branch of Mr. Shawwa's visa consultancy gets 30 calls a day while the Gaza city office fields 10, he says. Though only a fraction qualify to apply for a Canadian visa, Shawwa says, Palestinians are nonetheless desperate to leave.

"They come to me and cry," he says. "We are doing a much better service for the Palestinian people than the people who are fighting. We are saving a lot of young people from being destroyed."

Back on the Birzeit University campus, a trio of students admitted that the topic of emigration remains sensitive among family and friends. But at the same time they reject the suggestion that moving abroad constitutes any betrayal.

"If I leave then I'll be lucky," says Birzeit law student Masaad Masaad, who hopes to move after graduating and a two-year internship. "The country hasn't provided anything for me. The government has failed ... No attention is given to the citizens."

Contact Dr. Martin Sherman at ms6747@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 27, 2006.


Perhaps in Brazil we can regain many thousands [or millions] of conversos descendants of Jews who will act upon their birthrights. We are certain about three things: in Brazil, there are many Jews at assorted levels of [Jewish] awareness, Jews founded modern Brazil, and there has been an incredible momentum of returning to Judaism in recent years.

This was written by Avner Hopstein and was published yesterday in Ynet News

500 years after Jewish conversos reached Brazil, their descendants begin reclaiming their birthright

BRAZIL -- In the middle of the night, as the non-Jews slept, David de Andrada and his grandfather would sneak out to the sidewalk in front of their home. By the light of a small bonfire, the grandfather would read to his young grandson from a large book.

De Andrada thus learned about Abraham and the twelve tribes who were enslaved in Egypt. When de Andrada would ask his grandfather about the book, he was told that "it's a book with stories of ancient people."

De Andrada was raised in a village in northern Brazil, where life revolved around the church. No one dared mentioned the word "Jew" out loud. In fact, de Andrada says that he had never even heard of the Jews until he was 19 years old. Even he was fooled by his family's efforts at disguising their origins.

Outside the home, the de Andrada family would read the New Testament; the Jewish Bible was reserved for late nights at home. Although the de Andradas made sure to eat ham and pork in the presence of others, at home, they attempted to keep the laws of kashrut. Furthermore, on Christian holidays, they would wear their best clothes and attend church, so as not to raise suspicions.

The de Andrada family was far from unique. Joao Mederos grew up during the 1940's and 1950's in a village in Brazil's Interior and first heard about the Jews when he left for Rio de Janeiro during the seventies.

When Mederos and his classmates learned about the Holocaust, they were told that the victims were Lutherans with Jewish roots. Nevertheless, Mederos claims that something didn't add up. "When we went to church on Sunday, we used the back door. This way we didn't have to cross ourselves in front of the church's altar," he recalls.

Jewish roots

It is June, 2006, and Leonore Mederos is crying in a Recife coffeehouse. When she speaks of the shattering discovery that changed her life -- she is descended from Jewish conversos -- even the World Cup escapes her notice.

She stumbled across her Jewish roots accidentally, when an Israeli Internet correspondent of hers noted that Fonseca, Mederos' mother's maiden name, is of Jewish origin.

The revelation explained many things for Mederos: Her family's strange insistence on maintaining a chapel in their home, their custom of marrying within the family in order to "maintain the bloodline", their disinclination to baptize the children, and much more.

The de Andrada and the Mederos families are typical of many Brazilians who, after several hundred years, are slowly reclaiming their Jewish roots.

The search for freedom

The first Crypto-Jews reached Brazil, which was then a Portuguese colony, over five hundred years ago. Fleeing the Inquisition, they sought religious freedom as well as economic opportunities. In Europe, they had been derogatorily referred to as "Marannos", which means "pigs" or "fettered ones".

Upon their arrival in Brazil, the Crypto-Jews exported wood and raised sugar cane; their initial success attracted many other conversos from Spain. The community's Jewish roots were an open secret; they were known as "new Christians." In Recife, the largest city in northeastern Brazil, the Crypto-Jews prospered significantly. According to official records, during the 15th century, they comprised 2/3 of the area's white residents.

In 1630, Holland captured the Portuguese colony, and, for the next 24 years, Recife enjoyed a Jewish Renaissance. The first American synagogue was founded; a street was named after the "good Jews"; and many conversos openly returned to Judaism.

However, the good times did not last. Brazil's Jews had become so powerful that the Catholic Church pressured Portugal to reconquer its former colony from "the Jewish conversos who now operate their synagogues to the Church's great humiliation."

Thus, in 1654, Portugal once again gained control of Brazil, and an expulsion edict was issued ordering the Jews to leave within three months. Most of the community scattered, but a portion chose to hide in the Interior by mingling among the local residents.

How many converse descendants are there? Estimates range from thousands to millions.

"We don't know how many descendants of the Jews remain throughout Brazil, mainly because we haven't been to many places," observes Professor Anita Novinsky, a historian at the University of Sao Paolo.

"We are certain about three things. The first one is that in Brazil, there are many Jews at assorted levels of awareness. The second is that modern Brazil was founded by Jews, and the third -- that there has been an incredible momentum of returning to Judaism in recent years."

Kosher pig

Luciano Olivera, 30, a physician from Campina Grande, was unaware of his ancestors' Jewish roots, despite the fact that his family was always referred to as "the pigs" by their neighbors. When he was 19, his aunt told him how his great-grandfather's household would don their dressiest clothes once a week. When the stars appeared, they would lock their doors and pray "in a different language."

In addition, Olivera discovered his great-grandmother's birth certificate. Instead of citing the location of her birth, the document contains the Portuguese word for "pig". Also, Olivera was shown his uncle's personal prayer box. The Hebrew letter "shin", a traditional Jewish reference to God, is clearly visible on the upper portion of the box. "At that moment," Olivera reminisces, "my life changed forever."

Researchers have unearthed many family customs, which clearly resemble Jewish traditions. For example, one family lit candles every day, so as not to arouse suspicions on Fridays. Similarly, others ate tapioca rather than bread during Lent, without knowing why they did so.

Yet, as the Crypto-Jews attempt to return to their roots, they claim that the Jewish establishment has not welcomed them back with open arms.

"I was 38 years old when I first visited a synagogue in Rio, for a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony," Joao Mederos reports. "When the speeches ended and the religious ceremony began, the lights dimmed, and the cantor entered. He looked to me like a priest, but on his square hat, there was Hebrew writing, and I realized that he sang in Hebrew. When the singing began, I cried hysterically."

But Mederos is still bitter about the rabbi's frosty attitude. "I introduced myself and said that I am descended from the Crypto-Jews of Portugal. He ignored me, and his assistant gestured dismissively," Mederos accuses angrily. "That's been the mentality to this day. Since then, I constantly argue with rabbis who refuse to accept us."

In between fights, Mederos has found time to open a new synagogue in Natal, a beachfront city in northern Brazil. Although the one-room synagogue, which is furnished with plastic chairs and a miniature ark, is small, the congregants pray with emotion.

In the nearby village of Barcelona, a house is embossed with a star. The elderly Catholic resident declares that the star is called a "Star of Solomon or a Star of David. I don't remember which."

When asked about her rather scrawny goats, she describes how they are slaughtered. "We give a blow to the head and let the blood drip to the ground," she details. "Afterward, the bloodstains are covered with dirt."

'Conversion is like betraying my ancestors'

The Ashkenazi rabbis of Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro refuse to recognize the descendants of the conversos as Jews. For young adults like Olivera, this means that he is unable to marry according to Jewish law.

"Let's say that I meet a nice girl, and we decide to get married," he says. "No rabbi will agree to marry us. They demand that we convert, like non-Jews. For me, converting is humiliating. It's like a betrayal of my ancestors."

Olivera, who travels three times a week to the Interior in order to circumcise Crypto-Jews, is considering marrying a cousin, as his forefathers used to do.

Another issue is that conversion is no simple matter. There are no Orthodox rabbinical courts in Brazil; the Crypto-Jews would have to travel to either the US or Israel. Needless to say, most of them do not have the financial means for such a trip.

Still unresolved

The Israeli rabbinate has not yet decided how to deal with the Brazilian Crypto-Jews. Meanwhile, however, Rabbi Avraham Amitai of Shavei Yisrael, an organization, which locates and identifies long-lost Jewish communities, was sent to Recife.

Amitai, who serves as Recife's rabbi, disputes the claim that the Israeli rabbinate will never settle for anything less than full conversion. "A person who manages to prove that he has Jewish roots going back generations -- I relate to him as a descendent of the Jewish people, and I want to bring him back to us without full conversion," he insists. "The Crypto-Jews really interest me."

But do they interest the rabbinate?

"I think that even the rabbinate can no longer ignore the Crypto-Jews nor does it want to. It's true that in the past, the issue was neglected, but now a new process of recognition and cooperation is beginning. The fact that they sent me here with a mandate to work with the Crypto-Jews shows that there's an awareness that a solution must be found.

"Clearly, that doesn't mean that tomorrow all the Crypto-Jews will be able to move to Israel. But two years ago, the rabbis would say: 'No way; they're not Jewish.' Today you no longer hear that."

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Fried, October 26, 2006.

This comes from Bob Windholz

Contact Milton Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jeremy Gimpel, October 26, 2006.

As we sit here in the scorching heat of Gaza, terrorized by the flies whose persistence and tenacity is nothing short of inspiring, we find ourselves asking this very question. At face value, it is clear that the war is far from over. If anything, the majority of Israeli's recognize that while the battle in Southern Lebanon may have ended for now, the war with Hezbollah and the Muslim world is still to come. As to why we are here, the Arabs of Gaza are escalating their Jihad against Israel, and being that the army is still recoiling from the events of last month, they have decided to mobilize more soldiers to compensate.

The deeper question that must be asked is what this war is really about. G-d's providence is unquestionably profound in the Land of Israel, and much like all of his creation, everything happens for a reason. Although our Prophet Isaiah tells us "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts", the spiritually attuned person can look at his life and world events and see the perfect orchestration and design.

Last week we sat in our Jerusalem office overwhelmed with the daunting task of organizing our latest international speaking tour aimed at bringing clarity and truth, from the perspective of a commander and soldier in the IDF reserves, to a situation that is so littered with moral equivocation, misunderstandings, and lies. Without understanding the root causes, both political and spiritual, that Israel and every free nation is contending with, the powers of freedom and democracy are destined for defeat and it is the task of the Jewish people to be bring that truth to the world. As we were completely consumed with this undertaking, the phone suddenly rang notifying us that our unit has been mobilized to head down to Gaza within the week.

On the surface, reserve duty is healthy for both the individual Jew and the Jewish Nation in the Land of Israel. On a personal level, when one is confronted with life and death, dollars and cents (or shekels and agarot), are demoted from the prominent position they tend to acquire in our lives. Showers and beds are the comforts one yearns for, rather than leather interiors and business class travel. One returns from such an experience with a renewed appreciation for things many take for granted. On a national level, reserve duty is the one vestige of Israeli society that is able to completely deconstruct social, economic, religious, and racial divisions that separate us throughout the year, bringing the nation together in the protection of our country from those who seek her destruction.

Alongside hundreds of other Israeli's, we never thought that within the week indoor restrooms and sock-changing would be the luxuries of life. We found ourselves asking why G-d would interrupt our noble and necessary pursuit of being a "Light unto the Nations" with a call to our southern border. It did not take long, however, before the wisdom and perfection of this "distraction" became apparent.

A mere two years ago, we served in the Philadelphi corridor region of Southern Gaza, less that a mile away from our current location and alongside the very same soldiers we are serving with now. In what is arguably the most politically opinionated nation in the world, reserve duty is as a place of debate and discussion ranging from politics and strategy to philosophy and religion. With the infamous Gaza disengagement plan approaching, there was definite division and debate concerning both the utility and justice of such a policy with a slight majority favoring the impending government initiative. The advocates the plan would simply point to the consistent barrage of dead soldiers and say "If we give this up, we'll never have to come back here again."

Despite the disengagement, two years later we find ourselves back in Gaza and the attacks continue. Before surrendering Gaza, many claimed the attacks would cease if we would surrender the territories acquired in the 1967 war to the Palestinians. Now the missiles are exploding in Sderot, a city part of the 1948 State of Israel. The futility of machinations such as the "disengagement" and the "realignment" has been exposed and the true intentions of our enemies has been revealed leaving the same soldiers who sang the praises of appeasement and unilateral withdrawals with questions demanding answers. If this war is not about the "occupied territories" then what is it about? If we have completely withdrawn to the northern borders delineated in UN resolution 1559, then why did Hezbollah attack us? What can we do to finally make peace with the nations around us?

Israelis have been forced to question some fundamental tenets on which the State of Israel was founded as well as assumptions and beliefs implanted in elementary school. At this very moment, there is a Torah study session going on just a few feet to my left between a secular Israeli named Rafi with a large tattoo of Gandolph (the wizard from The Lord of the Rings) on his arm, and a religious Jew named Eran with a full beard covering his face and large knitted kippah on his head. While the UN, the EU, and a growing voice in international community is questioning Israel's right to exist, Rafi is opening his heart to the true legitimacy to our claim. Rafi is learning that our right to Tel-Aviv is no more legitimate than our right to Gaza or Hebron and is based on the promise of G-d to Abraham. He is learning about our enemy, Ishmael, who is a "beastly man; his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him" who is jealous of the birthright granted to our forefather Isaac, with whom G-d granted an "everlasting covenant with him and his offspring after him". Most importantly, he is learning that there is a oG-d in the world, we are his chosen people, and that he is waiting for us to return to him and guard his commandments.

As we look at Rafi and see him beginning to understand, we too are understanding as well. Before the Jewish people can completly fulfill our task of being a "Light unto the Nations", we must first be a light unto ourselves. We can not extend a hand of friendship to the Christian world unless our other hand is firmly clasped by our Jewish brethren. G-d is bringing our enemies against us in order to turn us towards each other and to him. Whether or not we can understand it, the trials and tribulations we are facing in Israel are for our own good. Sometimes shedding falsehoods and illusions is cathartic, but the pain is a small price to pay for the truth we achieve.

Thousands of years ago the prophet Amos sang "Behold, days are coming -- the word of the Lord -- when I will send a hunger into the Land; Not a hunger for bread or a thirst for water, but to hear the words of Hashem." Was he picturing this very scene on the sweltering sand dunes of Gaza?

Jeremy and Ari Abramowitz run a website called www.TheLandofIsrael.com, which is devoted to "the Jewish Voice of a New Generation in Israel." They also host "A Light unto the Nations" on Israel National Radio. Their vision is to open up at least one Center for Spiritual Growth in every city in Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2006.


Czech authorities foiled a Muslim plot to capture a large number of Jews, lock them into a synagogue, make impossible demands, and then (citing that their demands were not met, as if that justifies anything), blow up the synagogue (Arutz-7, 10).


This week Abbas spoke to Sec. Rice and on P.A. TV about whether the P.A. should recognize Israel. He persuaded Rice that it should and would and how sincere and clever he was about it. The day before, he told his Arabic audience that the P.A. should not recognize Israel (Arutz-7, 10/6 & IMRA, 10/7). Does she even care? Her whole policy is pretence. HAMAS & HIZBULLAH PREPARING FOR WAR

Hamas has built its gunmen into a Hizbullah-style professional force of 7,500 men. Some units specialize in long-range rockets, short-range rockets, anti-tank missiles, or as snipers. They would be ready for combat by summer (IMRA, 10/7).

Russia used to send troops to the Mideast as "advisors." Now it sends them more openly as military "engineers," to rebuild Lebanese bridges. But among them are commando units of Muslim Chechen ex-rebels. Russia provided much of the damaging intelligence to Hizbullah. Russian anti-tank missiles inflicted much of the actual damage.

Russia has returned to siding actively with the Arabs. It is demanding former Russian property in Jerusalem. Putin's men raise this unfounded claim at every meeting with Israelis. In addition, Russia protects Iran from anti-nuclear sanctions. Russian backing encourages Syria to be more belligerent about the Golan. The Soviets fomented war.

IDF reaction? The Chief of Staff pretends his subordinates (and himself) did not fail to eliminate the threat from Lebanon. He promoted mediocre commanders responsible for poor performance and pretend that Hizbullah now fears Israel. Cabinet reaction? Debate whether to concede the Golan and Judea-Samaria now or later. (IMRA, 10/7).

A professional force of 7,500, selecting where to attack while hiding among civilians and facing a foe unwilling to fire if civilians are present (Israel thinks it is being civilized and the rest of the world distorts the law of war to demand restraint only of Israel and the US), can tie down a much larger enemy force. That is what Hizbullah did.

Hamas would be aided by tens of thousands of irregulars and get Hizbullah to divert much of the Israeli army at that time. Syria is getting ready to probe the Golan. The Islamists hope, as Arafat did, that eventually, regular Muslim Arab armies would jump on Israel. Egypt is turning ever more Islamist. Russia backs the Arabs, Soviet style, with intelligence, defense of the offensive capabilities, and military units, small for now.

This situation demonstrates still again the folly of abandoning territory but also the folly of leaving Muslim Arabs present in them. If Israel had reclaimed the territories for itself, as is its right, and edged the Arabs out, it would have no problems from there. INVESTIGATION COMMISSION ON LEBANON WAR PERFORMANCE

The Winograd Commission has appointed a public relations staffer. Reservists and bereaved families protested that an investigation commission should not need a public relations officer. Incidentally, the appointee previously had advised police how to appear before cameras while they dragged Jews out of Gaza (IMRA, 10/8).

Now it turns out that he was the public relations advisor to the IDF during the Lebanon War. In effect, he would be advising the Commission investigating him, among others. Critics asked the Attorney-General to rule him in conflict of interest (IMRA, 10/9).

Was he the one who advised police how to block cameras while beating up peaceful protestors?

Of course a whitewash commission needs a public relations staffer! How else would it obscure the folly of the Prime Minister that chose them?


Normally, Israel divides up the Cave of the Patriarchs, sacred to Jews and Muslims alike, so that both faiths can worship in parts of it at the same time, without coming into conflict with each other. Every year, major Jewish and Muslim holidays attract bigger crowds to the Cave. Israeli authorities close it to Muslims on the Jewish holidays and to Jews on the Muslim ones.

The P.A. reports only the closing to Muslims and as if unjust. They call Israelis and their rulings "aggressive acts," "occupation authorities," "extremist colonizers." On the other hand, t he Muslims have threatened that if they take power in Hebron, Judaism's second most holy city, they would close the Cave to Jews (IMRA, 10/8.)

The Muslim authorities deliberately inflame their people against the Jews, by falsely attributing to them discrimination against Muslims and by describing the Jews in pejorative terms. Those terms are not descriptions but propaganda. Ironically, it is the Muslims who are intolerant and who have attacked Jewish holy sites.


"The Democratic Party's sharp turn leftward in recent years has been a major factor in weakening the US-Israel alliance." "...leading financiers, radical-leftist ideologues and political activists" "built organizations that dictate the party's agenda; finance the campaigns of politicians who embrace this agenda; and work to defeat conservative Republicans and Democrats who disagree with their agenda. MoveOn.org is the most influential organization of this type established in recent years. Its principal financiers are American Jewish billionaires..." Move-On's website referred to Sen. Lieberman as "Zionazi Lieberman" and falsely praised Hitler over Bush, as not allowing torture for fun.

Rice said at an Arab dinner, "there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state" (which Jordan already is). (sorry, lost source). No greater legacy or no greater evil than setting up an Arab terrorist, jingoist state?


Commentators chide Israel for not negotiating with the P.A., but Israel does negotiate with the P.A., privately. Israel's goal is release of its soldier; the P.A. goal is to get the better of Israel to better position itself for the war that Hamas plans for next year.

Will PM Olmert promise almost anything to get the soldier released, so he can pretend that his war on Gaza or his diplomacy achieved its goals? But if his concessions achieve the enemy's goals, he has defeated Israel for the enemy. For that he should be exiled to the P.A..


I got home and found waiting for me some e-mails announcing that I won a dozen different lotteries I hadn't even entered! I can't wait to open them.


Public discussions about terrorism often are done at a primitive or elementary level. They rarely consider enough aspects. One aspect is the sudden-Islamist syndrome, which turns ordinary Muslims into assassins, that Daniel Pipes has remarked about.

I think that the West needs a think tank to focus on it. Why? Because it multiplies terrorism and disrupts Western society. It also makes all Muslims suspect as infected with a virus that can break out at any time, given the necessary stimulation.

Islam is so close to extremism, that Islamist recruiters who home in on more susceptible Muslim youths, do not have much difficulty. Are the mosques places of preparation or inculcation? Should we monitor mosques or declare Islam illegal, more a war society than a religion?

What makes these youths, many born and raised in the West, receptive? What is lacking in our culture? Patriotism? Knowledge about jihad? Integration? Some Islamist youths were integrated. Why do they think it idealistic to turn to vicious ways? Can they be kept from, or monitored after, going to Pakistan for training to kill?

Some terrorist are converts. What attracts them? Misrepresentation or appeals to "purity" by violence? Why don't the original faiths hold them? Too attenuated?

What do our leaders know about this? Does their knowledge go beyond asserted political correctness about Islam being a religion of peace, which it is not? Western society cannot properly defend itself from Islamism without identifying it as the enemy to defend against. It must study the enemy. Then it must institute remedies, both for defense at home, and I mean a broad defense, not just cargo and passenger inspection, and offense abroad. We would need to review discrimination, immigration, and citizenship policies in light of the war we have yet to declare formally, with its legal implications. If Pres. Bush had asked Congress to, and they did, security measures would pass. He has not been enough of a leader, but most leading Democrats are clueless.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by American Truth Forum, October 25, 2006.

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 26, 2006.

This was written by Richard Kerbaj and it is archived at

THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.

In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali's remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia's mufti.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."

Australia's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not "detract or add to a person's moral standards", while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was "ignorant and naive" for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.

"Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime," he said.

Ms Hage-Ali said she was "disgusted and offended" by Shiek Hilali's comments. "I find it very offensive that a man who considers himself as a mufti, a leader of Australia's Muslims, can give comment that lacks intelligence and common sense."

Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about "adultery and theft", a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian.

Sheik Hilali said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as "meat" and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk.

He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: "If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame ... but a man should be able to control himself". He said if a woman is "covered and respectful" she "demands respect from a man". "But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself."

Sheik Hilali also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.

Waleed Ali said Sheik Hilali was "normalising immoral sexual behaviour" by comparing women to meat and men to animals and entirely blaming women for being victims.

"It's basically saying that the immoral response of men to women who are not fully covered is as natural and as inevitable as the response of an animal tempted by food," he said.

"But (unlike animals) men are people who have moral responsibilities and the capability in engaging in moral action."

Revelation of the mufti's comments comes after he criticised Mr Howard last month in The Australian for saying a minority of migrant men mistreated their women. Sheik Hilali said such a minority was found in all faiths. "Those who don't respect their women are not true Muslims."

"There's a small percentage found among all religions, but we don't recognise ours as Muslims."

Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Hilali's remarks during Ramadan were inaccurate and upsetting to the Muslim community.

"They are below and beyond any comment (and) do not deserve any consideration."

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 Nurit Greenger, October 25, 2006.

This was written by Victor Davis Hanson and is archived at

More Rubble, Less Trouble?

There is a new narrative -- compare the recent essay in the New York Times Magazine on the supposed resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- namely that the United States is failing not only in Iraq to win hearts and minds, but also in Afghanistan. People there are purportedly tired of the violence, the inability of the Western coalitions to suppress it, and thus prefer to return to their former status of secure and indigenous authoritarianism.

I don't know whether such pessimism is true or not, but I am interested in the frequent analysis that it is somehow the fault of the United States or its allies, not the Islamists themselves.

Consider Kurdistan that is still thriving. Its population, devoutly Muslim, apparently understands the advantages of Western commerce and tolerance in a manner not true of the Iraqi Shiia and Sunni communities, or the Afghans. Yet the West has poured more aid money into the latter than the former. The difference seems to be that in Kurdistan when someone picks up a Westernized cell phone, drives an imported car, or turns on a computer, they seek to use such appurtenances to bring greater security and commerce to their own.

In contrast, in tribal Afghanistan and the Sunni Triangle the Islamists are entirely parasitical on the West: they want our material products, but only to use them for destructive purposes. And if they employ televisions and videos to further the spread of Islam, they never pause for a second of self-critical analysis. It is not just that the world of the 7th century does produce what a Mullah Omar or Dr. Zawhri prefers to use, but that the Islamic Dark Ages ensure that such appurtenances could never be discovered or improved by fundamentalist cultures that adjudicate scientific research by Koranic purity, subjugate half the population, invest in scapegoating rather than in confident self-reliance, and predicate merit on blood ties and religious zeal.

Such a strange war

While we argue over various mathematical formulas to determine how many have died in the Iraq war, note that the passive is the voice of choice -- as in "50,000 have been killed", or "100,000 have died."

Culpability is ignored. And so we have the following Orwellian situation: the aggregate number must include everybody who dies violently in Iraq: an "insurgent" in jeans who blows himself up in an IED mishap, a terrorist killed by a Marine, a child murdered in a school by Islamists, Shiites blown up by Sunnis and vice versa -- all these are lumped together as collateral civilian deaths.

And how can it be otherwise, when the enemy wears no uniforms, counts on killing civilians to ruin the country, and most journalists will blame all deaths of any sort on the American presence in Iraq?

Stung by the dishonesty of "body counts" in Vietnam, and worried that in postmodern warfare, Westerners are not only not supposed to die, but also should not kill, our own forces release no figures on how many enemy terrorists they have killed. The result is that the narrative of almost all the mayhem coming out of Iraq is bifurcated into either how many Americans were killed, or how many "Iraqis" perished -- a sure method to convince the reader that the entire enterprise is a complete disaster in which we are mere sitting ducks, whose presence alone leads to Iraqis dropping dead like flies.

Where does all this lead? Not where most expect. The Left thinks that the "fiasco" in Iraq will bring a repudiation of George Bush, and lead to its return to power. Perhaps. But more likely it will bring a return of realpolitik to American foreign policy, in which no action abroad is allowable (so much for the liberals' project of saving Darfur), and our diplomacy is predicated only on stability abroad. The idealism of trying to birth consensual government will be discredited; but with its demise also ends any attention to Arab moderates, who whined for years about our support for the House of Saud, Pakistani generals, Gulf autocrats, or our neglect of the mayhem wrought by Islamists in Afghanistan. We know now that when the United States tries to spend blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq that it will be slandered as nave or imperialistic.

Lessons since 9/11

It is difficult in history to find any civilization that asks as much of others as does the contemporary Middle East -- and yet so little of itself. If I were to sum up the collective mentality of the current Arab Middle East -- predicated almost entirely on the patriarchal sense of lost "honor" and the rational calculation to murder appeasing liberals and appease murdering authoritarians -- it would run something like the following:

(1) We will pump oil at $3.00 and must sell it over $50.00 -- and still blame you for stealing our natural treasure.

(2) We will damn your culture and politics, but expect our own to immigrate in the thousands to your shores; upon arrival any attempt to integrate Muslim immigrants into Western pluralistic society will be seen as Islamaphobic.

(3) Send us your material goods, whether machine tools, I-pods, or antibiotics. We desperately want them, but will neither make the necessary changes in our own statist, authoritarian, religiously intolerant, tribal, and patriarchal culture to allow us to produce them ourselves, nor will show any appreciation for the genius of others who can do what we cannot.

(4) We ostensibly wish you to stop the killing of Muslims by ourselves and others -- Milosevic murdering Kosovars, Saddam destroying Kuwaitis, Kurds, and Shiites, Russians killing Afghans and Chechnyans -- but should you concretely attempt to do so, we will immediately consider your intervention far worse than the mayhem caused by others or ourselves.

(5) Any indigenous failure in the Arab Middle East will eventually be blamed on the United States or Israel.

(6) Your own sense of multiculturalism must serve as an apology for our own violent pathologies, that can only be seen as different from, never worse than, your own culture.

(7) We must at all times talk of anti-Americanism and why we want you out of the Middle East; you must never become anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, much less close your borders to our immigrants and students.

(8) We will tolerate and often defend those who burn churches, ethnically cleanse Jews from our cities, behead priests, kill nuns, and shoot infidels as the necessary, if sometimes regrettable, efforts of our more zealous to defend Islam. But if any free spirit in the West satirizes Islam, we will immediately demand that Western governments condemn such blasphemy -- or else!

(9) Material aid -- billions to Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, or the Palestinians -- is our entitlement. Any attempt to curtail it is seen as an assault on the Arab nation.

(10) We are deathly afraid of nuclear Russia, China, and India who have little tolerance for either Islamism or terrorism, and so will ignore their felonies, while killing you for your misdemeanors.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 25, 2006.


Not all Germans voted for the Nazis, but few objected to Nazi persecution of the Jews, which started before the elections. Austrians joined the program eagerly. The German people approved of the war so long as they were winning it.

Holocaust deniers, at least the sane ones, should read The Footprint of Robbery, by Itamar Levin, from the Center for Studies of Jewish Heroism, 128 pages, no date. (Many Zionist publications omit the date. I noticed a citation from 1997, so the book is recent.) The Holocaust was as much robbery as murder. The Jewish people were looted of tens of billions of dollars of property, down to their teeth and hair, as well as deprived of their jobs and then turned into slaves worked and starved to death.

The records kept by the Nazis were meticulous and detailed. The Nazis convicted themselves! Evidence, not only in the form of bodies in mass-graves, skeletal concentration camp inmates witnessed by liberating troops, damages proved in courts, again in corporate records of slave labor and again in insurance confiscation, but also mountains of looted property by type in warehouses and museums, attest to the crime. Robbery was a big industry, attended by laborers, transport, industry, and storage -- the Germans had to know. The loot pacified the German people during wartime shortages, and helped finance the war. Ordinary citizens of Europe participated; it wasn't only the leader who was evil. Those who deny the overwhelming proof are like accomplices after the fact.

Although the Muslims are preparing another holocaust, the US urges Israel to lend humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian Arabs. I think that those Arabs are more vicious than the wartime Germans and other Europeans, for the Muslim Arab almost all endorse jihad and religious hatred. Those Arabs don't deserve humanitarian assistance to overcome the pit they dug themselves.


Assassination is how totalitarians eliminate opposition. Israel began using it, too, primarily against terrorists, but opponents of Shimon Peres have a way of dying out.

In liquidating terrorists in the P.A. and Lebanon, Israel does not aim high enough. Any capable terrorist leader should be targeted. Nasrallah, head of Hizbullah, is one. Vladimir Putin, director of the new Cold War and enabler of jihad against Israel, is another. Putin's journalistic critics disappear. Why not he? Too dangerous. But he deserves it.


Fellow citizens of mine rage at the US. Whom should they admire, Russia, China, and Arabia which commit injustice? France, which won't risk a dollar to combat it? Or the US, which has a mixed record but loses a fortune embargoing many rogue states?


The Israeli Army says Hizbullah dismantled its known bunkers and trucked the furniture, equipment, and weapons to Palestinian Arab camps in southern Lebanon, also near the border. There, they are building underground bunkers for the materiel.

UNIFIL is not authorized to do anything without the (pro-Syrian) government's consent. The Lebanese Army is not authorized to enter refugee camps. Nasrallah had boasted to a crowd of 100,000 supporters that his Hizbullah soon would be ready to fight, again. Israel doesn't deny that he has a large stock of rockets left (and resupplied), though eliminating the rocket menace was one of Israel's chief war aims (IMRA, 9/26).

The ceasefire and UNIFIL are ruses to protect the Muslim aggressors. Israel should have known that and should at least have announced that. The world was told nothing and thinks the UNO has ended the war. UNIFIL defers to Lebanon, which coddles Hizbullah.

Prof. Plaut is right. When Nasrallah made his heralded appearance before a large crowd of supporters, Israeli forces should have blasted the dais. I think it also should have strafed the crowd. Hizbullah would have taken a severe blow. Problem is, the West is confused about what are civilians. It thinks that if people are dressed in civvies, they are civilians. Hizbullah gunmen and assistants often do not wear uniforms.

Israel has foolish scruples, such as not bombing Nasrallah. It accepts false blandishments from the UNO, without exposing it as phony.


In modern times, Hizbullah started the suicide bombings, to drive foreign peacekeepers out of Lebanon. The method was not used much after that, until Hamas and the PLO took it up. Then Islamists in Iraq used it. Now the Taliban admit copying it. The record confirms their admission.

A US general there predicts that, unless the expedition rebuilds enough of the country soon, the people will turn to the Taliban they dislike rather than endure more warfare (Fisnik Abrashi, NY Sun, 10/9, p.6).

It isn't fair that they attacked our country, but we rebuild theirs. It isn't wise of us to rebuild there and in Iraq, spending a great fortune on it but not enough to accomplish our goal and save those countries. They'll be stronger against us.


People think of Hizbullah as a ragtag guerilla band, but it is a professional army. It had the services of Syrian intelligence along the Golan, aided by Iranian experts, and other listening posts in Syria staffed by Syrian and Russian crews (IMRA, 10/3). Thus Russia not only supplies arm to combatants against Israel, it also helps them fight. Why didn't Israel bomb the listening posts in Syria? Russia is still Russia, yet so many Americans hate their own country, which prefers to exchange goods rather than bullets.


The Francophonie conference of 53 members offered up a sense-of-the-meeting resolution that deplored the war in Lebanon and sympathized with the suffering of the Lebanese civilians. The Prime Minister of Canada vetoed it. He said he deplores the war and sympathizes with the suffering of the civilians of both countries, of Israel as well as Lebanon. The resolution was changed accordingly (IMRA, 10/4). Deploring war is useless. Denouncing jihad and taking action against the aggressors would be useful.


The retiring Israeli commander blamed the Lebanese debacle on the PM and Defense Minister, then offered his resignation. He explained that they had delayed attacking Hizbullah, which had more time to build up, and they diverted the troops from training for war to dragging Jews out of their homes in Gaza. The Chief of Staff responded by claiming to fire the commander for discussing public issues in public.

The media focused on the personal story there. Was not the commander part of the problem, for he led the de-Judaizing of Gaza? (Yes, he did.) Did the Chief have the authority to fire him? Was the commander intending to join the Likud Party?

The media did not much focus, according to Dr. Aaron Lerner, on the substantive issue of responsibility for the poor military showing and on the need to reform the IDF swiftly, before Hizbullah resumes the war (IMRA, 10/5).


Siderot, Israel, is the most convenient target for Gaza rocket teams. The government has failed to protect its residents (because that would require thorough disarming and de-Nazifying of the Gaza Arabs. The government does not want to do that). Many Siderot residents have sold their houses at discount. With the cooperation of the Israeli government, ten Palestinian Arab families that cooperated with Israel against the P.A. bought those houses. About 250 others already lived there, some in fancy houses. There may be a problem in their feeling mistreated. Their request to have a mosque built for them was not granted. The worse the situation in Gaza, the more Arabs flee to that part of Israel. But local Israelis feel they present a security threat (IMRA, 10/5). No facts adduced on security risk or mistreatment.

Why not resettle them in other countries? That would save them from P.A. persecution and reward their help without upsetting Israel's own ethnic balance.


Sec. Rice urged Hamas to pronounce its acceptance of Israel and of the peace agreement with it, and form a coalition government with Abbas. (Then she could pretend it is kosher to give US money to the government there.)

ZOA is skeptical about the sincerity of any Hamas pledge, for murderers certainly have no compunction about lying. (Islam endorses duplicity.) It contends that bigoted terrorists should not be made to seem legitimate (IMRA, 10/5). She pretends, which is a form of deception, too. Her policy gets innocent people killed.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jock Falkson, October 25, 2006.

This comes from Wally Leaf -- a letter to BBC -- a masterpiece! Contact him at w.leaf@ntlworld.com

To: michael grade bbc

Dear Mr Grade

I hope you get to read this personally because I would appreciate a personal reply, rather than a recycled handout.

It was refreshing to learn that you had called a meeting of high-level staff to consider the worrying question of bias.

The outcome established the wisdom of calling it and evidence of bias there was, even though much of the one-sided treatment of news comes from the BBC's Middle East output, and that seems to have had scant mention.

What worries me is that no improvement seems afoot. Attracted to a schools programme entitled Seven Journeys in the American West, I discovered that the BBC's knowledge of geography was also skewed. The programme was about the Middle East rather than America's midWest. And it was certainly biased.

May I presume to remind you, at any rate, of a fact or three, since I have little confidence that your staff will pay heed? Israel is a tiny democracy that has benefited the world with its shared discoveries in medicine, technology, agronomy and and the physical sciences, although it is constantly under threat from invasion, boycott, violent attack and denigration, and is surrounded by the hostility of the 21-strong Arab League, with 50 times its population and 800 times its land area, not to mention the Islamic states in total, 57 of them, and the violent Palestinian gangs. Its people in the Promised Land - by God and man alike - are the world's oldest surviving continuous civilisation, complete with its own language, culture, religion and distinct identity.

Over three-quarters of the area of the Holy Land, designated by the League of Nations (and confirmed by the UN) for "close Jewish settlement," was unilaterally filched in spite of the League of Nations' objections, and given to form the country of (Trans)jordan. Yet our children have a right to know that Israel has repeatedly agreed to further carve-ups of the remaining territory, for the sake of peace, ever since the Peel proposals of 1937 - if anyone at the BBC is genuinely concerned to teach them history. All this has not satisfied its Arab enemies and it remains beleagured, its families the target of suicide bomber, sniper, missile and the inimical, loaded dice represented by today's relentless make-up of the UN Assembly.

Your "history" programme instead presented Israel as the thief of land. That is untrue. Millions of people all over the world contributed their pennies to the purchase of land (often from absentee Arab landlords at high cost) that was transformed from rock, marsh and desert to the forest, nature reserve and farmland that are so characteristic today. Other land devolved as State land from the British administration that formerly controlled it. Yet more became available when five Arab armies attempted to kill off the UN-reincarnated Jewish homeland at birth, and many of its Arab inhabitants (ignoring Jewish pleas - still on record - to remain) fled in vain at the invaders' request, to leave room for the "Jews to be driven into the sea." The 600,000-odd refugees - UN figures at the time - have since been confined by their Arab brothers in most cases to primitive camps, forbidden proper rights or freedom of employment but subidised by the World and kept as a living reproach against Israel. For its part, by contrast, Israel absorbed with full rights all the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands who were contemporaneously robbed and expelled and sought refuge within it.

Under UN Resolution 242, the present borders (no more than cease fire lines) are to give place to recognised and secure frontiers, apportioned as between Palestinians and Israelis in a "final agreement." It is obvious (but apparently not to your programme makers) that these conditions are nowhere near fulfilment, just as it follows that the land your programme makers term "Palestinian" territory is disputed land in international law. Israel offered a share in its ancient capital Jerusalem to the Palestinians plus all of Gaza and 95% of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank, as the illegal occupier Jordan re-named it), in exchange for peace, and even withdrew from much of the territory - until its use as a base for suicide attacks on Israelis necessitated the "occupation" and security measures of which the Palestinians one-sidedly complain, and which would cease if they permitted both sides to live in peace. There is no inkling of any of this in your presentation.

And so the programme staggers on from one misconception (to put it kindly) to another. The Palestinians who ravaged Jordan were driven out by the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis did likewise with their Palestinians when they acted as a fifth column for Saddam's Iraq and again they were swept out of Lebanon after all the mayhem and killing of Christians they perpetrated there. Yet, your programme highlights simply the Sabra and Shatila massacres, carried out by Christians in defiance of the (far distant) Sharon's order for calm behaviour, and blames Israel. Leaning over backwards, a controversial Israeli commission gave indirect censure to him for not foreseeing that the Christian militia would disobey him! But that is so typical of Israeli fairness, seen again when it does not deny false allegations until it has investigated and disproved them - long after the earlier, false impression has been created by the BBC and others.

Ariel Sharon successfully sued TIME magazine for misstating the truth but had no time or money to sue every detractor; so the BBC can, if it wants to, pride itself that it is among those who have been free to "get away" with distortion and significant omission on this topic, for decades.

There are many other examples of neglect and carelessness - if nothing worse - amounting to the bias you were trying to find. I consider this indoctrination, for that is what it is, of children is comparable to the poisonous material instilled into Palestinian pupils by history books that deny Israel's right to its holiest site and indeed to any part of its land.

No wonder, when the consultants the programme relies on are not recognised mainstream historians or bodies with masses of historical material, like the Zionist Federation, the Board of Deputies and other long-established and proven institutions. Instead, the BBC turns to renegade and repeatedly discredited iconoclasts and serial blackeners of Israel. An enemy could hardly have bettered your choice of Chomsky, Schlaim and Fisk. With enemies like this, as the saying nearly goes, we do need academics and observers of a more representative character. If such a selection of oddball detractors would be invidious in an adult programme, how much more disastrous is it for the pursuit of truth to set it loose to "educate" our children!

There is no excuse for this. I and many others can recommend unbiased, factual volumes and lifelong experts that give a balanced and accurate perspective. Why is the BBC not concerned to seek them out? Why do so many programmes have to bash Israel - even purportedly "educational" ones? Why do producers get away with it, time after time? Why do heads never roll? Would the BBC dare to bedevil an Islamic country in this way, even though many are guilty of large- scale repression, mutilation and murder of their subjects? In Israel, there is freedom of religion and human rights for all - including women - Arabs are free to reside, attend university, rise to the position of Supreme Court judge, general and diplomat. Where is such multi-ethnic opportunity possible in any other Middle East country? Why not bring these truths out for once? Why continue to besmirch the once-proud reputation of the BBC?

And why ignore or disdain the testimony of so many honest, knowledgable and real friends of the BBC, who have tried in vain under former chairmen to bring the BBC's fundamental shortcomings, amid so much good work, to notice and correction? You have had time to play yourself in. Will you now please hit out fearlessly and save the side?

Believe me to be,
Yours sincerely
Walter Leaf

To be put on Jock Falkson's email list, contact him at falkson@013.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 25, 2006.
1. For those who expected the anti-democratic doctrine of "judicial activism" to disappear once its main advocate in Israel, Chief Justice Aharon Barak, retired - think again!

Yesterday the Supreme Court proved that judicial activism (which is a form of judicial tyranny holding that unelected judges should be free just to make up laws as they go along, laws that the elected reps of the people oppose) is still around.

By a vote of 2 against 1, a Supreme Court panel voted that a senior poice officer be barred from being promoted (and in effect be forced to resign), in spite of a decision by the executive branch of the Israeli government and an official commission of inquiry that it appointed that he NOT be so barred. The officer had been criticized in a report on the behavior of the police in the 2000 pogroms launched by Israeli Arabs against Jews. In those pogroms, the police used live ammunition. Captain Bentsi Sau (spelling?) was criticized in the later state report of inquiry into the events, a report that deliberately downplayed the violent provocations and behavior of Arab rioters. Nothing in that report specifically called for Sau's resignation, dismissal, or denial of promotion. Recently, an Arab NGO and some families of Arabs killed in the suppression of those pogroms petitioned the court to block all further promotions for Sau. There is no legal basis that allows the court to impose its own conclusions on such personnel decisions nor to override what the government decided. In other words, the Court thinks it is in its power to impose on the executive branch what executive policy must be!

The two judges who voted for this act of anti-democratic judicial tyranny were Ayala Procaccia, who was sharply denounced in the media in recent weeks for her ordering the jailing without trial of teenage girls for holding politically incorrect political opinions (see http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=105914), and Salim Jubran, a Christian Arab Supreme Court judge. Eliakim Rubinstein voted against the decision.

2. The headline in Haaretz today is that Amir Peretz, the head of the Israeli Labor Party, is willing to accept Avigdor Lieberman as a cabinet minister if - in exchange - the government agrees to a list of payoffs and concessions to Israeli Arabs.

SO if you were wondering who Peretz considers to be his actual constituents, he has clarified that now.

3. "Jewish" Billionaires versus AIPAC
By Isi Leibler October 24, 2006

There are ill winds of change hovering on the horizon.

Washington is signaling its intention to distance itself from Israel. Pressures are being imposed on Israel to make further unilateral concessions to Mahmoud Abbas, most of which would directly impact on her security.

The new climate was exemplified in a recent address by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who compared the self-inflicted suffering of the Palestinian people with segregation in the United States and said that "there could be no greater legacy for America" than to bring about "a Palestinian state for a people who have suffered too long, who have been humiliated too long, who have not reached their potential for too long." Rice failed to qualify these remarks by noting that Palestinian "humiliation" and "suffering" would have been averted and a Palestinian state could have been established a long time ago, had they curtailed terror and ceased launching missiles against Israeli civilians, a situation which prevails to this very day.

It was particularly disconcerting that both the impotent Israeli government and the usually highly vocal American Jewish establishment failed to condemn these outrageous remarks.

These developments should be viewed in tandem with an intensifying campaign by unrepresentative American left wing Jewish groups publicly urging the US Administration to soften their policies in relation to the Palestinians.

In order not to distress the strongly pro Israel Jewish community, the "doves" employ Orwellian language. They do not demand that the Bush Administration reverse its support for Israel. Instead they call for Washington to become "more involved" and "even handed" in order to bring an end to the "ongoing violence and retribution" -- code language for downplaying terror and incitement which the Abbas factions indulge in no less than their Hamas counterparts. It means urging Israel to negotiate under fire, bring an end to sanctions against the PA, talk to Hamas, and make concessions which will invariably lead to a greater toll in Israeli lives.

Until recently, public support for Israel in the United States had reached an all time high. President Bush is unquestionably the most pro Israel president ever to have occupied the White House. Both Congress and the Senate have been fully supportive of Israel and opposition has been relegated to the fringes. The evangelicals have elevated support of Israel to one of their top priorities.

Yet storm clouds were brewing. The charges of espionage against AIPAC officers represent an unprecedented affront to an ally. The situation at the campuses where anti Israeli activity has become the central focus point of radical political activism is more than disconcerting. Segments of the US electronic and print media were highly biased in their coverage of the Lebanon war. The brouhaha over the Israel lobby initiated by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in a Harvard University paper has led to widespread campaigns demonizing AIPAC and other pro Israel lobbies. Tony Judt, the Jewish historian promoting the view that Israel was a mistake and supporting a bi-national Israel-Palestinian entity has provided an aura of respectability to the dismantling of the Jewish state.

These anti Israeli sentiments are now infiltrating into the Democratic Party -- the party favored by the majority of American Jews. Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former Democratic vice president candidate, lost his pre-selection to a relatively unknown leftist who challenged his Middle East policies and obtained the support of a large percentage of Jewish voters.

In fact the most troublesome aspect to these trends is not that the public profile of bodies like the Jewish Policy Forum and Brit Zedek V'Shalom calling for more evenhandedness is growing. It is even more worrying that reaction to these activities by all American Jewish agencies, other than the hard line ZOA, has been extraordinarily muted.

Despite the misleading double-talk, this campaign represents a real and serious threat to Israel. AIPAC is possibly the greatest success story of any American lobbying group. It has one overriding role: To support Israel and Israel government policies. Were AIPAC to initiate policies conflicting or inconsistent with the objectives of the Israel government it would lose its grassroots support overnight. Hence repeated allegations that AIPAC is a "hawkish" body is language designed to undermine AIPAC and support for Israel.

These leftwing bodies have already succeeded in diluting Congressional legislation designed to cut off aid for the Palestinian Authority unless it renounced terrorism. They also provided support to Washington in its efforts to force Israel to make security concessions on border crossings which resulted in a massive flow of arms into Gaza.

Even more alarming was the announcement by George Soros, one of the world's ten wealthiest individuals, that he would employ his financial clout and connections with other Jewish billionaires to create a new body to balance "AIPAC's hawkish policies". Soros has no interest in visiting Israel and no qualms about presenting himself as an anti Zionist. Despite being a holocaust survivor, he describes the Bush Administration as equivalent to a Nazi regime, accuses Israel of being largely to blame for the resurgence of anti Semitism, and takes pride in being openly critical of Israel which his charity foundation ignores, although it "supports the rights of Arabs in Israel". Soros also promotes the bizarre belief that a weak rather than a strong Israel could best achieve a peace settlement with its neighbors.

The potential combination of Jewish leftists and liberal Jewish salon billionaires is worrisome. It will embolden the radical Jewish doves and reinforce them with chutzpa to more aggressively undermine the Bush Administration's support of Israel. It is no coincidence that Dr. Yossi Beilin strongly supports the creation of the new body which he says "would not compete with AIPAC but would portray another facet of American Jewry".

Regrettably the lame duck Olmert government, which has the capacity to neutralize a Jewish organization seeking to undermine Israel's prime US lobbying vehicle, will in all probability lack the courage and the will to take on the billionaires and will stand aside.

It will thus be left to the American Jewish establishment to stand up and be counted and confront the Soros led anti AIPAC initiative. Regrettably their former track record in standing up to the demands of Jewish billionaires is hardly encouraging. Threats by major donors to cancel contributions to parties resisting their demands usually succeeded in intimidating organizations to back down.

It will truly be a sad day for the Jewish people if the Israeli government buries its head in the sand and American Jewish organizations remain silent, whilst a campaign proceeds to "softly" undermine and delegitimize AIPAC by labeling it as a "hawkish" body.

Washington's backing for Israel is today more crucial than ever. If American Jews are perceived as being divided over Israel, the long term repercussions on the one superpower whose support is critical, could be disastrous.

4. For those of you old enough to have prostate problems, you will no doubt remember the photos of Beatles' John Lennon and Yoko Ono, in one of their infamous "love-ins", in which they confined themselves to bed in 6 star hotels in order to protest materialism and war.

The press at the time was obsessed with John and Oko's adventures in the bedroom.

I am reminded of that because of the media obsession this week with the bedroom actvities of Yigal Amir (assassin of Yitzhak Rabin) and his wife. The courts are allowing the Amirs to have conjugal visits. Maybe producing a baby.

The media Champions of Justice are all aghast at this. How can such a murderer be allowed conjugal visits, they are all chanting in uniform chorus. Well, Amir did indeed murder someone and someone important at that. But the same bleeding hearts in the media never had a thing to say about Arab terrorists and mass murderers in Israeli prisons also being allowed conjugal visits. In many cases, the beneficiaries killed many more people than did Yigal Amir.

Here is Haaretz, insisting Amir "enjoyed" his conjugal visit (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778929.html). Just how did the Haaretz reporter know he enjoyed it and how did they know that Mrs. Amir was not "in the feminine way" today?

Here is the Jerusalem Post condemning the decision to allow the Amirs to pillow:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1159193514490&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Note: Not a word against Arab mass murderers engaging in pillowing in prison!

Anyone know how Yoko Ono "enjoyed" her confinement in that room with John Lennon?

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 Nurit Greenger, October 24, 2006.

Not at all good news, but reality must be faced.

Three ways to a war in Gaza-The likeliest, perhaps before the 2006-year is out.

I guess electing Hamas did not accomplish the goals set. Now Hamas is killing Fatah and Fatah is killing Hams.

In the meantime, Hamas is playing two separate cards game with the destiny of poor 19-year-old Cpl. Shalit; one card with the Israelis; Shalit release for the release of Palestinian terrorist prisoners and second card with the Egyptians to gain political concessions in Cairo.

This article is by Bret Stephens and appeared today in the Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116165521178201633.html). Bret Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

Wonder where and when the next Middle East war is going to take place? The likeliest answer is the Gaza Strip, perhaps before the year is out. Who will fight it? Now there is an interesting question.

Three sets of circumstances are operating simultaneously in this tiny patch of Palestinian land--not quite the size of Andorra but 20 times as populous--each of which has the potential to produce a different kind of violent outcome. First circumstance: the escalating factional fighting, verging on civil war, between Hamas forces loyal to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Fatah forces associated, albeit sometimes loosely, with President Mahmoud Abbas.

On Friday, relatives of a Fatah man recently killed by Hamas opened fire on Mr. Haniyeh's convoy in Gaza; Fatah militiamen have also threatened to assassinate the entire Hamas cabinet. Hamas, for its part, recently assassinated top Fatah militiaman Mohammed Shahadeh and intelligence officer Jad Tayah. Earlier this month, Hamas security forces opened fire on Fatah-affiliated policemen who had raided the Gaza branch of the Bank of Palestine in protest of their unpaid salaries. At least 10 people died; Fatah's Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda newspaper called Hamas's actions "Sedition" in banner headlines. Mr. Abbas is considering dissolving the government and moving to new elections; Hamas Interior Minister Said Siam deems the idea a "coup."

For some time, Israeli policy makers have been looking at the domestic Palestinian situation with a sense of satisfaction--somewhat akin to the American view of the mutual slaughter of Iraqis and Iranians during the 1980s. But that was before the June kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit transformed Gaza's domestic crisis into an Israeli one. It was also before the summer's war with Hezbollah, which alerted Israelis that their borders were less secure than previously thought. Hence the second circumstance: the consolidation of Gaza, following Israel's full withdrawal in August 2005, into a terrorist fortress.

Last week, Egyptian police in the Sinai intercepted a shipment of 200 crates of guns and ammunition headed for the town of Rafah, which straddles the seven-mile Egyptian-Palestinian border. Also last week, the Israeli army (IDF) discovered 13 smuggling tunnels running under the border in addition to the 12 discovered since June. Israeli intelligence estimates that in the past year at least 19 tons of explosives have been smuggled through these tunnels into Gaza, plus some 15,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 1,000 RPGs, and quantities of Katyusha rockets, Strella anti-aircraft missiles and Russian-made Kornet and Metis antitank missiles.

All this is in addition to an indigenous Gazan military industry that produced the hundreds of short-range Kassam rockets that have rained continuously on southern Israel for two years. And it explains why Israeli military planners feel they need to deal Gaza a punishing blow sooner rather than later, when the Palestinians might be in a position to bloody Israel the way Hezbollah did last summer. "We are going to make a massive ground operation in Gaza," warns Yuval Steinitz, until recently chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, in a recent interview. Underlying the remark is the sense that the IDF will not allow itself to be surprised again by events, much less humiliated twice by ostensibly weaker foes.

Mr. Steinitz points an accusing finger at Egypt, which agreed last year to step up its efforts to stop the weapons smuggling in exchange for Israel abandoning its aggressive border patrols along the so-called Philadelphi Corridor. "The Egyptians are violating and betraying all the agreements," he says. "They are doing to us what Syria is doing to the U.S. in Iraq...Their real policy is to let Israelis and Palestinians bleed together."

Talk to the Egyptians, however, and you get a different story. In public, the Egyptians generally neither acknowledge nor deny that they are letting the smuggling happen: Acknowledgment risks alienating the U.S. while denial risks enraging their own public opinion. In private, however, Egyptians admit that they condone and perhaps even participate in the smuggling, but only to arm and strengthen Fatah. The arms to Hamas are being shipped, supposedly against Egypt's wishes, from Iran via Syria and Hezbollah.

Here, then, is the third circumstance: The rise of Hamas, with ties to Iran and potentially a secure territorial base of its own, is an even greater long-term threat to the brittle regime of Hosni Mubarak than it is to Israel.

Consider the Kabuki dance being played around the fate of Cpl. Shalit. The Egyptians have been negotiating his release for months, probably in good faith: They fear that indefinite detention might lead to a full-scale Israeli invasion of Gaza, which would have spillover effects in the Sinai. At the same time, Mr. Mubarak has been ratcheting up the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's sister organization in Egypt, by canceling elections the Brotherhood seemed likely to win and tinkering with the election law to further shut it out of the political process. Poor 19-year-old Cpl. Shalit is being played by Hamas as a card in two separate games: with the Israelis for the release of Palestinian prisoners and with the Egyptians for political concessions in Cairo.

The political heat between the two sides was noticeably raised last week when Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar reportedly warned Egypt that if it failed to open its border with Gaza "there will be no border." Equally extraordinary was that the statement was widely reprinted in the Egyptian state media, playing into the broad suspicion that the Brotherhood, as a religious organization, is fundamentally anti-Egypt in the national sense. "Now the line is, 'No more foreign ministry,'" says an Egyptian source, suggesting the Mubarak regime is quickly moving away from diplomacy to more aggressive forms of persuasion with Hamas.

If Egypt or Israel had the luxury of choice they would abandon Gaza to its own miserable devices, or--even better--to each other. But that's not how it works in the Middle East. The war for Gaza is coming, no matter who does the fighting. Whoever stays out of it wins.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, October 24, 2006.

In the year 2000, the Avi Chai Foundation in conjunction with the Gutman Institute publicized their in-depth research project that examined Jewish Israelis' approach toward faith and tradition. The report concluded that "There is a general consensus among Jewish Israelis that expresses commitment to Jewish identity, Jewish culture and the continuity of Jewish life..."

The report states that:

Only 21% of the Jewish population in Israel is not observant at all. The rest of the population is divided between those who fully adhere to Jewish tradition, those who somewhat adhere to Jewish tradition, and those who only slightly adhere to Jewish tradition.

98% affix a mezuzah to their front door.
85% participate in the Passover Seder.
71% light Chanukah candles.
68% do not eat chametz (leavening) on Passover.
58% do not eat unkosher food.
55% eat a special Shabbat meal.
51% always light Shabbat or holiday candles with the traditional blessing.
48% say the Kiddush at the Shabbat meal.
44% keep their meat and dairy utensils separate.

The figures from the 2000 report showed an increase in Jewish identity and traditional observance since the previous survey that had been conducted ten years previously. A new report, publicized by Dr. Asher Cohen of Bar Ilan University has shown another increase. It is important to note that this increase is taking place despite the mass aliyah from the former Soviet Union -- the absolute majority of which is non-observant. In the past years, approximately fifty percent of the immigrants are not even Jews according to Jewish law.

As tradition is the clear choice of the majority of Israel's population, one would think that the national agenda and the public domain would reflect the public's preference. But that is not the case. The once proverbial status quo has continued to disintegrate, just as the public's connection to its Jewish identity has increased. More shopping malls and stores are open on Shabbat, more unkosher food is being sold, more chametz is being sold on Passover and the public is subjected to more sexual harassment with advertisements that for some reason are called..."bold."

When I first started out in the Likud, I met with a veteran Likud activist -- a man with a wide breadth of intellectual pursuits -- for a lengthy conversation. I explained my views on the Jewish identity of the State. The conversation went on and on, and suddenly the man said to me:

"I can certainly agree with everything that you say, but please explain one thing."

"I can try," I smiled.

"Why shouldn't El-Al (Israel's national airline) fly on Shabbat?"

I thought for a moment and answered:

"Let it fly."

The man was surprised.

"You don't care if El Al flies on Shabbat?"

"No. El Al doesn't fly over my home in Karnei Shomron and it doesn't disturb me. Not on Shabbat and not during the rest of the week."

"So you agree that El Al can fly on Shabbat?"

"As far as I'm concerned, it can fly. But I'm not sure that you would want that to happen."

Now he was really confused.

"Why should I care more than you?"

"Do you have children?" I asked.

"Thank G-d," he answered with a smile.

"I also have a number of little ones," I concurred. "Do you want them to be connected to their Jewish identity?"

"Of course," he answered.

"I also want my children to remain connected to Judaism. But you must agree that my children have a better chance of retaining their Jewish identity than your children. After all, a child who learns what prayer to say when he opens his eyes in the morning and what prayer to say before he goes to sleep at night as well as how to behave in a Jewish way all through the day has a much better chance of retaining his Jewish identity."

"Obviously, you are right," he answered.

"In that case," I continued, "you are the one with the greater interest that the State should supply the atmosphere of Jewish identity. Both of us want our children to retain their Jewish identity. But your children will need a generally Jewish environment in order to retain their identity much more than my children."

"O.k., I understand," he said, "but what does that have to do with El Al?"

"The Shabbat is one of the foundations of Judaism," I answered. There is no Judaism without Shabbat. Shabbat is very important to me and that is why I prefer to have the people with the greatest interest in its preservation decide. I don't want to decide if El Al should fly on Shabbat. I want you to decide.


"That's right. You! I don't want religious parties or religious legislation. The more religious parties and religious legislation that we have in this country, the less Jewish identity we have. The majority of the public wants to preserve our Jewish identity. Why turn it into coercion and push the large traditional sector into the waiting arms of the small anti-religious minority? I want to break out of that cycle. I want you to take responsibility for your Jewish identity. We are both on the same side. I don't want the job of coercing you into anything. I completely rely on you. You can decide if El Al should fly on Shabbat."

"I am here since the establishment of the State, I always argue about this during reserve duty, and I never heard anybody present this issue the way that you did," the man said.

"That means that we have our work cut out for us."

"We sure do."

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, October 24, 2006.

Israeli Education Minister Yuli Tamir signed the directive to public schools to mark the 50th anniversary of the 'massacre in Kafr Kassam,' referring to the shooting of Israeli Arab protestors by security forces. It took a week, almost no time at all by Israel's political calendar, to approve this self-hating idea, which was brought on by MK Zehava Gal-On (Meretz).

I wonder, will the children of Israel learn that those Arabs ignore and defied a military curfew prohibiting movement during 1956 conflict? Will they learn about the uncountable number of massacres of the Jews by Arabs, including the one in Hevron, before and after the establishment of the state of Israel?

Will the children learn about David ben Gurion's order to sink, in order to maintain political superiority, Irgun's weapon supply boat Altalena, at the time when Jews had no arms to fight Arabs? Will they learn that the executioner was Yitzhak Rabin, who relentlessly sunk the boat and killed the Jewish crew?

The left wing of the Israel political beurocracy does not want people to know how they betrayed Zionism. How after the Oslo agreement, they promptly took Zionism education out of Israel's schools., Even in the army Zionist political education is restricted. At the same time the Arabs are continuously teaching their children hatred toward the Jews.

The corrupt, self-centred, egomaniac politicians do not hesitate to murder Jews -- physically, morally and spiritually - in order to serve their own interests. It is easy for them to control and manipulate the nation without the National goal, people who are driven by apathy and despair.

Will Jewish children learn that Palestine is Eretz-Israel? Not just because it is our ancestral land. It was approved as the Land of Israel, including Jordan, by the League of Nations. The same organization gave the opportunity to Arabs, through the system of mandates, to create their own state. Will they learn how Britain and France, together with Arab countries, robbed the Jews of our historical, moral and legal right to the entire Land of Israel?

That's what Jewish children must learn. They must rebel against hypocrisy and self-hate that has been fostered and propagated in Jewish communities by self-hating, 'politicly correct' and corrupt leadership!

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict - independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 24, 2006.


The IDF issues overly short, standard statements about its operations, every day. Some report bombing a building used by terrorists to store weapons, after having told the Arabs not to stay in buildings used to store weapons.

The statement too much of a generalization. I suspected more to it. I asked IMRA whether the IDF notified the residents of the building. IMRA replied that the IDF telephoned them and warned them to evacuate.

In the couple of hours the residents have to evacuate, they can warn terrorists to remove and relocate the weapons. That undermines the purpose of the bombing. No penalty for the terrorists. The owner loses his building, but one wonders whether he had much choice in offering it to the terrorists, though they usually pay for the privilege.

Israel is too nice for its own good. How foolish to give up the benefit of surprise and the blowing up of the rockets that would otherwise be relocated and fired at Israelis! Occasionally, the news brief reports secondary explosions from stored weapons. Should one infer that the other times, the weapons had been removed beforehand?

Ironically, the anti-Israel world keeps denouncing Israel and the Jewish people, while Israel tries to be as decent towards the Arabs as possible and the rest of the world has evil ways. Israel is so decent towards the Arabs, that it is indecent towards the Jews.


Israeli election reform is coming up again. Hillel Halkin's 10/10 "NY Sun" column points out it would be the only plank in PM Olmert's campaign platform, his being a one-issue Party whose issue has been discredited by the wars made possible by the territorial abandonment he recommends extending. (Discredited but suspended, not relinquished, so stubborn or corrupt are those ideologues.) Earlier electoral reforms had ill effect.

Previous reforms had unintended consequences. So might the proposed electoral reform. It would switch from proportional representation to district. The reform works best when minorities are dispersed among the general population, so that 2-4 major parties would win most of the districts and be able to form stable coalitions. Many of the small parties would disappear. However, I think that the Arabs, many of whom are concentrated in a few areas, are liable to emerge with a large enough bloc of Knesset members to become a king-maker among the 2-3 remaining largest parties.

Of course, success also depends upon how the districts are drawn, which depends upon who draws them. Can the corrupt regime manage an uncorrupting reform? The people have been trying to elect a regime that represents their determination to resist the Arabs, but keep getting bribed and intimidated politicians who give in to the Arabs. It isn't only the electoral system that needs reform. So does the custom, economy, media, academia, judiciary system, and the military.

Another proposal is to have a presidency, independent of the legislature. But the PM acts like a president on whom the legislature is dependent. Back to the drawing board!


Peace Now complains about the Jewish building boom in Judea-Samaria and the government's not demolishing more "outposts," which Peace Now calls illegal.

Their representatives deny that they are building illegally. The Jews of Judea-Samaria build with official knowledge or approval, just as is done throughout Israel. There is so much building there, where Jews have larger families. They think that Peace Now bandies figures about without understanding. (Arutz-7, 10/3).

Americans might not understand the many stages of permission required for building in Israel and paradoxically the informality of much of it.

Peace Now wants to divert attention from Israel's struggle for survival against foreign forces, to pit Israelis against each other. That also would weaken Israel's struggle for survival. Peace Now should be glad of the higher birth rate among settlers, lest the Arabs quickly take over Israel from within and murder Peace Now members.

Decent people have enough enemies, without hate-filled, ostensible idealists, such as Peace Now, designating non-enemies as enemies.


Drunk, the youth group of a Danish anti-immigrant party put cartoons against Islam and Muhammad on their web site. Protests have been coming in. The Prime Minister denounced the cartoons as untrue (Jan M. Olsen, NY Sun, 9/10, p.7).

The news brief described a couple of the cartoons, but pictured none. How are we supposed to evaluate them for ourselves? The main one described showed Muhammad with an atomic bomb. The Prime Minister was right, Muhammad did not have one. Some of his followers had it and were spreading it to others. Some say they intend using it as soon as they get it. In that case, the cartoon, depicting Muhammad as the symbol of Islam, is a reasonable interpretation of what his religion is being used to justify.

Cartoons and other critiques should be accurate and specific, lest demagogues exploit the confusion to misinterpret them. Muslims consider any critique, however, fair and objective, blasphemous. They try to cow critics in free countries. This is part of their effort to impose their own faith by force. Still their violence, not our scholarship!


Arab terrorists murdered the 13-year-old daughter of a Communist family. The mother invited a PLO speaker to the funeral. He blamed the death on the government of Israel. That is adding insult to injury, as if Arabs had a right to murder the girl. The mother accuses Israelis and Americans of massacring Arabs out of bias. She is too twisted to learn from her own tragedy that the enemy seeks to murder all her people. She blames the "occupation," but unoccupied Muslims attacked America. The jihad against Israel started before Israel acquired Judea-Samaria, and Gaza (Prof. Steven Plaut, 10/3).


Shurat HaDin, an Israeli law firm that pursues terrorists, heard that Sec. Rice is meeting in Jerusalem with the head of al-Aqsa Brigades, a militia of Fatah, listed by the State Dept. as terrorist, and among whose victims are Americans. The pair were to meet in Jerusalem. Shurat HaDin suggests that the government of Israel arrest the terrorist, instead. As for the US, it should stop negotiating with terrorists (IMRA, 10/3).

Has Sec. Rice no shame?

The US generally is the ally of terrorists against Israel. It did support Israel initially in Lebanon. But the government of Israel, itself, did not support the war. It went in part way, with small and unprepared forces, though it knew that the Muslims had been preparing. When it saw that Israel was nowhere, the US acceded to worldwide pressure for a ceasefire, and joined the chorus. Usually the US starts out in that chorus.

We might have seen whether, if Israel had waged war seriously, and succeeded, the US would have supported its likely victory against terrorism by willing for it to be lasting. That would have been a first.


The US is not staging war games on Iran's border. Neither is it preparing for war. It has no means of "persuading" Iran to desist. Iran sees that it can do what it wants. It thinks the US is too tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan to attend to Iran. It also is sure that it could beat the US in war. The US should prepare for war, so that our threat becomes credible and we may not have to go to war (Michael Rubin, Middle East Forum, 10/3).

If we do have to go to war, let us not lose time having to prepare.

Our mistake was in not having sufficient troops to wipe out the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, hold the country down, and send an army into Iran, where we should have set up a democratic opposition beforehand to help bring down the regime.


The spokesman for UNIFIL was interviewed by IMRA. The basic question was whether UNIFIL would intercept the movement of arms to Hizbullah, confiscate unloaded arms shipments, disarm Hizbullah, and use information from banned Israeli overflights against Hizbullah.

The last question he understandably declined to answer, because of its military confidentiality. The others he fenced with IMRA in an effort to avoid really answering. He wouldn't say what UNIFIL would do. His excuse was that the questions were theoretical, but they are inquiring of the rules. Has UNIFIL no rules of combat? He said the decision whether to fight is up to the commanders. If he were frank and UNIFIL sincere, he'd say that if the commanders felt they could prevail, they'd confiscate the arms. He cited no circumstance in which they would act. The UNO uses up money for no purpose.


The US wants to turn a Gaza-Israel crossing, as Israel did the Gaza-Egypt crossing, over to Abbas' Presidential Guard, which it would expand for the additional purpose. IMRA remarks that since his Guard failed to prevent smuggling by terrorists from Egypt, his record is too poor to warrant building on it. The US also hopes that Abbas would restore order (IMRA, 10/4).

Abbas would need a huge, well-paid force to face down the better-disciplined Hamas. Then he would be likelier to take charge of the war on Israel that he used to help run.

One would think that the US and Israel, which haven't had enough successes, would shun failure instead of embracing it.


Abbas lied about wanting two democratic states in peace, and Sec. Rice swallowed it, though he ran a dictatorship in a war of aggression, his organization is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, and domestically he praises suicide bombers.

Rice mentions that Ramadan is a time of family-gathering and faith, and that "is in part why the United States has such great respect for the great religion of Islam." She also expressed respect for terrorist Abbas.

At another press conference, Rice thanked S. Arabia for what is called a peace initiative but lays out conditions that would get Israel destroyed. She praised democracy although S. Arabia is another dictatorship, and she heaped praise on those murderers. She also said she is pleased that with US help, S. Arabia is sending more students to US universities. She calls it a people-to-people exchange.

The Saudis talked about injustice creating extremism (which their schools, mosques, and media preach) and blamed the region's problems on the Arab-Israel conflict. Rice thinks that diplomacy could solve the Arab-Israel conflict (IMRA, 10/4).

She disgusts me. Half of that faith is at war in many places, and the other half roots for it. Diplomats are too oily. Their diplomacy has obscured the issue and worsened the problem. The region's problem is Islamic jihad and Muslim culture.

Muslims tend not to engage in people-to-people exchange. Disagree with them about Muhammad or the Koran, and see. After a batch of Saudis committed terrorism here, in line with the ideology of so many, it should dawn on us that we would be safer without Saudi students here and without their learning skills of use in war against us.


Syria blames the US for the attack, but the US thanked Syrian security forces for a prompt rescue. The US could not investigate who did it, because the security forces removed all the evidence and the captured terrorist died in hospital. (IMRA, 10/4). The news brief implies that Syria staged the attack, so it could pretend to be a rescuer.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Saperstein, October 23, 2006.

Groups of visitors, Jews and Christians, arrived in Nitzan during the Sukkot holiday. I spoke with some groups and my message was one of deep hurt and endless hope.

One group became a sounding board on a plan that shook them, resulting in shouts of anger directed at me. I had stepped on a minefield for I had attacked our sacred Israel Defense Forces.

Let me begin this once again:

Sitting around the Greenblatt's kitchen table I met an unique couple -- Professor Emeritus Dan Eisikowitch and his wife, Ruth. Former members of the left-wing Hashomer Hatzair movement, they typify the secular Jews who fought for and built the State of Israel and are often disdainful of the religious, nationalistic settlers of Judea and Samaria. But the sight of thousands of IDF soldiers forcibly expelling their fellow Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria brought them to a point of despair: This should not be happening in their beloved country. They feared for secular humanist Israel's morality.

The couple appeared at the Nitzan refugee camp with work tools to help the refugees as they entered the makeshift houses on the muddy fields of Nitzan. Now in the Greenblatt's kitchen they related their feelings on watching the expulsion: "We watched in horror the faces of our soldiers as they grabbed teenagers by the neck and pulled babies from their parents arms. These couldn't be our soldiers!"

Ruth and her like-minded friends began to wonder about the soldiers. How had they been brainwashed to carry out these orders? What had happened to their humanist values? How had the IDF, once deemed sacred by the entire nation, simply become a tool -- as the army is in undemocratic states -- of corrupt leaders? Who were the psychologists who had worked with the government and army brass to create obedient robots? How did the act of expulsion affect them? Did they feel shame, regret or anxiety at what they had done to their own people? How do they feel today?

"We are aware of suicides hushed up by the authorities" Ruth said. "We know of mental breakdowns. We know that soldiers are carrying the burden of their actions into their private lives. Who are these soldiers? How can we reach them so they will tell their stories and give testimony of their brainwashing? We are hoping to reach soldiers who participated and are ready to talk of their ordeal."

As we spoke, other aspects of the expulsion were brought up. Who were the policemen and policewomen who beat our people weeks prior to the expulsion and, despite our filed complaints, were never brought to court? Did the psychologists who participated in the brainwashing violate their code of ethics? And as to the soldiers themselves, just 18 and 19 years old, did they have the moral right to participate in the massive expulsion? Weren't their actions in direct contradiction to their sworn pledge to protect their fellow Jews from our enemies?

"This must never happen again" Ruth said. I then suggested we create a "Wall of Shame" with the pictures of the soldiers who had actively participated in this evil act. This "Wall of Shame" would be an everlasting reminder of an ugly, immoral event in Israel's history, in which our Israeli soldiers, our children, simply said "I am following orders".

When speaking to the Jewish audience mentioned at the beginning, I spoke of the "Wall of Shame".

"You can't do that to our soldiers!" shouted one man.
"A soldier's job is to follow orders!" shouted another.
"My grandson messed up his career in the Air Force because he refused to participate" said a man without the slightest pride in his grandson's courageous stand.
"These are our children. Don't make them suffer even more."
"If you have to put up such a wall, do it for government officials."

The argument was heated, leaving everyone hurt and upset.

What will our soldiers do when next called upon to expel other Jews from their homes? Will a "Wall of Shame" make each soldier think twice before agreeing to participate?

Will many be strong enough to say "This I cannot do"?

We the people must protect the morality of our armed forces. May the decent people, like Dan and Ruth, take this mission and go forward with it. May we never need a "Wall of Shame".

OPERATION DIGNITY is bringing hope, financial aid and employment to our people. OPERATION DIGNITY needs your help to revitalize a once proud people.

Send your check, earmarked "Operation Dignity" to

Central Fund for Israel
Rehov Hagoel 13
Efrat 90435


Central Fund for Israel
attention: Arthur Marcus
Marcus Bros. Textiles
980 Sixth Avenue
New York, NY 10018 USA

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 23, 2006.

When a person has an overwhelming desire to give to others, the Lord provides him with the means to do so -- and on a scale beyond anything that could have been initially contemplated.

What starts as a handful of private kindness endeavors, with the help from The Above, will develop into multitude kindness of millions of dollars endeavor.

Never forget: The needy person is the important one; he is the purpose of the benevolent organization. The wealthy [people] are only important because they can help the needy person.

This was written by Jonathan Rosenblum and it comes from Jewish World Review Oct. 20, 2006.

In 1971, a Chassidic Torah scholar with $500 in extra money from his wedding decided to start a gemach (interest-free communal fund). By the late '80s, that gemach was lending over ten million dollars a year.

How did a Torah instructor, with no substantial personal resources of his own, come to run a gemach of that magnitude? That was the question that I faced when I came to write about Rabbi Shmuel Avraham Myski, zt"l, for the Jewish Observer, shortly after his too early passing.

Ultimately, the only answer I could offer was: When a person has an overwhelming desire to give to others, the Lord provides him with the means to do so -- and on a scale beyond anything that could have been contemplated initially.

Rabbi Myski certainly possessed that overwhelming desire to give. He was accused, not without with some justice, of trying to grab all the chesed ("kindness opportunities") in Monsey, New York, for himself. He did not wait to be asked for loans, but sought out those in need. He noticed, for instance, that a local shoe store was not properly stocked for the peak Passover season, and deduced that the owner had exhausted all his credit. A loan was forthcoming without ever having been sought.

The lessons learned from Rabbi Myski's remarkable life came back to me recently during a series of visits to Yad Eliezer's Jerusalem headquarters. About the dedication of the organization's founders Rabbi Yaakov Weisel and his wife Hadassah there can be no question. Fourteen years ago, robbers broke into the Weisels' apartment in Jerusalem's Ezras Torah neighborhood.

By unhappy chance, Rabbi Weisel, who had never before kept any substantial sum of money in the house, had just received a large cash contribution. He knew that he was under no Halachic (Jewish legal) obligation to endanger his life, but the thought of all those who would benefit from the money prevented him from handing it over. The robbers stabbed him 21 times, missing major blood vessels by millimeters, before fleeing with an empty safe.

Today Yad Eliezer is an empire of kindness, providing $15,000,000 a year in assistance to some of Israel's poorest families. But it started from nothing more than a simple impulse to help some neighbors in need.

Twenty-eight years ago, Mrs. Hadassah Weisel sent one of her daughters door-to-door to collect food for a neighbor with a number of disabled children and her own major health problems.

Each such trip brought back news of other such families in similar need. Soon the Weisel daughters were supplemented by a whole corps of neighborhood girls. Today Yad Eliezer has thousands of volunteers all around Israel collecting food and provides food worth over $4,000,000 annually to close to 100,000 Israeli Jews, through its monthly food baskets, weekly meals to the home bound, and special holiday distributions.

Yad Eliezer's infant formula program began in a similarly humble fashion. Mrs. Weisel noticed a neighborhood woman whose infant son could not hold his head up. After discreet inquiries, she ascertained that the baby's malnourished mother could not nurse, and to save money, she was diluting the infant formula with three times more water than recommended. As a result, the infant suffered from an acute vitamin deficiency. Yad Eliezer today supplies 1,800 mothers who cannot nurse for one reason or another with all the formula needed.

Many outside of Israel know Yad Eliezer best from the advertisements urging those making weddings for their own children to adopt the wedding of a poor couple in Israel. The cost of the latter is only a fraction of that of dessert alone at more lavish affairs in the Diaspora.

To date the organization has made over 10,000 weddings in this fashion. (The adopt-a-wedding idea has since been expanded to an adopt-a-bar mitzvah program to purchase tefillin for impoverished Israeli boys.) Two years ago, the organization purchased two wedding halls in Jerusalem for nearly $4,000,000, which allows them to further reduce the costs to the poorest families and offer relief to "middle class" Torah families. The stigma to fully subsidized families is also removed since the halls are used for all kinds of families.

Like most of Yad Eliezer's programs, the wedding program also began with a single individual in need. A young woman came to the Weisels' door collecting coins in a nylon sandwich bag on behalf of a poor young woman wanting to marry and start a family. She told Rabbi Weisel that she herself was the bride. Her father had been unable to meet his financial commitments, and she was afraid that her equally poor groom would against his will be forced to break their engagement.

About seven years ago, the Weisel's son Dov, who is today the director of Yad Eliezer, visited a woman with no family support raising a son on her own. Even though there was no food in the house, she told him that her greatest concern was that her son had no one with whom to study religious and character building texts.

Dov found a young Torah scholar to learn with the boy. It occurred to him that there must be many other young boys with no supportive male figure in their lives. A small $150,000 pilot program proved so successful that a full-scale Big Brother Program was developed. Today 3,500 boys between the ages of 8 and 13 spend at least three hours a week with an avreich, who not only learns with them but becomes fully involved in every aspect of their lives.

Another 1,200 are waiting to get into the program. The total budget of the program is around $3,000,000, of which well over 80% provides much needed supplemental income to young Torah scholars. Again, a single case became the impetus for a major program.

How did what started as a handful of private kindness endeavors by one couple develop into Yad Eliezer? As with Rabbi Myski, the only answer is: siyata d'shamaya (help from Above). But that kind of siyata d'shamaya does not come to everyone. Dov Weisel tells a story that goes a long way to explaining that of his parents.

A few years ago, he was sitting with a group of substantial contributors when a poor man knocked on the office door. Dov asked him to wait, as he was in a meeting. At that point, his father took him aside, and told him, "Never forget that the poor man is the important one. He is the purpose of this organization. The wealthy are only important because they can help him."

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Tsila, October 23, 2006.
This was written by Michael Kress and it appeared in Moment Magazine

Sitting at a table at Mendy's Kosher Delicatessen in New York, Jim Long pauses to say a blessing in Hebrew before biting into a massive hamburger topped with fried pastrami. "This pastrami is better than bacon," he declares in his warm voice tinged with an Arkansan accent. The 58-year-old filmmaker -- who no longer permits himself bacon -- is in the city with his wife Carol, who sits primly beside him. They are here to speak at several Orthodox synagogues about their documentary, Riddles of the Exodus, which examines the biblical account through the lens of Egyptian archaeological finds.

The Longs are an observant couple. Hebrew phrases pepper their conversation -- a b'ezrat Hashem (with God's help) here, a baruch Hashem (praise God) there. Back in Arkansas, they keep a traditional Jewish home. "We've got blessings in ivrit [Hebrew] hanging on the walls, and menorahs on display," Long explains. Each year, they build a sukkah and attend a Passover seder. "Our oldest grandson just turned six and already knows his aleph-bet," Long boasts.

But despite the baruch Hashems, the menorahs, the sukkah, the avoidance of pork and the intimate familiarity with advanced rabbinic texts, Jim and Carol Long are not Jewish, nor do they have any plans to convert. They are Noahides: non-Jews who accept the authority of Jewish law and focus their lives around the Jewish concept of Sheva Mitzvot B'nei Noach or the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noah. This set of laws is intended for non-Jews and, according to tradition, predate the Ten Commandments given at Mount Sinai. "I believe exactly what a Jew believes," Long tells me. "My belief system is exactly parallel to that of an Orthodox Jew. That doesn't mean I am one."

Unbeknownst to most Jews, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of Noahides, and most, like the Longs, are former Christians who've turned their backs on the faith. This is not the first time the world has seen a community of "Righteous Gentiles" who center their beliefs around Judaism but it is the first time in history that such a group has begun to organize as a worldwide movement. And that movement is being actively encouraged by some Orthodox Jewish groups -- in particular, the Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim.

About forty blocks north of Mendy's deli, Rabbi Yakov Cohen scurries around a second-floor office at the Schneerson Center for Jewish Life, the home of Chabad on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The 30-something Brooklynite with a close-cropped reddish beard, rarely sits still: he devotes his copious energies to helping out with the Chabad center's core mission -- classes, prayer services and other programs for Jewish residents of this tony Manhattan neighborhood.

His true passion, however, lies in reaching out to non-Jews through what are usually referred to as the "Seven Laws," which he describes as pillars of universal morality that serve as a "balm for a world of conflict and immorality." Jewish teachings say that God first gave these laws to Adam, then reaffirmed them as part of the covenant he made with Noah after the Flood. Just as the Jews have the Ten Commandments (plus an additional 603 mitzvot), non-Jews -- all of whom are technically the children of Noah -- have the Seven Laws, which command them to establish a legal system and refrain from murder, blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, theft and eating the flesh of a living animal.

"The non-Jews have the full length and breadth of Torah -- they just have a different role in it," says Cohen, his rapid-fire delivery complete with a yeshiva-ish lilt. "The role of every person is to be a good person, to bring divine light, to draw down godliness, Hashem, into the world. To do it as a Jew, as a non-Jew, it doesn't matter. It's the same light," he says. "It's the same Godly energy."

Like virtually all Chabad Hasidim, Cohen seeks counsel in the words of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the late Lubavitch rebbe, who died at age 92 in 1994 and is still affectionately referred to simply as the "the rebbe." "Influencing non-Jews to keep their mitzvos, the Seven Noahide Laws... will assist our task of making the world into a dwelling place for God, and help bring about the arrival of Messiah," Schneerson said in a 1987 speech during a Purim celebration. In response to teachings like this, thousands of his followers fanned out around the globe to battle what they saw as society's moral degeneracy, bringing yiddishkeit to non-observant Jews and seeking out and supporting interested non-Jews.

About six years ago, Cohen founded Noahide.org, a website that serves as a sort of Noahide think tank, through which he runs conferences, publishes papers and counsels non-Jews from as far away as Scandinavia. Other Chabad-associated websites such as AskNoah.org and 7for70.com (meaning, seven laws for the proverbial 70 nations of the world) likewise seek to spread Noahide values to non-Jews in English, French, Spanish and other languages. Rabbis from Shimon Cowen in Australia to Immanuel Schochet in Canada offer halachic advice to Noahides and lecture about what Jewish tradition expects of non-Jews. In Israel, Chabad emissaries visit Arab and Druze villages to pass out literature about the Seven Laws and converse with the sometimes bewildered -- but often receptive -- locals. In addition to preparing the world for the Messiah, they see themselves as presenting moral values that will end the centuries-old animosities between Muslims and Jews.

"We, the Jewish people, especially frum people, have to be a light upon the nations and we have to tell them what Torah says," says Cohen. "We have the responsibility to shed light on the world."

Jack Saunders has a snowy white beard of biblical proportions. Back in the 1980s he was a Baptist minister at Frazier's Chapel Independent Baptist Church in Cohutta, Georgia, near the Tennessee border. But that was before the now 58-year-old Tennessean began to question the fundamentals of his faith and came to the conclusion that the gospel stories of Jesus and the entire New Testament are false.

"It was kind of disturbing," he says of the experience. "But if you're looking for truth and truth smacks you in the face, then you have to do something. You have to be able to confront it and say, 'This is the truth' and let go of your emotions."

Saunders recalls how hard it was to express his doubts to his parishioners and admit that he had "been wrong for all those years." The process was slow. For about a year and a half he preached only from the Jewish Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament. Then one Sunday morning, Saunders recalls, he stood on the pulpit and read from Isaiah 7:14, in which a young woman, interpreted by Christians to be a virgin, gives birth to Jesus. For the first time he let his parishioners know that he saw no hint of Christian prophecy in that passage. "That's when everything, you may say, hit the fan."

Some church-goers abandoned Saunders, but nearly half of the congregation's 70 members were moved by the pastor's change of heart and stayed as Frazier's Chapel Independent Baptist Church removed its steeple and crosses. "At the time," Saunders says, "the only thing we knew was what we were not." After reading about the Seven Laws and studying with a rabbi, Saunders and his remaining flock became Noahides and redubbed their place of worship Frazier's Chapel B'nai Noach Study Center. "I wanted to be able to read the Hebraic sources by myself," says Saunders, who has since learned Hebrew. "I didn't want to be lied to because I'd been lied to by all those Christians."

It was Texas archaeologist Vendyl Jones who introduced Jim Long to the Seven Laws. The two met in 1993 when Jones appeared on the Dallas radio show that Long produced. A former Baptist preacher, Jones had grown dismayed with what he considered the anti-Jewish sentiments of the Gospels and sought council from rabbis, studied in Israel and became a Noahide. He is believed to have been the inspiration for the character Indiana Jones in the film Raiders of the Lost Ark and is the founder of the Vendyl Jones Research Institute -- a nonprofit based in Grandview, Texas, devoted to Biblical archeology. Considered one of the pioneers of the modern Noahide movement, Jones fondly remembers meeting Schneerson in his Brooklyn home and the rabbi's encouraging words: "Vendyl Jones, you are doing the most important work in the world."

Long found himself intrigued by Jones's spiritual journey. Having drifted from denomination to denomination until he abandoned Christianity altogether, Long "was looking for something to fill the void." Shortly after the radio interview, he began attending Torah classes and joined Jones on archeological digs in the Middle East.

For Pam Rogers, the break with Christianity was more wrenching. Rogers and her husband, Larry, who live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, were members of the Worldwide Church of God, a small Christian movement that observes the Sabbath on Saturdays, before becoming leaders of a Messianic Jewish congregation. In the early 1990s, a Jewish man befriended them and challenged them to prove the validity of the Christian Bible. As the couple tried to defend their views, they came to believe that the New Testament distorted the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

The decision to become a Noahide threatened to break the Rogers family apart. Pam's father, a Pentecostal preacher, refused to speak to her for four years. Larry lost his job because he refused to work on Saturdays. The couple almost divorced because Pam made the decision to build her life around the Seven Laws before Larry did. "We lose our children, our spouses, our identities," Rogers says of the sacrifices that she and other Noahides are often forced to make for their faith.

Despite what might seem an obvious trajectory, following the Seven Laws is not a path to becoming a Jew, says Yakov Cohen of the Schneerson Center. "We're not interested in membership," he says. Rather, the Chabad sees Judaism as a "universal religion" that offers salvation to everyone without conversion.

Jews are not known for proselytizing, and most Jews believe that Judaism prohibits it. David Novak -- a Conservative rabbi and leading authority on the Seven Laws and what Judaism requires of non-Jews -- debunks that idea. "Find me one halachic prohibition against proselytizing," he says. The popularly accepted notion that Judaism opposes proselytizing, Novak argues, rests less on theology than on the fact that most of Jewish history has been a perpetual struggle for survival. "For most of the time, Jews couldn't do it."

Novak, who teaches at the University of Toronto, points to sporadic attempts to convert people to Judaism throughout history. The best-known effort took place during the time of the Second Temple, which stood from 515 to 70 B.C.E. Living under the Romans, Jews actively proselytized, with great success. Some non-Jews converted, others simply took on aspects of observant Jewish life and became part of Jewish communities. Called the "God Fearers" (Yirei Adonai), they are immortalized in the Book of Psalms.

While Jewish law does not prohibit proselytization, it does not call for a world of Jewish converts, either. The traditional messianic vision, as articulated most famously in the Book of Isaiah, is of a world at peace in which everyone acknowledges one God, even if all do not adopt Judaism:

And many peoples shall go and say: 'Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares...

Even in a text as familiar as the Aleinu prayer, Jews regularly reference a vision of Jews and non-Jews under a monotheistic ruler -- to many, a clear allusion to Noahides:

All the world's inhabitants will recognize and know that to you, every knee should bend, every tongue should swear. Before You, Lord, our God, they will bend every knee and cast themselves down and to the glory of your name they will render homage, and they will all accept upon themselves the yoke of your kingship, that you may reign over them soon and eternally.

Since the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish sages have argued over whether the Noahide commandment not to worship "false gods" is compatible with other religions. Islam, the rabbis hold, is acceptable because of its adamantly monotheistic stance. Christianity, on the other hand, remains a subject of contention, with many arguing that belief in the Trinity is polytheistic, and therefore out of bounds under Noahide law.

Another critical debate centers around whether the Seven Laws are a set of universal moral imperatives that people intuit on their own or are precepts that Jews must actively bring to the world. The dominant halachic attitude has been that Jews are not required to spread Noahide teachings to non-Jews. Moses Maimonides, the medieval Jewish philosopher and legal authority, disagreed. In his monumental 12th-century work the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides envisioned a society in which non-Jews would be governed by Jewish law, noting that they could choose to convert. "If they do not want to, we do not compel them to accept the Torah and the commandments. Moses did, however, command in the name of God to compel all people to accept the Noahide laws," Maimonides continued. "Compel" may seem a particularly strong word, but Maimonides's stance is clear: Jews must do what they can to teach non-Jews about the Noahide laws.

The 19th century Italian rabbi and famed Kabbalist, Elijah Benamozegh, also believed that Jews have a responsibility to guide non-Jews towards the path of righteousness. Shortly before his death in 1900, Benamozegh received a letter from Frenchman Aimé Pallière seeking advice on converting to Judaism. Benamozegh told the young man there was another way. "The religion of humanity is no other than Noahism," the rabbi wrote to Pallière. "Here is the religion preserved by Israel to be transmitted to the Gentiles. It is the path which lies open before your efforts, before mine as well, to spread the knowledge thereof, as is my duty to do so." Called the "first and last high priest of the Noahide religion," Pallière is believed to have been the first modern Noahide. A talented writer, he learned Hebrew, lectured at the Orthodox Rabbinical School of France and urged Jews to follow Orthodox traditions.

Benamozegh believed "that mankind cannot rise to the essential principles on which society must rest unless it meet[s] with Israel. And Israel cannot fathom the depths of its own national and religious tradition, unless it meet[s] with mankind." A half-century later, Benamozegh's dream of a Jewish-supported Noahide worldwide movement would be seized upon by Schneerson. "Every Jew has the obligation to ensure that all the peoples of the world observe the Seven Noahide Laws" and that non-Jews, as well as Jews, "acknowledge God as Creator and ruler of the world," Schneerson declared. It's a position that remains controversial. "If Jews are telling Gentiles what to do, it's a form of imperialism," Novak says. To him, the Seven Laws are valuable in constructing a moral foundation that enables Jews to speak out on social issues, but not as part of a religion around which non-Jews should structure their daily lives. "Why would any Gentile want to be told by Lubavitch -- or any other rabbi -- what to do?" Novak asks. "I am suspicious of anyone who wants to live this way." Novak isn't alone in his suspicions. "With a lot of rabbis, there's still this skepticism and fear that someone's trying to infiltrate your shul and will end up being some sort of missionary trying to bring people to Christianity," Jack Saunders says of the reception Noahides often receive when seeking guidance. Counseling Noahides is not the sort of subject covered in a typical rabbinical school education and rabbis tend to confront the issue only if approached personally by a non-Jew.

Barry Freundel, the author of Contemporary Orthodox Judaism's Response to Modernity and rabbi of Washington, DC's Kesher Israel, a modern Orthodox synagogue, is among the many rabbis who have never been approached by a Noahide. Freundel doesn't share Schneerson's belief that Jews are required to spread the Noahide laws to non-Jews -- but he also doesn't believe that Jews can ignore interested Noahides. "Once they are doing it, you are required to help them," he says.

Carol Long wishes there were many more rabbis who were willing to work with Noahides. "They have to know there are actually people out there looking to them for leadership and spiritual guidance and who respect what they bring to the world."

Today's Noahide movement has no prescribed ritual and liturgical life. Even the laws themselves -- six out of the seven -- are prohibitions such as "don't kill" and "don't steal."

"We need to give more than 'don't, don't, don't,'" Larry Rogers says. If more people are going to become Noahide, "they have to have a life. They have to know there are life celebrations," he says. "We're trying to find our place with Hashem."

To add greater meaning to their lives, some Noahides have created a lifestyle parallel to that of Orthodox Judaism: They study Jewish texts, pray and follow some of what are known as the "positive commandments" -- rituals and other mitzvot. They've adopted portions of Jewish liturgy and prayers, removing all mentions of chosenness, to make clear that this concept only applies to Jews.

But "there are so many opinions about Noahide halacha," says Pam Rogers. "It's very confusing for us Gentiles." The Noahide approach to Shabbat illustrates the difficulty of deciding which Jewish traditions to follow. Rogers and her husband try to avoid work and set aside time for a festive meal and prayer, but don't refrain from using electrical devices. Others may shun the use of electricity but go out of their way to perform at least one activity over the course of Shabbat that distinguishes them from Jews. Jack Saunders, for example, writes a check. "I always do something that makes it known I'm not Israel," he says.

From his base in New York, Yakov Cohen is working to bring structure to this mosaic of Noahide spiritual life. He and others are creating a Noahide siddur (prayerbook) to standardize prayers, and a liturgy of lifecycle rituals, such as funerals and baby-naming ceremonies. This year, one of the first Noahide weddings was held in Buffalo, New York, under a chuppa. The officiating rabbi spoke of the Seven Laws as the marriage's foundation and sealed it with a contract modeled after the traditional ketuba. Rabbis are also working on the first-ever Noahide Shulhan Arukh -- a comprehensive book of law pertaining to non-Jews, which will spell out the specifics of Noahide life, making clear which mitzvot are acceptable for them and which aren't. "We know what they can't do," says Cohen. "Let's see what they can do."

Noahides are few, dispersed, often misunderstood and they crave community. Lucky ones, like Saunders, find likeminded souls near home with whom to gather together to study Jewish texts, pray, discuss the challenges of the Noahide life and socialize.

Local groups, such as the Chavurath B'nei Noach (the Fellowship of the Children of Noah) of Ft. Worth, Texas, serve as an important source of communal life for their members. Organizations such as The Root & Branch Association, Noahide Nations, Rainbow Covenant and B'nai Noach Torah Institute provide advice and support to Noahides wherever they live, often through the Internet.

No single organization, however, is widely recognized as representative of the worldwide movement. That's partly because of the diffuse and ad hoc nature of Noahide organizations, but it is also reflective of the nature of the movement, which is composed of independent-minded people who have rejected their traditional faith and are willing to follow a largely uncharted spiritual path. "We're very iconoclastic -- we're all about taking down the idols," Jim Long says. Saunders puts it more pessimistically: "It seems like every time we try to organize, it doesn't go well."

The most recent effort to bring Noahides together comes in the form of High Council of B'nei Noah, an umbrella organization that seeks to fill the leadership vacuum. The High Council's mission is to provide support for Noahides, educate the general public, serve as a liaison with the Jewish community and standardize Noahide beliefs and practices. Last January, members of the Council -- which included Saunders and Long -- were inaugurated in Jerusalem, where they recited the following oath:

"I pledge my allegiance to Hashem, God of Israel, Creator and King of the Universe, to His Torah and its representatives, the developing Sanhedrin. I hereby pledge to uphold the Seven Laws of Noah in all their details, according to Oral Law of Moses under the guidance of the developing Sanhedrin."

The Noahide Council is supported by the respected Orthodox Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, best known for the edition of the Talmud that bears his name, but who's also the leader of the "developing Sanhedrin" cited in the oath. Steinsaltz's Sanhedrin is the most recent attempt to revive the Great Sanhedrin of 71 sages who met in Jerusalem until 425 C.E. to discuss matters of concern to the Jewish people and adjudicate disputes. Steinsaltz argues that both Jews and Noahides follow different parts of the same belief system and can even be considered members of the same religion. "Even from simply a utilitarian point of view, we Jews have hardly any friends in the world. B'nei Noah are by definition our closest friends," he says. "So we should reach out to them."

Already, the Council has been troubled by internal disagreements and criticism from outsiders. Some Noahides are unhappy that its members were appointed by the Sanhedrin rather than voted on, while others complain that all its members are American. Jack Saunders is among those who have left the Council, tiring of the strife though still supportive of its mission. "For me, it's a wonderful thing," he says, but cautions that "working out all the problems is going to be tough."

Steinsaltz believes the Council -- and the broader Noahide community -- will overcome these rifts. Long also remains optimistic. A major conference for Noahides in Jerusalem for October 2007, during Sukkot, is in the works and Long hopes it will serve as an inspiration for Noahides worldwide. "We think that we could act as a gesher, a bridge, between Jews and Noahides," he says.

As a child of a Jewish father, Philip Levy, a 28-year-old Noahide from the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC, could walk into any Reform synagogue as a full-fledged member. But after drifting from Catholicism, his mother's religion, to evangelical Christianity, he found meaning in Orthodox Judaism. Through the Internet and guided by the local Chabad community, Levy came to self-identify as a Noahide. He takes classes and attends services as a non-Jew at a Chabad synagogue and even created a website, novanoahides.org (nova as in Northern Virginia) -- in the hope of meeting other Noahides who live nearby. So far, he has only found one.

Why doesn't Levy take that last step and convert, so he can be considered Jewish according to Orthodox standards and become a full member of the community? Nearly all Noahides grapple with the conversion question, sometimes for years and without definitive conclusion. After all, they adhere to traditional Jewish commandments more strictly than most Jews and many can quote from rabbinic texts as well as yeshiva students.

Some have become Jewish, but they are a minority. For the rest, the reasons for not converting are complicated. "I was raised on bacon and eggs," Levy jokes, "and if I had to give them up I don't know what I'd do." More seriously, he talks about an "attachment" to his "Gentileness" and his respect for his mother.

But for most Noahides the decision not to convert boils down to the fact that they find spiritual fulfillment in what they view as their role in the divine plan for the world: To follow the lead of the Jewish people -- not become them. "Israel was chosen to be a nation of kings and priests and a light unto the nations," Pam Rogers explains. "We decided if everybody converted, who would Israel have to be priests to?"

They believe that they can have a greater impact as non-Jews following the Torah than as Jewish converts, both by encouraging other non-Jews to live according to Noah's laws and by calling upon Jews to observe their own traditions. "If I just converted and went out to the non-Jewish world talking about the Torah and the prophets and how great it was, then I'd just be another Jew running my mouth," says Jack Saunders.

To those who take the long view of Jewish history, like University of Toronto professor Novak, the Noahide movement is destined to peter out, as did the Second Temple-era God Fearers. Eventually, Novak reasons, Noahides will return to their original faiths or convert to Judaism. "If you want rabbis to tell you what to do, why not convert to Judaism?" he asks. "It's an untenable situation."

A couple of months after meeting the Longs at Mendy's Kosher Delicatessen, I called them at their home in Arkansas to ask how they envisioned the Noahide future, in 15, 20, or even 50 years. "There will be places in every state and nation where people can go to study and worship," answered Carol. No other group of Righteous Gentiles has had the tools of modern technology with which to communicate, organize effectively and dispense information. This, Jim said, not only insures the long-term sustainability, but the growth of the Noahide movement. Then he asked me a question: "Do you know what kind of world we would live in if all nations honored the Seven Laws?" He took a quick breath and answered his own query: "It would be transformational. If we were to stop killing, stop stealing, establish real courts of justice everywhere in the world, do you see what would happen? We'd have world peace."


Contact Tsila at tsilagroup@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 23, 2006.

"A Blueprint for Victory" was written by Andrew McCarthy and Herbert London and it appeared in today's Washington Times.

Please read carefully their article, published in today's Washington Times. They are on the right track. Their advice is good.

In 2004, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the Al-Arabiya news channel, courageously wrote, "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

It is simply incontestable that the vast majority of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims who unabashedly claim Islamic scripture impels them. We are in the throes of an ideological war, and it would be grossly irresponsible to continue ignoring the patent nexus between radical Islam and terror.

It is a sad reality that radicalism is actually mainstream in much of the Islamic world. This is due primarily to the refusal of many Muslims -- not just Muslim terrorists but millions of Muslims -- to accept the cardinal principles of enlightened liberty and democracy.

One need not merely infer this. Explicit proof is abundant in both Sunni and Shi'ite Islam. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's highest Shi'ite authority -- and recipient of high praise by administration officials -- maintains that non-Muslims should be considered in the same category as "urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors," and "the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things]." Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Egypt, the highest Sunni authority, instructs that Jews are "enemies of Allah [and] descendants of apes and pigs," views he expressly attributes to the Koran.

This dehumanizing hatred has been turned against our nation. Mustafa Zakri, a member of parliament in Egypt (the recipient of $2 billion a year in U.S. largess), has asserted that "America is the head of the serpent, and the greatest enemy, which we must confront." In Yemen, a judge recently dismissed charges against 19 terrorists who joined with al Qaeda in fighting U.S. forces in Iraq, reasoning that Islamic law sanctions jihad against occupiers of Muslim lands.

In newly liberated Afghanistan, the government attempted to put a man to death for the "crime" of converting from Islam to another religion, a capital offense under Islamic law. In Iraq, homosexuals are executed in Shi'ite-controlled areas -- consistent with a fatwa from the Ayatollah al-Sistani.

Meanwhile, Iran, nearing a confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, has developed a missile called "Zelzad 1." Its namesake is a Koranic verse that tells of a conflagration which precipitates Judgment Day. The missile is emblazoned with the slogan: "We will trample America under our feet. Death to America."

We believe that being in denial about Islamic militancy profoundly compromises U.S. national security. Our system's toleration of religious belief does not immunize religions from criticisms of the tenets or practices of those belief systems. This is particularly true when the criticized practices, though rhetorically labeled "religion," are actually elements of an imperialistic social system antithetical to equality, liberty, separation of church and state, and other core Western values.

Activist efforts to limit America's free marketplace of ideas -- such as the tactic of slandering commonsense criticism as "Islamophobia" -- are contrary to the very foundation of democratic governance. The West cannot cure Islam's propensity to spawn radicalism; this is a matter only Muslims can address. But we must do whatever is necessary to protect our liberty and security. Since the United States is in the midst of a long war for the survival of our way of life, the following steps should immediately be taken:

  • Congress should enact legislation stating forthrightly that our enemy in the ongoing war is radical Islam.

    [Which I call JESTTTTI Islam: Jihadist Expansionist Supremacist Totalitarian Tyrannical Triumphalist Terrorist Imperialist Islam: aka Islamofascism. I call it such an uncomplimentary name in order to distinguish between it and 'true Islam' which is a religion of peace and tolerance. DML]

  • Immigration from and aid to Muslim countries should be drastically reduced. Upward adjustments should be contingent on measurable reforms that promote liberty while reducing the role of religion in politics. (Provision should be made for asylum for reformers.)

  • Any Muslim foreign national who will not concede under oath that American law must be followed in the U.S. when it conflicts with Islamic law should be subject to exclusion or deportation.

    [Or incarceration as an enemy alien per National Security Court paragraph, below; if the foreign national's past activities in terrorist attacks warrants it. DML]

  • It should be made clear that a person's status as a Muslim (particularly if he is also a male under age 45 who is a citizen of a country with a substantial Islamic population) is palpably relevant to investigations of terrorist threats. To do otherwise wastes finite investigative resources and challenges the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement by treating all Americans as if they were potential Islamic radicals.

  • Mosques in the U.S. have been used by Islamic radicals to spread their ideology, as hubs for terror recruitment and paramilitary training, and even for storage and transfer of weapons. While the war ensues, it should be made clear that the FBI and other authorities do not require a criminal predicate to collect intelligence or conduct investigations. Mosques in which violence or unlawful activity is encouraged should be subject to forfeiture and loss of tax-exempt status.

    [And if violations of American security by the actions of the mosque's leaders or laic worshipers is egregious enough, then that mosque should be closed and its leaders and other suspect activists incarcerated per the National Security Court paragraph below. DML]

  • Rigorous examination should be required for certification of Islamic chaplains in the military and the federal and state prison systems.

    [And such Islamic chaplains who preach anti-American or pro-JESTTTTI Islamic propaganda are to be incarcerated per the National Security Court paragraph below. DML]

  • Congress should create a National Security Court with jurisdiction over terrorism and other national security matters. Alleged alien-terrorists should be designated unlawful enemy combatants (apprehended either inside or outside the U.S.) and be accorded the minimal rights required by American due process standards. Removing their cases from the civilian and military courts will increase the quality of justice in those systems.

    [Keeping their cases in the context of unlawful enemy aliens, apprehended either here or abroad in the course of their anti-American enemy activity during war time, is consistent with all international laws regarding prisoners of war captured during war time. Such prisoners have no civil rights; and only minimal human rights. Their disposition awaits treaty arrangements and exchange of prisoner agreements as defined by armistice or peace agreements between belligerents. DML]

  • With radical Islamic sentiment gaining traction in oil-rich nations, it is imperative that U.S. energy independence become a national priority. Congressional action must be taken to remove the onerous legal and regulatory barriers to the construction and expansion of refineries, production of oil and gas from offshore wells, construction of gas pipelines and other energy transportation infrastructure, and the building of power plants, including alternative generation sources such as solar stations, wind farms, tar sands, nuclear power plants, etc.

    [Here I believe the authors of this article have made 2 grievous errors. In my opinion, first and foremost, our government should be encouraging the development of a low-cost, clean-burning, non-polluting naturally renewable substitute for petroleum. Partnership with scientists at Israel's Technion and Weizmann institutes may be efficient and productive in this endeavor. Second, our government should encourage the expansion of our search and access and refining and distribution of energy sources; BUT while maintaining and even increasing (and certainly NOT removing) the requirements that those energy sources be developed with the lowest possible negative impact on our environment in general and on global warming in particular. DML]

  • Treaty obligations, alliances with other countries and membership in international organizations need to be consistent with national goals. Where they have become obsolete or harmful, they must be reshaped or eliminated.

    [And this policy should be broadcast publicly to silence the rancorous (and very short-sighted, or ignorant, or treasonous) debate about "what our country should do in light of the fact that 'our traditional ally', France, does not like us any more". DML]

The 20th century was filled with massive assaults on liberty by totalitarian aggressors who questioned the resolve of the defenders of liberty. This flawed assumption of weakness led to vast and unprecedented death and destruction. We make this statement in an attempt to diminish the chances of another such bloody miscalculation, and we pray that the rich benefits of the American model of government will gain a new appreciation around the world.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Neuwirth, October 23, 2006.

Mr. Khalidi, Mr. Masad et al at the Dept. of Middle East Institute:

Regretfully, since I suspect no answer would come from you, Mr. Khalidi, any time soon, I thought to direct you the following article which will help you in setting the record straight about historical Palestine. The following article would provide you with first, correct perspective and secondly, facts well documented about historical Palestine and who are the Arabs now called "Palestinian" people:

"The Arab War on Israel: The Morass of Middle East Diplomacy (Friday, May 12, 2006) Since 1993 a sustained diplomatic effort has been devoted to solve what is commonly known as the Arab-Israeli conflict. This conflict, reframed as the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, is no closer to resolution. Even the most optimistic observers cannot deny that all these efforts have resulted in failure.

I hope that you will find it in your heart and mind to correct some of your egregious errors about Historical Palestine. Thank you.  Sincerely,
Rachel Neuwirth

Professor Rashid Khalidi raises a very pertinent question in his article "Unwritten History", recently published in the Boston Globe. In essence, he laments that the Palestinians have not written down their own history and he observes that their failure to do so has made their claim for Palestinian statehood more problematic.

Mr. Khalidi's initiative must be welcomed by all those who seek the historical truth in the Middle East conflict. But we may wonder why it is that the history of the Palestinian people has suddenly become such an important issue. After all, many years ago, Yasser Arafat lifted any lingering doubt by tracing Palestinian history all the way back to the Jebusites!

Peoples -- real ones -- know their history. History precedes the collective consciousness of a people. Jews, Kurds, Tibetans, Mongols, and a myriad others are very much aware of who they are. They need no latecomer to remind them of their origins, or to forge a newly minted history to redefine their identity. They know their past achievements and they have a common will for the future. So, if forty years after the word "Palestinian" entered the international lexicon -- in its new, twisted and widely circulated meaning -- we are still in search of their history, we may conclude it is because there has never been such a people. The "Palestinian people" was a late creation for political purposes aimed only at destroying the national aspirations of a real people -- the Jews -- rather than building a peaceful society.

I do not know what motivated Mr. Khalidi to delve into the historical quest of the Palestinian people. Was it to prop up a "cause" whose merit is increasingly questioned by their former supporters? Was it to create a means to cement the many disparate factions who are speaking with different voices? Or was it to counter what social anthropologist Ernest Geller observed, namely, that "nationalism [often] invents nations where they do not exist."? Whatever the motives may be, this historical investigation should be respectful of factual truths, which does not seem to be the thrust Mr. Khalidi had in mind, in view of the article he penned.

In his second paragraph, Mr. Khalidi writes:

"The United Nations resolution of 1947 that led to the establishment of Israel called for such a [Palestinian] state. In the years before that, Palestinians similarly failed to win independence from the British, who held a League of Nations mandate over Palestine, in part because of internal rivalries, but also because of the constellation of forces arrayed against them."

The reality is quite different and Mr. Khalidi should know it: The United Nations did not "call for a Palestinian state".

The non binding UN Resolution 181 of November 1947 "recommended" a Partition of Palestine. This resolution passed with a two third majority. It was accepted by the Jewish Agency and rejected by all Arab states and the Arab High Committee in Palestine. Similar Arab rejections occurred in the 1930s (Peel Commission, White Paper, etc.). Way before Resolution 181 passed, Mandated Palestine had already been partitioned through the creation of Transjordan by the British government, which breached the original provisions of the Mandate as they were set up in the San Remo Conference of 1920. In that regard, a further partition of Palestine, recommended by the UN in 1947, was clearly against international law and violated Chapter XII of the UN Charter.

Nothing in the above is "hidden history" as Mr. Khalidi pretends. It is all perfectly documented and it is only hidden to those who are bent on forging new facts to suit their agenda. Without going through every paragraph of Mr. Khalidi's article, it is clear that revisionism is rampant in its most obscene form. We are told that only the Egyptian army attacked Israel in 1948. One may wonder then why Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, together with Egypt, signed armistices in the first half of 1949, and Iraq withdrew its troops (without signing). We are told that Zionism was "both [a colonial] and a nationalist movement." Mr. Khalidi would be hard pressed to explain this contradiction in terms. We are told that the PLO "could have held out for a better deal than the highly disadvantageous terms of the Oslo Accords." A better deal? Was the Barak proposal at Camp David not good enough for the PLO? Is Mr. Khalidi's idea of a better deal a fast track to the "phased plan" of destruction of Israel as the "moderate" Faisal Husseini declared in Kuwait in June 2001, when he promised "a Palestinian statefrom the river to the sea"? It is not through these manipulative approaches that the "Palestinian people" will acquire their lettres de noblesse. But Mr. Khalidi's exercise is useful in that it shows to what shameful lengths the promoters of the Palestinian cause are prepared to go in their futile quest to turn lead into gold. It also shows his misguided belief that going back a mere eighty years is sufficient history to buttress the inexistent identity of the "Palestinian people."

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles-based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of the organization's Middle East committee. Contact her by email at rachterry@sbcglobal.net
This article appeared October 21, 2006 in The American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5964 Salomon Benzimra contributed to this article

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 23, 2006.

To the editor, SF Chronicle

My sincerest thanks to you and to Jonathan Curiel for having the courage to publish his excellent article, "the mind of a suicide bomber" (SF Chron, 10.22.06). E-mail Jonathan Curiel at jcuriel@sfchronicle.com.

It is important for the world to know that, for at least those ex-suicide bombers interviewed (i.e., the ones who failed), the motivation was not the "hopeless, hapless, helpless, homeless, poverty, and lack of opportunity" explanation that so many of our politically correct pundits and Congresspersons give us.

The motivation was/is the belief systems and religious teachings provided by that distressingly wide-spread and massively popular mis-representation of Islam which we today label "Islamo-fascism".

Rehov's cinematic interviews give us insight into the most dangerous enemy this country has ever faced. More accurately understanding our enemy's motivations assists us in achieving victory in our defense against the Islamo-fascist war currently being waged against us.

A feature film about Palestinian suicide bombers called "Paradise Now" caused an outcry earlier this year among Israelis. They said it was too sympathetic toward its main characters, who are depicted as being motivated by anger at Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

A new documentary, "Suicide Killers," by French-Jewish filmmaker Pierre Rehov is sure to draw barbs from the other camp. Rehov interviews Palestinians imprisoned for trying to detonate suicide bombs and concludes they're influenced by a religious culture that represses sexual desires and channels the resulting frustration into homicidal rage.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which nominated "Paradise Now" (directed by a Palestinian) for a 2006 best foreign-language film Academy Award, is considering "Suicide Killers" as a 2007 nominee for Best Documentary. The film, which has already screened in New York, will be shown in San Francisco if Academy judges select it as a finalist in the documentary category.

The question of what motivates some Palestinians to strap on explosives and try to kill Israeli citizens has been debated intensively in the past five years, while a string of attacks has resulted in the deaths of 1,000 Israelis.

Some Palestinians say the bombers are fueled by revenge and hopelessness brought on by decades of Israeli occupation, which have choked off the economic and social life of the Palestinian territories, and by Israeli military actions that have killed and wounded thousands of Palestinians. Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi told the BBC in 2002 that suicide bombers are "driven to desperation and anger by the Israeli activities." Journalist and United Nations official Nasra Hassan, who has done extensive interviews with Palestinian suicide bombers, found that one of their prime goals was to spread fear in the hearts of Israelis. Hamas members told her that suicide bombings were a legitimate tactic against Israeli aggression. Studies by Israeli researchers have found that Palestinian suicide bombers are motivated by many factors, including religion and a desire to avenge the deaths of other Palestinians.

But filmmaker Rehov reaches different conclusions. Several of the young men whom he interviews behind bars say they are eager to reach paradise and the 72 virgins promised by Islamic theology. "Those who blow themselves up get a good bonus from God -- they marry 72 virgins," one tells Rehov. (A Hamas cleric told Hassan that the 72 virgins aren't on hand for sexual gratification, however.) One jailed woman talks about wanting to be the "prettiest" among the heavenly virgins.

"Suicide Killers," Rehov says, is "not politically correct." It minimizes the role that Israel's territorial occupation has on Palestinian anger and emphasizes the sexual repression that Rehov says contributes to the bombers' actions. Still, Bassem Eid, a Palestinian-Muslim journalist and human-rights activist in East Jerusalem, praises the movie for exploring the motivations of suicide bombers, saying in a phone interview, "I think suicide bombing is one of the most severe human rights violations."

Rehov has made five previous nonfiction films about Palestinians or the Palestinian territories, including "Holy Land: Christians in Peril." The Chronicle interviewed Rehov by phone from his home in Paris. Here are excerpts:

Q: Why did you make this film?

A: I had originally wanted to make a film about the psychology of (Israeli) victims of suicide attacks. I started interviewing victims, but I realized it was going to be a film (of a story that had been told before) -- that the victims' lives were completely torn apart. But something struck me: Everyone told me about the last second before the suicide bomber blew himself up -- the look and the smile on his face. I was intrigued about how someone can do something so extreme and have a nice smile on his face. I wanted to discover on the individual level what was hiding behind the smile. This is when I shifted.

In the midst of all this, I talked to one of the girls who survived an attack in Haifa. She was a waitress. She was 17. She saw the taxi stop by the cafe where she was working, she saw a guy come in, going straight to her, and opening his shirt and showing dynamite around his belt. He pointed with his finger toward the dynamite and said, to her, "Do you know what this is?"

I've studied psychology, and there are a lot of things connected to flashers -- they want to destroy innocence. I realized that these guys in the last minute of their lives have this same behavior. This is when I understood there is something really sexual about this extreme act they want to commit. I knew (about the Islamic religious belief) of 72 virgins, and I also knew about how sexual frustration can lead to people becoming serial killers.

Q: You interview Palestinians in Israeli jails who tried to detonate suicide bombs or who abetted would-be attacks. Only one of them seems to regret what he tried to do. Did this surprise you?

A: Every single one of them tried to convince me it was the right thing to do for moralistic reasons. These aren't kids who want to do evil. These are kids who want to do good. If they'd been raised in a different world, with different moral values, they would have been just great kids. This is what struck me the most: The result of this brainwashing was kids who were very good people deep inside (were) believing so much that they were doing something great.

Every one of them said that all our behaviors on Earth are impure, and they were trying to reach purity. They said they were "invaded" by Israeli culture. When they turn on the television, they see half-naked dancers. They were offended by that. They wanted me to understand that all this was forbidden on Earth, but if you did something great for God -- like blowing yourself up and killing a bunch of innocent Israelis because they are Jews and don't believe the same thing you believe -- you end up being forgiven for all of your sins and will go to heaven and find 72 virgins waiting for you.

Q: Doesn't your film overemphasize the role of religion in the lives of these suicide bombers? Aren't they more motivated by the harsh conditions in the Palestinian territories and feelings of revenge and helplessness? An Israeli study of Palestinian suicide bombers from 2003 says religious fanaticism is just one of many factors.

A: It's obviously much more complicated than just to say, "They do it because the next minute they wake up in heaven and 72 virgins take care of them." But my theory applies to Palestinians as well as al Qaeda terrorists, who were in strip clubs the night before they blew up the World Trade Center. It can also apply to a kid from London who's in a very religious family but yet lives in a city where everything is possible and open to him.

The (Israeli) occupation is, of course, part of the problem; without the occupation, they wouldn't have to deal with the Israeli culture and wouldn't have to deal with the Israeli presence and wouldn't have the sensation of being unpowerful, and it's very much also connected to pride -- and pride is connected to sexuality. It's part of your self. It's part of your behavior as a male or a female. You want to prove to the world that your genes are better than other genes, and these genes should be transmitted. All of this is connected. To just say that on the material level that occupation is painful is completely inaccurate.

I travel a lot in Arab countries. Palestinians live much better, even under occupation, than most Arabs do. If you want to talk about real misery in the Muslim world, go to Libya, or go even to the suburbs of Cairo -- then you'll see real misery.

Palestinians in the streets of Jenin are complaining about occupation, but they are complaining about it on a cell phone. (Also) the ones who blow themselves up, when they talk about occupation, Tel Aviv is occupation. My film is not a scientific study. I wanted to make a film showing suicide bombers from the inside. I preferred to follow my instinct.

Q: Did the prisoners you interviewed know you were Jewish, and did this have any affect on the way they responded to your questions?

A: They kind of knew, but for them, I was French before anything else. For them, an American Jew is like an Israeli, and a French Jew is still French, and an Israeli Jew is pure evil. Being French for them meant that I was a friend. (My religion) wasn't important for them.

You'd be surprised -- my crew was entirely Israeli except for the translator, who was Israeli Arab. When they were talking to me, they were talking to a French person through an Israeli Arab who was a brother to them. They didn't care or consider about the presence of an Israeli crew, mainly Jews, with a camera filming them.

They looked straight into the camera and said, "Well, we want the Jews to disappear." (But after the filming,) I kept in touch with some of the guys. They gave me phone numbers of their families. (The imprisoned Palestinians) said, "Please, if you go back to my village, talk to my uncle." I'm thinking about making another film about the same subject, maybe go back to one of the jails, now that I know them well.

Q: Bassem Eid praises your film, but I'm sure many Palestinians will say the contentions in "Suicide Killers" are those of a Western, Jewish journalist with a narrow view about Islamic culture and Palestinian motivations.

A: If you look at the film, I didn't come up with just Occidental analysts going to a blackboard and saying, "Hey, this is how it works." I came up with people from inside the Palestinian territories. Every single one of my suicide bombers talks about it; a woman talks about wanting to be one of the 72 virgins, saying, "I would have been the prettiest of all." If you talk to students in Gaza, they talk about the high level of sexual frustration that they have -- that it's not possible to have a normal life.

I would call my film propaganda if I hadn't tried to get the answers from the suicide attackers themselves. In the film, there is very little written from my hand. It's mostly to describe the backgrounds of the suicide killers. I don't step up in the film as a director to try to make people follow what I believe.

Q: Until you were 9, you were raised in Algeria. Why have you said that Muslim culture is in crisis?

A: To make it simple, I witnessed the culture for many, many years. I used to go on vacation in Morocco and Tunisia. Lately, I went back to Algeria for the first time in 40 years. I was born in this culture. I was used to being surrounded by Arabs and by Muslims. I feel very comfortable when I'm with them. I have no problem at all. It's a very warm civilization where solidarity is at a very high level. There's a lot of good aspects about Islam.

Unfortunately, what is going on right now is that Islam itself was not capable of going to the 21st century. Islam didn't have its enlightenment, didn't (lead to) new technologies, didn't participate in the modern world. I'm not saying the modern world is good or bad. Islam didn't participate in the modern world for many reasons, one of them being the level of corruption of the (political) leaders in Islam. In order to stay in place, they promoted for decades this theory that the West, especially Israel, is responsible for all the misery of their people.

I don't recognize the Islam of my childhood. I don't recognize the Islam of my vacations 25 years ago to south Morocco, where there is a lot of poverty and where people consider Islam as a very generous and nonviolent religion.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, October 23, 2006.

This is bad news. The cabinet passed it as a first step to changing the system. The way it is proposed it will lead to more abuses and a virtual dictatorship. This is how much the Israeli politicians care about their people. Read carefully.

The cabinet will soon vote on Avigdor Lieberman's government reform bill. It is a dangerous bill tailored to Lieberman's personal ambitions.

The chairman of Yisrael Beiteinu claims that his proposal for a presidential form of government is modeled after the American system. If so, then I will have to trash my two books on the American Constitution and apologize to the political scientists that have either adopted or recommended these books in their courses on American government.

Glaringly absent in Lieberman's proposed system of government are the institutional checks and balances that distinguish the American Constitution. Surely, Lieberman knows that, under the American Constitution, presidential appointments to the cabinet must be confirmed by the Senate. Yet, Lieberman would give his proposed president sole authority over those appointments.

Moreover, while the American Constitution makes the president responsible for foreign policy, treaties require ratification by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In Israel, however, a simple majority of the cabinet is sufficient. Although prime ministers have sometimes submitted treaties to the Knesset, approval requires only a simple majority. Under Lieberman's presidential plan, however, the president would have the sole power to sign treaties with only the consent of his own hand-picked cabinet ministers. The Knesset would be excluded from this important national concern.

Furthermore, in America, congressmen are elected by districts, not by party slates. Their primary loyalty is to their constituents. Indeed, a president may sometimes face a congress - either the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both - whose majority is composed of an opposition party. In stark contrast to the American Constitution, Lieberman's proposal retains Israel's existing parliamentary electoral system, in which Knesset Members are accountable not to the voters, but to their party institutions or leaders.

So far removed is Lieberman's presidential system from that prescribed in the American Constitution that he would endow the president with the power to dissolve the Knesset whenever he deems it too dominated by the opposition to implement his policies. Is Lieberman ignorant of the fact that the American Constitution prescribes fixed terms of office for both houses of congress (as well as for the president)?

Before continuing, let's consider one of the institutional flaws of Israel's political system that Lieberman would like to correct. As everyone knows, Israel's cabinet consists of a coalition of rival parties each pursuing its own agenda. The prime minister may therefore be subject to extortion; i.e., to the threat of any party that, by resigning from the coalition, may terminate the government.

But I have emphasized a more fundamental flaw, one which is largely responsible for most of Israel's major problems, including that of a multi-party cabinet government.

I refer to the fact, alluded to earlier, that Israel doesn't have regional or multi-district elections. Instead, the entire country constitutes a single electoral district - an electoral system rejected by almost every democracy, including 26 that are smaller in size and population than Israel. As a consequence of this system, the people of Israel are compelled to vote for party slates that win Knesset seats on the basis of proportional representation. Thus, contrary to principles of democracy and of honest government, the Knesset members are not individually accountable to the voters in constituency elections. This allows MKs to ignore public opinion with impunity.

Lieberman's plan retains this undemocratic state of affairs. The jobs of MKs will be as secure as ever. An incumbent MK will still not have to compete against a rival candidate who could expose his perhaps unsound or pernicious record. (Proportional representation has entrenched Shimon Peres in the Knesset for five decades despite his responsibility for the disastrous Oslo Agreement.)

Lieberman knows that proportional representation with the low electoral threshold multiplies the number of parties in the Knesset. To minimize this problem, he would raise the threshold from 2% to 10%. Parties with less than 12 seats would then fail to be represented in the Knesset.

A 10% threshold would eliminate the Arab parties, but not for long, since Arabs constitute almost 50% of the births in Israel. If Lieberman were really serious about solving the problem of growing irredentism of Israeli Arabs, then, as political analyst Caroline Glick has said, "He wouldn't be talking about partitioning the land between Israel and its enemies. He would be talking about partitioning Israel into electoral districts for direct election of Knesset members."

Glick goes on to say: "A review of Israel's demographic situation clearly indicates that by moving from a proportional to district electoral system, it would be possible to largely neutralize the threat to national security posed by anti-Israel forces among Israeli Arabs." (This is a position I have publicized countless times during the past two decades.)

Having reduced the number of parties in the Knesset, Lieberman goes further. He would exclude MKs from being members of the cabinet. Here he is on solid American grounds, except that, as indicated above, he would render the Knesset utterly impotent - a formula for dictatorship.

The government will obviously consist of individuals who identify with the president's goals and program. Fine, but what will restrain this monolithic government? The president and his cabinet will control all the major levers of political and economic power. Lieberman's Knesset, unlike the American Congress, will still lack even the power of administrative oversight - the power to prevent or correct government abuses. Institutional checks and balances will be more conspicuous by their absence in Lieberman's plan.

Although the president, under his plan, can be removed by a vote of 80 MKs, such a vote is not within the range of political probability. The Knesset has never even mustered enough votes to topple a Labor- or Likud-led government, which would require only a simple majority.

We have here a dangerous system of government: a nationally elected president with virtually unchecked executive power and a legislature that, even more than the existing one, will be nothing more than a factory for hot air.

One last word. Seven years ago, I offered Lieberman's party a proposal for a genuine presidential system of government, one that employs Jewish principles to make Israel more democratic and democratic principles to make Israel more Jewish. Making Israel more democratic as well as more Jewish is not on Lieberman's agenda. To the contrary, his presidential plan of government is tailored to his own hardly concealed ambition to become Israel's national leader after the political demise of Ehud Olmert. He is a dangerous man.

Contact Boris Celser at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2006.


"When the IDF pulled out it abandoned the best allies Israel had ever had - the soldiers and officers of the South Lebanese Army, who fought side by side with the IDF for nearly 18 years. After this betrayal it doesn't take a genius to understand the kind of difficulties Israel experienced in finding spies." (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 9/19.)

Strategic blunders have many repercussions.


Israel's Foreign Min. Livni said she is making progress with the Palestinian Arabs in the peace process, because she is working with moderates (she Is referring to Abu Mazen) and not with terrorists (she is referring to Hamas).

Dr. Aaron Lerner commented about her "progress:"

"Before: Lightly armed and poorly coordinated local terror groups subject to a constant struggle to survive as they operate from within areas under the control of the IDF."

"Progress: Heavily armed - including rockets, anti-aircraft missiles, massive tunnel networks, coordinated assaults, etc.." Many of them are paid by the PA (Abu Mazen), are helped by foreign countries, and operate from areas under P.A. control.

Before: Israel insisted that the P.A. end terrorism and destroy illegal weapons (though the P.A. did not comply).

Progress: Prisoner's Document that authorizes armed attacks against the "occupied territories" and proposes putting all terrorists on the PA payroll.

"Question: Why do so many people think that the PR problems Israel has stem from a lack of PR manpower and coordination when the people at the very top of the government put out messages like this?" (IMRA, 9/19.) Israel refrains from criticizing Abbas lest this endanger the "peace process."

Abu Mazen is no moderate, he has been a terrorist his whole career, seeking to destroy Israel.

Westerners don't know what progress means, when dealing with Muslims. So long as the talk is polite, the Westerners think they are making progress. They fail to realize that nothing gets done this way. It's not like a business transaction between two parties that want to conclude a deal of benefit to both sides. The Muslims deal either to stay the infidel's hand or to get a handout, but not to resolve the strife.


The Arabs still do not let the Red Cross visit Israeli prisoners, though Israel allows the Red Cross to visit iArab prisoners. Hamas officials asserted that they do not allow such a visit, while Israel denies its Arab prisoners family visits. In truth, Israel allows the families to visit every week (Arutz-7, 9/19).

My source pointed out the untruth of the Hamas claim. American newspapers usually do not.


Originally, the US demanded P.A. compliance with anti-terrorist provisions. Suddenly, the US switched to "hoping" for P.A. compliance. PM Olmert's media advisors ignored the change, lest it embarrass Olmert in the polls. If they were devoted to Israeli survival rather than the survival of Olmert's regime, they would make much of it. They would embarrass the Administration during this election campaign, perhaps pressuring it to return to the former policy (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/21).


P.A. TV had played several times a day simulated scenes of martyrs, male and female, shot in the back by Israelis, transported to paradise, and marrying each other. In paradise, Muslim men are not limited to four wives (IMRA, 9/19).

I object to simulating Israelis shooting them in the back, the women, at least, for nothing. Israelis do not pick on people they having nothing against and don't, shoot them in the back. The Army tries to capture terrorists, although if it shot them, it would reduce its own casualties. I think it should reduce its own casualties. It is too nice to fanatics.

Arabs stabbed many Jews in the back. The Arabs do what they accuse Jews of doing.


Israeli police arrested several money changers in Judea-Samaria for transferring funds from abroad to terrorist organizations. The P.A. does not supervise money changers.

Some of the money comes from drug deals in S. America. Hamas mingles illegal funds and funds for military purposes with charitable funds, so it appears to be operating for charity (IMRA and Arutz-7, 9/20).


Israeli police and prosecutors had kept open hundreds of cases against youths who protested the abandonment of Gaza. First they accused the youths of blocking demolition, then of striking police. (Oh did the police strike them!) These cases cannot be prosecuted after a year, without the permission of the Attorney-General.

The Land of Israel Legal Forum asked Attorney-General Mazuz to close the year-old cases, rather than to keep them open and the youths in doubt about their future. Open cases can present difficulties for the draft and job applications (Arutz-7, 9/20).


A couple of times recently, the IDF surrounded a house and called for a terrorist cell leader to come out an surrender. The terrorist came out holding a small child as a human shield. In one case, the terrorist suddenly handed the child off to another Arab and opened fire on the troops. They killed him with return fire (Arutz-7, 9/20). He had committed the war crime known as treachery.


Mk Ephraim Sneh has heard that Pres. Bush will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, in the expectation that Iran would reciprocate by letting the US withdraw sooner from Iraq, by not helping the rebels. MK Sneh recommends that Israel prepare to attack Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, itself (IMRA, 9/22). They weren't ready too?!!

Russia offered to sell Iran missiles for protecting those facilities. It already has installed some SAM missiles (IMRA, 9/25).

After the US withdrew, Iran could resume its interference in Iraq, and with nuclear backing. Then the war may have been lost. Bush is endangering the US for politics.


The Russian Army has undergone training and maneuvers to prepare it to fight a US invasion of Iran (IMRA, 9/24 from MEMRI).

Perhaps we should call Russia the Soviet Union.


"Because of thinking like this: Deputy-General Guy of the Givati Brigade currently patrolling southern Lebanon said Friday morning that even if Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah attends the Hizbullah victory rally later that day, the IDF will not attempt to assassinate him." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/22.) Nasrallah rallied his followers, unmolested.


Syrian activity on its part of the Golan Heights seems to be in preparation for war against Israel. Syria professes to have learned from Hizbullah what works against Israel. One plan is to bring Syrian civilians to the Golan, to serve as human shields (IMRA, 9/26).


Apparently, the government is persecuting on corruption charges the rector of a university who resisted the government's desire to appoint Islamists to his secularist university. The equipment in question was obtained before he joined the university, hence he could not have committed the alleged crime. He also was raided in a search of illegal antiquities, but he had government licenses for the artifacts.

The higher education board upheld the rector as a matter of defending the republic. Prosecutors tried to intimidate the board, which complained about government interference with the judiciary. The government is trying to take over the independent boards, in behalf of Islamism. The Islamist Prime Minister is seeking to found 15 new universities, so he can appoint 15 more members to the board of higher education, and control it. The rule of law is endangered in Turkey (Michael Rubin, Middle East Forum, 9/25).

It's creeping totalitarianism, similar to the way Communists have done 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 richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 23, 2006.
This comes from World Net Daily

Outnumber Muslim victims by 7-1 ratio, FBI stats show

WASHINGTON Who hates whom in America?

If the latest FBI hate-crime statistics are any indication, of the 1,314 verified offenses motivated by religious bias, 68.5 percent were anti-Jewish.

Only 11.1 percent were anti-Islamic, despite claims of rampant anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S. by groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Across the board, hate crimes in the U.S. dropped last year by 6 percent, according to the 2005 FBI report release last week, although violence against people based on their race accounted more than half of the reported incidents.

Police nationwide reported 7,163 hate crime incidents in 2005, targeting victims based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disabilities. That was down from 2004, when the FBI reported 7,649 incidents.

The vast majority of hate crimes in both years were motivated by race, according the reports, which detailed the data based on so-called "single-bias" incidents. That means the crime was motivated by only one kind of bias against the victim, according to the FBI.

Race-based criminal activity accounted for 54.7 percent of hate crimes last year, up slightly from 52.9 percent in 2004, the FBI found.

Another 17 percent of hate crimes in 2005 targeted victims for their religious beliefs, and 14.2 percent for their sexual orientation.

Victims were assaulted in more than half -- 50.7 percent -- of the hate crime cases against people. Six people were murdered and another three were raped in reported hate crimes last year. The rest of the victims, or 48.9 percent, were intimidated, the report shows. The FBI also looked at hate crime incidents that targeted property, with 81.3 percent of cases resulting in damage, destruction or vandalism.

Sixty percent of the known offenders in 2005 were white, and 20 percent were black, the report showed.

The data was collected from police agencies across the country, representing city, county, state, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies.

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 Fern Sidman, October 23, 2006.

It has recently been reported that the American television airwaves will now include a 24 hour channel dedicated to Islamic programming. The new cable channel being broadcast by the Comcast Cable company is called Bridges TV, and is the brainchild of American Muslim banker, Muzzamil Hassan and his wife, Osea Zubare, an architect. The new channel is broadcast in English and is being seen on cable, satellite and broadband networks. It is being billed as the "American Muslim Lifestyle Network" and according to Hassan, the funding for this new channel is coming primarily from American Muslim investors as well as Wall Street venture capital and private equity firms. Hassan asserts that there is no foreign funding for this channel.

According to an article that appeared in The New York Sun newspaper on October 19, 2006, writer Steven Stalinsky reports that, "Bridges TV, an American-Islamic TV channel "seeking to improve the image of Muslims in the United States" and to "offer a unique perspective on the Middle East and the war on terrorism," has extended its availability into six states, creating a potential audience of nearly 2 million."

Concerning the content of programming on this channel, Stalinsky also reports that, "One religious figure who appeared October 3 said Muslims have a duty to change America and to increase their numbers to 50% of the population from 2%. He recommended that Shariah, or Islamic law, be implemented in American courts. During a roundtable discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict on October 5, one participant offered a solution: "For the Jews to leave and return to Europe." Since the Islamic holy month of Ramadan began, the channel has been showing official, Saudi government-controlled Wahhabi sermons from Mecca's holiest mosque, Al-Haram. The sermons stream live via Saudi TV Channel one every day at 4 p.m., and Bridges TV adds its own English subtitles. An anti-Jewish, anti-Christian sermon from October 5 included the call, "May God destroy them!"

The article also reports that, "One of the stars of Bridges TV is a cofounder and vice chairman of the international health care company CBay Inc., Donald "Skip" Conover, who hosts and produces a show called "Words Matter." He was the subject of a gushing article in the Saudi daily Arab News on September 27. In the article, Mr. Conover expressed "his disgust" at what he called inflammatory statements about Arabs and Muslims in the press.

He also discussed the power of the "Jewish lobby" and called on all Muslims to vote for the Democratic Party. "Every American politician is in lockstep with Israel. If they vote against, then the Jewish lobby will put a lot of money behind the candidate against them in their districts in the future. I have news for the Muslim community. All American politicians are in the pocket of the Jewish lobby today because they control a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money in politics."

"If the Muslims of America believe that they don't want Bush to have a free hand for the next two years, then the Muslims of America need to get organized and make sure they get out to vote for Democrats for both the House and the Senate," Mr. Conover added. "Every Muslim in the Middle East who has a relative in the U.S. should get the message across to their relatives. They need to make sure that all their friends vote against Bush."

It is clear that the agenda of Bridges TV is to create a media platform for anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment. This channel will also serve as an invaluable recruitment tool for the Muslim cause. It will target non-Muslims in the hopes of tapping into and embellishing on anti-Israel sentiments that are already present. While billing itself with a "wholesome" and "innocuous" label as a Muslim Lifestyle Network that broadcasts cartoons, travel shows, sports, feature films and documentaries, in reality they are subtlely seeking to indoctrinate viewers with hatred of Jews, Christians, Israel, the US and all non-Muslims.

The influence of Islam in American is undoubtedly spreading at a fever pitch. Every day new websites are popping up that seek to spread the Islamic message to all non-believers in the USA and Canada. One such web site is called, www.islamandamerica.com, which offers free Qurans and free tickets to Islamic seminars to all non-Muslims. According to its mission statement, this web site seeks states, "We, The Message International, are a volunteer based, not-for-profit organization dedicated to tightening the gaps between the world and their information about Islam. Our goal is to convey the pristine, unadulterated message that has been so putridly tainted in recent times, especially here in the United States.

We offer 100% Free Islamic Materials (Qurans, Books, CDs & Brochures) in many Languages through our web sites and a toll free number.

# We supply Islamic materials to Public and Governmental US Organizations such as The Army, Hospitals, Law Enforcement Agencies, Prisons, Universities, Worship-Houses, and Shelters.
# We organize and establish indoor as well as outdoor Community tables.
# We hold Islamic conferences and interfaith dialogues.
We serve and assist hundreds of New-Muslims every month "

While the implication of their mission statement is to chastise the United States for its "putridly tainted" view of Islam and Muslims, these sites do little to prove that Islam is a peaceful and law abiding religion that supports democratic principles and embraces concepts such as tolerance and diversity. In a democracy, particularly in the United States, these organizations, television channels and web sites have a right to exist. They are also protected by the First Amendment free speech rights, however preaching hatred of a religion, culture, society and political viewpoint is unacceptable. It is incumbent on those who recoil in horror at such hate speech to speak out against this incidious message.

Contact Fern Sidman at ariellaH@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, October 22, 2006.

This is absolutely enthralling.
If you click on a particular country, it will give you
a history of Judaism in that country, with links to other stories. I would put this
into my "favorites" folder and
look at it every so often. There is far too much
information to attempt to assimilate in one sitting.


Contact Boris Celser at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah 15, October 22, 2006.
This report is by Rachel Ginsberg, Israeli correspondent. This appeared in

Sharon Nachshoni's death changed his life.

While most people who pass on won't return to the world of mortals until Mashiach arrives, 28-year-old Nachshoni, a high-level military intelligence officer, died and lived to tell about it. His isn't the first story of a post-death experience. In recent years it seems more and more people who have been declared clinically dead have survived to tell of their other-worldly experiences, reporting such similar visions as a strong white light at the end of a tunnel and an encompassing feeling of peace and warmth. Yet Sharon Nachshoni's story is so detailed, his vision so vivid, that it changed his entire outlook on life and has served as an inspiration to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, who have heard him tell it.

Until two years ago, Sharon Nachshoni was climbing the ladder of military intelligence, serving as squad commander of an anti-terror undercover unit in Judea and Samaria and having served as chief of security for secret intelligence delegations in Eastern Europe. His religious affiliation, like so many Sephardi Israelis, was traditional. He honored rabbis and gave charity to yeshivot, but his personal commitment to everyday Judaism wasn't yet developed.

Until the day of the accident in June 1997. That morning, Nachshoni, father of three, left his home in Rechovot to help prepare a secret salvation strategy for the Army's upcoming partial withdrawal from Hebron. Five minutes on the road, and his left front wheel blew out, leaving the car to spin out of control into the opposite lane, where it was demolished by an oncoming truck.

When the rescue workers finally extricated Sharon's body from the wreckage, it looked more like a heap of flesh and blood. His left arm and his hips were crushed. The car's engine had smashed his legs, his jaws were broken, his nose was torn off and all his teeth were knocked out. One of the medics gathered them up and put them in a cup. His lungs were so badly injured that he stopped breathing and lost consciousness. By the time he was laid out on a stretcher, his pulse and breathing had stopped. The ambulance team covered him with a sheet and filled out the form - "Dead at the scene of the accident."

The accident caused a major traffic tie-up, and one vehicle stuck in the jam was Egged Bus 212, going from Ashdod to Rechovot. A young man came off the bus and said he was an army medic. On his shirt was written, "Medical Officer." The rescue workers pointed him in the direction of the other injured waiting to be evacuated, but he went over to the body under the sheet and said, "What's with this one?" "Oh, he's dead," they answered. Yet the medical officer wanted to investigate for himself. He pulled off the blanket, and with the help of a few crude tools including a ball-point pen, he performed an emergency tracheotomy and cleared Sharon's lungs of the blood and fluid so that air could get in. Suddenly Sharon began to gurgle and breathe. The rescue workers saw the change in his status and immediately put him on one of the ambulances at the scene. However, the medical officer disappeared, and to this day no one has been able to discover who he was, despite newspaper and radio ads looking for him.

While all this was happening below, Sharon Nachshoni was experiencing something altogether different above. As he lay dead on the pavement, his soul was standing before the Heavenly Court in judgment, and although only one part of the dramatic scene is still etched in his memory, when he eventually regained consciousness, he gave an exact description of what he saw to his sister and brother-in-law, who recorded and verified the details. His wife Avivit, who at this point had no idea that he had been declared clinically dead, said she noticed the change in him even as he was being wheeled into the emergency room. He could barely breath, yet he kept mumbling, "I saw Grandfather. Grandfather pushed me." And as he drifted in and out of consciousness after the initial nine-hour-long surgery, with massive effort he whispered, "Where is Aunt Miriam?"

Aunt Miriam was a righteous woman who spent her days doing chessed for others. Her health situation had been declining rapidly and Sharon had visited her the day before the accident. She passed away just hours before the accident, but, not wanting to upset Sharon, his family told him she was fine. "They didn't understand," Sharon explained. "I wanted to know if she was really dead. I saw her in the hall of the Heavenly Court."

Over the next few hours, in and out of consciousness, Sharon's questions continued, his requests baffling his family. He told his wife to take down a plaque that was hanging on a wall in recognition of a contribution he had given to a yeshiva and to put it away in a drawer. He asked his mother if he had ever made a pledge he didn't keep in the end. She replied that six years before he had pledged to donate an Aron Kodesh to a certain synagogue following a previous car accident. "I must finance it as soon as possible," he told his mother in desperation. Later he looked up, smiled, and said, "Hashem, I love you."

His behavior was baffling, but his family attributed it to the severe injuries he'd suffered in the accident. At that point they didn't know he had been declared clinically dead. They only found out after he was moved out of the recovery suite into the intensive care ward, when his wife and sister took a peek into his file, which was lying open on the bed. "He was actually dead!" they realized. What had transpired during those minutes?

Meanwhile, Sharon spent months in the hospital, undergoing surgery after surgery as doctors pieced him back together. He remembers nothing of those months, being under heavy sedation and high doses of morphine so that his body would have a chance to heal without the interference of the intolerable pain he would have felt had he been awake. He is considered a medical miracle, and he has been the subject of various medical symposia over the last two years. The surgeon who operated on his head even became a ba'al teshuva after witnessing Sharon's amazing survival. By the time he was moved to the rehabilitation wing of Tel Hashomer Hospital, he was surely alive, but doctors didn't give him much hope of further recovery. His left hand was totally nonfunctional, he couldn't move his legs and his body was massively scarred. In place of his shattered bones, in the course of 17 operations doctors had implanted pieces of metal to connect whatever bones were still viable, and his daily dose of physical suffering was more than most humans could bear. But he bore it with grace, as the Heavenly Court had told him he would have much suffering in the physical world if he chose to return to life. One evening during those long months, his brother-in-law shared a quiet visit with him. "You've experienced something only very few merit," his brother-in-law said. "Something happened to you when you were hovering between this world and the next. Please tell what you saw."

Sharon had hinted at his metaphysical experience before, but he was always afraid to divulge what had happened Up There. Perhaps no one would believe him. Perhaps they'd think he'd gone crazy. Besides, he spent his days drifting in and out of consciousness. This time, during a period of lucidity, his brother-in-law pressed on. "No more boundaries," he implored. "Tell who you saw, what it was like. It will strengthen others in their fear of Heaven."

Sharon began. His brother-in-law, Shachar Ashbal, who learns in a kollel in Binyamina, was there with Sharon's sister. Together they heard the story, which Sharon no longer recalls. He doesn't even remember the conversation, but Shachar Ashbal made sure to get the whole thing on tape.

Right after the accident, Sharon Nachshoni entered a large hall, which was full of people who had died, some many years ago, some whom Sharon still remembered. Everyone seemed happy and showered Sharon with love and warmth, especially his grandfather. The hall itself seemed to be unbounded, with no beginning and no end, and he was able to identify everyone, even those he didn't know. (His brother-in-law wrote down all the names, most of them people he didn't know, and indeed he later discovered that those people did exist, many of whom died before Sharon was born.) Everyone wore fine clothing and looked as they did at the time of their death. Sharon looked for his grandfather, a very dignified man, but only found his uncle, his father's brother. "Where is Grandfather?" he asked. His uncle said, "Grandfather went with our other brother to speak on your behalf."

Suddenly Sharon felt himself being pushed in the direction of the stage. He was embarrassed, because everyone was dressed in their finery and his clothes were torn and bloody from the accident As he approached the stage he saw three powerful lights. The middle one was the strongest, and it was so blinding that Sharon couldn't look at it. The side lights were not as strong, one serving as the voice of "good" and the other as the voice of "bad." Next to the stage, standing next to the side of "good," were four Israeli mekubalim: Rav Yitzchak Kadouri, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav David Batzri and Rav Yoram Abergil. ("I wouldn't say that our rabbis jump between Olam Ha'Zeh and Olam Ha'Ba, but it is brought down in the Gemara that tzaddikim of the generation influence both the lower and upper worlds," Sharon clarified for Country Yossi Family Magazine.) Suddenly the voice of "bad" boomed out, "Either you or the aunt must stay." It was referring to Aunt Miriam, whom he had seen just the day before, and she looked as frail as when he had last seen her. "I'm willing to stay," he heard her say, and then she was no longer next to him, but far away, standing in judgment like himself. As the light of "bad" began its speech, Sharon saw the movie of his life pass before him. The entire hall was watching. They judged him on his concentration during prayer, lashon hara, open and concealed hatred, promises made and not kept (the Aron Kodesh) and theft. After that he was asked three questions, those mentioned in the Talmud: Did you deal in business faithfully? Did you set aside specific time for Torah study? Did you hope for the Redemption? ("Shachar recorded me saying all these things," explained Sharon, "but believe me, I had never heard of these questions before. I had never learned a page of Gemara in my life.")

His voice was taken from him, and the light of "good" spoke instead. It told the court how Sharon had given charity to yeshivot, but then the voice of "bad" interjected that he had flaunted his contribution with a plaque on the wall. Then they started checking his observance of mitzvot, including those Sharon had never thought of as important. He was praised for his Shabbat observance, however minimal, and for wearing a kippa. Then the four mekubalim appeared, and although Sharon had never seen them before, they testified on his behalf.

Other witnesses appeared, including a widowed aunt that Sharon had helped substantially without his family knowing. It was the aunt's testimony that tipped the scales and enabled his soul to return to the world. After the trial, the judge spoke from within the blinding light.

The judge asked Sharon if he would take upon himself three things, which Sharon will not divulge. One thing he promised to do, and the other two he said he'd try to do. Then came the time for Sharon to decide if he wanted to return to his body in the mortal world. The judge stated that he would suffer much physical pain in this world, but that the pain would expiate his sins and that he should be grateful for it. Sharon then turned around and tried to run out, and again he felt ashamed that everyone was looking at his bloodied clothes. The hall then emptied out except for his grandmother, who ran after him to make sure he left. His grandfather was also there, making sure he got out quickly. As his grandmother faded from view, he saw himself hovering above his body as the medics worked on him, and then his special vision stopped and he returned to his mortal self.

"I've spoken to several others who have had after-death experiences," Sharon told Country Yossi Family Magazine, "and they've all had similar stories of judgment. The only thing I remember of my own experience is my grandfather pushing me. But I'm fortunate that it was recorded. Many people have other-worldly experiences and they are lost because no one is there to catch them when they are disclosed."

Soon after the accident, Sharon pleaded with his family to find Rav Yoram Abergil. The Rav visited him in the hospital as he lay paralyzed, with doctors giving little hope for any additional improvement The Rav's blessing became a prophecy. He said that Sharon's right leg would totally heal and that his left leg would remain with a slight limp. "You will yet walk," the mekubal told Sharon Nachshoni.

Several months later, when Sharon was transferred to the rehab unit at Tel Hashomer, the department head rather untactfully told him to forget any hope of walking again. His injuries were too severe. He told him to get ready for a wheelchair to be a permanent part of his new existence. Sharon, who held dear the Rav's blessing, told the professor of his hope. The doctor became incensed at the Rav's "irresponsibility" in creating such a false hope. Yet two months later, when Sharon was up on his feet, the professor actually called Rav Abergil and expressed his shock at the Rav's power.

Sharon's experience left him with a new understanding and commitment, which he has translated both to his personal life and to what he sees as his mission in the Jewish world. He lectures to audiences around the country, as both a medical miracle and as someone who has "been there." "You should know," he said, "in the Heavenly court they didn't ask what kind of kippa I wore or where I sent my children to school. They were interested in actions, period. In the end those same worms are going to eat everyone, and everyone is going to have to give an accounting. There are three points I speak about, and everything else is superfluous: to realize that Hashem runs the world, to elevate and sanctify our everyday lives, and to increase our mitzvot between man and man." Said his wife Avivit of the change to a strong Torah lifestyle, "After going through what he and all of us went through, how can you possibly not change?"

Sharon's fame, he says, was really accidental. People heard about his story as a result of his intense efforts to find the medic who saved his life and disappeared. He went on national television, and his story was published in the national and religious press, but not a clue turned up. Some people say it was Eliyahu Hanavi, but Sharon prefers not to make such a definitive statement. The head of the surgery team who performed the preliminary operations later told Sharon that he had never seen such a clever, precise lifesaving technique done with the most sophisticated equipment, let alone with a ball-point pen.

Does Sharon Nachshoni have plans for the future, perhaps to return to the field of military intelligence in which he so excelled? "My last plan was a 12:30 meeting about the security in Hebron, which I never made it to. I look at the iron rods coming out of my body, my face that has been pieced back together ... How can I make plans? For me, Hashem is the only Planner that counts."

Contact the poster at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 22, 2006.


First, one must be reminded of the snake in the Garden of Eden who seduced Eve to eat from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge which she then gave to Adam. G-d ejected them from the easy life for disobeying His Mandate and sentenced the snake to slither along the ground to be stepped on by humans whenever possible.

Former secretary of the treasury and of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton were pulled in by President George W. Bush to compile a report which could extricate the U.S. from Iraq. There is much concern about that these two will concoct a plot wherein they will sell something to Iran and Syria which would include Hezb'Allah and Hamas to lower their attacks - for a while.

Recall the Madrid Conference of November 1991 where James Baker's Chief-of-Staff, Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Daniel Kurtzer virtually entrapped Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir while Egypt demanded that Israel give up her nuclear deterrence.

"The bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were upstaged and eventually replaced by initially secret negotiations that finally led to the exchange of letters of 9 and 10 September 1993 and the subsequent 13 September 1993 signing on the lawn of the White House of the Declaration of Principles, which however were essentially based on terms which the Madrid round Palestinian negotiators had earlier rejected." (1)

One is reminded of the Baker deal with the Syrians called the Taif Accords where Lebanon was literally turned over to Syria's control. Syria was supposed to stop the war started in Lebanon by Yassir Arafat in the early 1970s after King Hussein kicked them out of Jordan for trying to take over that country. Arafat and his Muslim Palestinians created a 12 year civil war wherein 100,000 Muslims and Christians, Lebanese and Palestinians were killed and the country of Lebanon was virtually destroyed.

There was a term limit but Hafez al Assad ignored the limit and stayed. This was a Baker deal straight out of the grass in the "Garden of Eden" (the U.S. State Department).

We await with baited breath to see who Baker will sell-out this time to Syria, Iran and their Terrorist proxies: Hezb'Allah and Hamas. I suggest that you have already surmised it will be Israel sold-out in sections. Syria and Hebz'Allah will probably be offered the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria (the "west bank") will be offered to Hamas and the Muslim Arabs citizens within Israel.

Some will recall that the infamous "Road Map" was reportedly drafted by James Baker and his Rice Institute staff.

All of this may be concealed, that is, not show up, in the Baker-Hamilton report but, be assured, there will be a secret addendum which will recommend how to threaten Israel and will easily recruit Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Leftists in Israel to pull it through. That would include trying to keep Olmert and his Kadima Party in power with lots of American taxpayers' cash or insure that the next Prime Minister will be bought and paid for before coming Israeli elections. Israel was threatened with aid cut-offs, stoppage of cooperation in technology, spare parts and jet fuel if they did not support Abu Mazen as a "peace advocate" despite his record of 40 years collaboration with Yassir Arafat and his army continuing to attack Israel. This was straight State Department doctrine from the days of Baker.

As for Lee Hamilton, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, he too carries a lot of baggage. While investigating the 9/11 Commission, he guided the Committee's investigation away from the U.S. State Department which was the gate-keeper of the Arab Islamists entering the U.S. easily.

Moreover, the FBI was well aware that investigating Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Arab Emirates was a one way ticket to being posted in a farm field in nowhere Iowa. Hamilton's closing statements were that we had to reach out to the Islamists, even as they ramped up terror globally. Hamilton could be called old Rubber Arms as he emulated Baker in reaching and stretching out to many Arab Muslim nations who hate America, which they call "The Great Satan" and Israel, which they call "The Little Satan" (which I believe was an expression by the Ayatollah Khomeini).

The question is: How far will President Bush go in accepting the Bush-Hamilton recommendation in selling out the only real and strong ally America has in the Middle East, that is Israel?

I am confident that the Europeans already sinking into a pit of Islamism will, no doubt, be delighted to accommodate Baker and Hamilton because, in doing so they will be accommodating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Bashar Assad of Syria to the delight of their proxies, Hezb'Allah and Hamas. And, consider that Iran and Syria may well be proxies of Vladimir Putin (who looks more like Ras-Putin every day).

Perhaps Israel will come to a full awakening and replace an exceptionally weak and incompetent government now led by Ehud Olmert, with someone who does not have round heels.

Clearly, Bush is desperate to get of the sink-hole of Iraq. He has learned that the U.S. cannot save a Muslim people who, even after being rescued from a tyrant, then turned against their U.S. rescuers. Arab countries are run by tyrants who recruit the people to run with them or die.

People like President Bush and Lee Hamilton are perfectly willing to cut deals with tyrants which former President George Herbert Walker Bush and Sec. of State James Baker did with Saddam Hussein when they assisted him in his war with Iran by supplying state-of-the-art weapons. That was called the Iran-Contra scandal.

Some will recall that the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie (who wouldn't make a move without approval from her boss, Sec. State Baker) went to Saddam in 1990 and told him that U.S. doctrine has little interest in what Saddam did on his border - that is, giving him a "green light" to take-over Kuwait.

So Saddam invaded Kuwait, gobbled up $80 Billion in liquid assets, e.g., cash, gold, precious stones so he could pay off his weapons' creditors and buy more to fight Iran. Baker, of course, denied that he had every given Glaspie or Saddam the "Green Light" to invade Kuwait.

I recall one of Baker's visits to Hafez al Assad, President of Syria, wherein he gave Assad intelligence which was given to Baker in strictest confidence by Israeli Intelligence. Assad back- tracked that information and rolled up an Israeli Intelligence network, executing all - which is one reason America and Israel no longer have on-ground HUMINT (Human Intelligence) in Syria today. Baker, of course, denied that he divulged confidential Intelligence given to him by Israel.

Obviously, if Bush is looking for a snake in the Garden of Eden who will use any stratagem, sell-out any ally - then the team of Baker and Hamilton is well suited for this purpose. Betraying an ally like Israel is of small consequence in Washington where politics rules over all.

The bigger question arises: What will Baker promise Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in terms of reducing Israel%G%@s already minuscule land mass and insuring a reduced military capability by cutting of aid, spare parts, technological cooperation, etc?

The biggest question is: What will Bush promise the weak Olmert to get him and his Leftists on board to do another Gush Katif by abandoning Jewish citizens in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, the Jordan Valley and that part of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan for 19 years?

1. "Madrid Conference of 1991" from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991

PART 2. Conclusion First, Debate Afterwards: The stacked Baker-Hamilton Commission

This was written by Michael Rubin and it appeared in the Weekly Standard (http://www.meforum.org/article/1034). Michael Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

When you read the following in-depth analysis of what can be expected from the coming Baker-Hamilton report, you will recall the Baker mind-set "vis-a-vis" Israel. As James Baker III sold out the Lebanese in the 1989 Ta'if Accords, and ran the Madrid talks in 1991 to manipulate Israel toward what later became the Oslo Accords, be assured that he will again sell-out Israel in trade for a short term sense that Iran and Syria will accept Baker's sacrifice of Israel's security and pretend a stand-down of their war-making abilities.

Iran will continue its nuclear development but engage in time-buying discussions with Baker as President Bush's point man.

Hamilton, as he said when 9/11 Commission Chairman, "We must reach out to the Arabs" which translated into the U.S. having "rubber arms" that can reach and reach but never touch the Islamic Jihadists who wish America destroyed - along with Israel.

By the time Iran is obviously a nuclear power threat to all Europe and America, Bush-Baker will have so weakened Israel that she will be unable to put out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear "eyes" for the Free West and those countries will have to do it themselves from much farther away.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission is the worst thing that can happen to America and Israel.

Policymakers are abuzz with the explosive recommendations for U.S. policy toward Iraq soon to be released by the Baker-Hamilton Commission: Abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor. While former secretary of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton said they would withhold their report until after the elections on November 7 to avoid its politicization, they have discussed their findings with the press. On October 8, for example, Baker appeared on ABC's This Week, and the next day he discussed the group's findings with Charlie Rose. On October 12, both Baker and Hamilton appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

Both men are master inside-the-Beltway operators. Rather than prime the debate, they sought to stifle it. While on March 15, 2006, Baker said, "Chairman Hamilton and I have the same objective ... to make an honest assessment of where we are and how we go forward and take this issue to the extent that we can out of politics," both chairmen designed the commission to affirm preordained conclusions that are neither new nor wise.

Take the four subordinate expert working groups: Baker and Hamilton gerrymandered these advisory panels to ratify predetermined recommendations. While bipartisan, the groups are anything but representative of the policy debate. I personally withdrew from an expert working group after concluding that I was meant to contribute token diversity rather than my substantive views.

Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy. Ra'ad Alkadiri, for example, has repeatedly defined U.S. motivation for Iraq's liberation as a grab for oil. Raymond Close, listed on the Iraq Study Group's website as a "freelance analyst," is actually a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which, in July 2003, called for Vice President Dick Cheney's resignation for an alleged conspiracy to distort intelligence, which they said had been uncovered by none other than Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The following summer, Close posited that "Bush and the neocons" had fabricated the charge "that the evil Iranian mullahs inspired and instigated the radical Shia Islamist insurgency." To Close, the problem was not Iranian training and supply of money and sophisticated explosives to terrorists, but rather neoconservatism.

Other experts include a plaintiff in the Jan. 17, 2006, lawsuit against the National Security Agency for its no-warrant wiretap program and a think-tank analyst who had not traveled beyond the Green Zone on her only trip to Iraq in Sep. 2003, but nonetheless demonstrated her open mind by declaring the Iraq endeavor a failure in an interview with a German magazine days before the commission's inauguration.

Baker placed Chas Freeman, his former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, on the panel, despite Freeman's assertion, in the antiwar documentary Uncovered: The War in Iraq, that the Bush administration had fabricated its justifications for war. Why seek advice from an area specialist who has clearly crossed the line from analysis to conspiracy?

Even if the eight other commissioners--all distinguished retired gov ernment officials--approached their work with honesty, they had little opportunity to get an independent look at developments in Iraq. U.S. evaluations of Iraq have long suffered from an overemphasis on both PowerPoint presentations and conversations with a limited circle of Green Zone interlocutors. During the commission's three-day visit to Iraq, only former senator Charles Robb left the Green Zone, despite the embassy's willingness to facilitate excursions. Had commission members embedded with U.S. servicemen on patrol, each in a separate area of the country, they might have expanded their contacts, broadened their collective expertise, and gained access to unvarnished opinion.

Had they done so, they might not conclude that the solution in Iraq lies with further engagement of Iran and Syria. Rather than inject a "new approach" to U.S. strategy, the Baker-Hamilton Commission's recommendations resurrect the old. In May 2001, Hamilton co-chaired an Atlantic Council study group that called on Washington to adopt a "new approach" to Iran centered on engagement with Tehran. And, in 2004, Baker-Hamilton Commission member Robert M. Gates co-chaired another study group that called for a "new approach" toward Iran consisting of engagement.

The problem is that this "new approach" hasn't been good for U.S. national security. After Secretary of State Madeleine Albright extended an olive branch to the Islamic Republic in March 2000, the Iranian leadership facilitated anti-U.S. terrorists. As the 9/11 Commission found, "There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."

In the weeks prior to the Iraq war, Washington once again engaged Tehran. Zalmay Khalilzad, the current U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who, at the time, was Bush's chief Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, solicited a noninterference pledge from Iran's U.N. ambassador in exchange for a U.S. pledge to bomb and blockade the Mujahedeen al-Khalq terrorist camp inside Iraq. Writing in Asharq Al-Awsat just after Saddam's fall, Ali Nourizadeh, known as the Bob Woodward of Iranian journalists for his connections to the ruling elite, described how, even as Washington kept its bargain, the Iranian leadership ordered its Qods Force, the Iranian equivalent of the Green Berets, to infiltrate Iraq with weapons, money, and other supplies. "According to a plan approved by the Revolutionary Guards command, the aim was to create a fait accompli," he wrote. Rather than send a diplomat to head its embassy in Baghdad, the Iranian government sent Hassan Kazemi Qomi, a Qods Force commander who was Tehran's former liaison to Hezbollah. Effective realism requires abandoning the utopian conviction that engagement always works and partners are always sincere.

While Baker and Hamilton themselves may be sincere in their convictions, conclusions absent acknowledgment of historical context will backfire. In Iraq, perception trumps reality. Sunni insurgents, former military officers, and Shiite tribal leaders each voiced one common complaint in a meeting last month: They believe Washington is ready to hand primacy in Iraq over to Iran. "You have allowed the Iranians to rape us," a former general said. Just as Iraqis believe the coalition's failure to restore electricity to be deliberate--if NASA can land a man on the moon, who would believe that USAID cannot turn on the lights in Baghdad?--so Iraqis across the ethnic and sectarian divide are convinced the White House has blessed a paramount role for Iran. Why else would we allow Moktada al-Sadr and the Badr Corps to expand their influence unchecked? Such conspiracy theories may appear ridiculous to an American audience accustomed to government ineptitude, but in Iraq they have real consequences: If Washington has blessed Iranian ambitions in Iraq, then Washington is to blame for outrages perpetuated by Iranian militias.

When Rep. Frank R. Wolf conceived of the Iraq Study Group, he chose Baker and Hamilton to lead it in recognition of their extensive diplomatic experience. But it is this experience that may not only condemn the commission's recommendations to failure, but also further inflame Iraq. In the Middle East, Baker's legacy is twofold. As secretary of state, he presided over the 1989 Taif Accords, which ended Lebanon's civil war. By blessing Syrian military occupation, he sacrificed Lebanese independence on the altar of short-term pragmatism. Many Iraqis--Sunni elites and former officers especially--fear Washington may repeat the episode in their country. They fear Baker's cold realist calculations may surrender Iraq to Iranian suzerainty. While Americans may nonetheless welcome short-term calm, in terms of U.S. security, the Taif model failed: Damascus used its free hand to gut civil society and turn Lebanon into a safe haven for terror.

Baker's other legacy may be harder to shake: Iraqis remember him for his role in Operation Desert Storm. On February 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called upon Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside." Iraqis did rise up, but Baker counseled U.S. forces to stand aside as Saddam turned his helicopter gunships on the rebellious Kurds and Shiites. Had more commission members exited the Green Zone, they might have found that among the greatest impediments U.S. forces and diplomats face in Iraq is the experience of betrayal that Baker imprinted on their country. Washington's adversaries have capitalized on this legacy. The foolishness of Iraqis' trusting Washington has been a constant theme in Iranian propaganda. Should the Baker-Hamilton Commission also recommend abandoning democracy--which the Shiites understand as their right to power--and urge a political accord with Sunni insurgents, they would push 16 million Iraqi Shiites beyond possibility of accord and into the waiting embrace of an Iranian regime that, paid militias aside, most Iraqis resent.

Iraq is a bipartisan problem. Regardless of the outcome of the 2006, and even 2008, elections, the legacy of Iraq is going to impact U.S. policy and security for years to come. It is unfortunate, then, that the commission has bypassed its responsibility to seek a new approach and instead embraced the old.

Perhaps, rather than revert to the pre-9/11 habits of short-term accommodation and a belief that two oceans insulate the United States from the world, the commission should expand its mandate. Iraqis fleeing Saddam for the West have embraced democracy wherever they have settled, an indication that their culture is not to blame. Rather than preempt debate, fresh eyes might consider whether the deterioration in Iraq signals the failure of democracy or an inability to ensure the rule of law.

Rather than pretend the Iraq problem can be contained, they might consider whether it has suffered from an unwillingness to address provocations from beyond Iraq's borders. National security depends on dealing with the world we have, rather than the world diplomats construct with smoke and mirrors. Exit strategies might seem easy, but--like the Taif Accords and the failure to topple Saddam in 1991--they are irresponsible and replete with long-term consequences. What is needed in Iraq is reconsideration of the resources and parameters conducive to long-term victory, not a repeat of short-term solutions that will almost certainly fail.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouf, October 22, 2006.

Dear friends,

I am glad to be back with you after a short break. Myths and propaganda ploys have been chipping away at Israel's credibility to the extent that Israel's survival is now at stake.

Israel's staunch enemies, Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, mentally sick Jews, extreme leftist organizations, anti-Semites, leftist academia, are doing an excellent job to discredit Israel with Goebels' style lies. Those who do not know the facts, such as our impressionable youths, fall prey to these shameful coniving liars.

I have been trying for five years now to dispel these lies with facts. I thank you all for your support and for helping to put things right by disseminating the material I send to your lists. Let us all vow to expose the lies, stand proud for the truth and for the defense of Israel.

Here is an important article that deals with some common myths that many people now accept as truths. It was written by Zeev Shemer and is entitled "Daily Humiliation of Dependence." He lives in Ramat HaGolan, Israel.

Your Truth Provider,

"The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation" -- Condoleezza Rice speaking at a dinner hosted by Palestinian-Americans Oct. 12, 2006

Condoleezza's view of the Palestinian people is in line with Israel's elite including Israel's judicial and political directives. It is worthwhile to take a few moments and dissect her statement to better understand the ideology behind it.

"The Palestinian people" - First assumption: that the Arabs that call themselves Palestinian are indeed a legitimate nation.[i]

"...deserve a better life" - For an overwhelming number of Palestinians a better life means no Israel. The question is why do they particularly deserve a better life? What have they done to earn Rice's proposed upgrade? [ii]

"...a life rooted in liberty" - Liberty is the right to choose. Not exactly the current lifestyle of any Muslim nation.

"...democracy" - Muslim states know no democracy, nor do they value what it stands for. The meaning of Democracy for Arabs has almost nothing in common with the Western understanding of its meaning.[iii]

"...uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule" - 90% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims and corruption was Yasser Arafat's middle name. Misrule is a way of life for Mullah-based societies. Violence and corruption have been the Muslim emblem since its inception in the early 7th Century, and it was Arafat's PLO who invented airplane hijackings and today Palestinians are at the forefront of world terrorism. It is an obscene and conceded notion of American rulers that they have the ability to change nations inside-out, it is nothing but mere arrogance and proof that they understand nothing about Arab mentality.

"...and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation." - We must ask what daily humiliation is Rice talking about? Is it the humiliation that many Arabs go through every morning while crossing into Israel to go to work? If Arabs did not attempt to sneak explosive belts inside Israel, these checks would probably be less "humiliating", but there is an average of 15 terrorist attempts that are foiled by Israeli forces every week. Or was Rice referring to the daily humiliation for Arabs in the Middle East that stems from their losses against Israel in the past wars? Or maybe the humiliation they feel because they have been so far incapable of destroying the Jewish State? Or is it because they are still stuck in a third world frame while Israel shares in the world's most advanced technological and medical enterprises? Rice's statement is insulting to all Israelis, to all Jews for that matter. The only occupation that really exists is that of Muslims occupying Jewish land, and rooting for the Palestinians is like rooting for the 'Chicanos' in California, who still recent the American occupation of the West.

Rice expressed solidarity for what the world has labeled as the victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The pictures of Palestinian children with torn shirts, no shoes, dirty faces walking by fences while Israeli armed soldiers patrol their streets has created an imprint in the minds of most media viewers worldwide. Rice roots for the poor and the neglected. It touches the hearts of many, especially of those who choose to ignore historic facts and painful realities.

Palestinian Arabs have no rightful claim to any part of Israel. There are 22 Arab countries where these Palestinians can potentially create 1000 Palestines but their goal is not to build rather it is to destroy. Arabs both the ones that enjoy the benefits of Israel's hospitals and universities as well as those that Israel disassociated from (Palestinian Autonomous areas) have one and the same goal: to do away with the Jewish state.

Those who continue to appease Arabs in hopes of one day being liked or at least not hated as much are becoming more and more disillusioned and slowly they have been losing their foothold in the political arena. Slowly they are waking up to the fact that in this seemingly endless conflict there can only be one victor. In Israel we must find the courage to begin ridding our land from our enemies, before they grow stronger and bolder and before the bloodshed they already cause God forbid should increase ten-fold. Rice's ignorant and insulting remarks should have been met with strong condemnation, but most of our people still slumber and still fail to recognize our enemies' true intentions. The solution is clear, as Rabbi Kahane pointed out: "In 1947 780,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands, we must now complete the exchange of populations."

Israeli leadership today lacks the will to fight with courage. We went to war in Lebanon to free our soldiers and our soldiers are still being held captive. We won four all-out wars and liberated our land but our land is still "disputed". We pledged our loyalty to the US and we are constantly undersold. Pollard rots in an American jail, and the Road Map is being shoved down our throats. Our current leadership knows only defeat, but soon enough Israel will have to do away with the unfounded guilt and shame; and once again stand tall and strong tossing out the daily humiliation of dependence.


i. This implies that there was a country or land called Palestine and therefore anyone born there or whose roots emanate from Palestine is a Palestinian. It is known that for 2000 years the land of Israel was nearly desolate, and under Ottoman rule before the British takeover in the early 1900's the meager population there were suddenly termed Palestinians and issued Palestinian identity cards by the British Mandate. Rice's statement seems only to refer to the Arabs who refused to merge with Israel or Jordan and therefore adopted the term Palestinians for themselves. Golda Meir pointed out that most of the so-called Palestinians were Arabs that came mostly from Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia looking for work and a better life and then adopted this made-up Palestinian identity, now a cause for strife and dispute.

ii. How can his their lives be better? They will all answer that the only thing they want is to do away with the Zionists. No more Israel, and suddenly their lives will be better. Lets assume for a moment that Rice is not ready to grant them their wish. That she meant by a better life, something else. The question would be why do they deserve a better life? What have they done to deserve anything? And who doesn't deserve a better life? Rice's implications are that Israel is preventing them from having a better life, and Palestinians will concur by assuring her that it is so; This is reminiscent of Germany, and Hitler's promises that the Aryan people would be better off without the Jews. From what we have seen, and judging by the 'accomplishments' of the Palestinians in Gaza since the expulsion of the Jews, their lives are certainly not better, even without the 'occupation', all they have is the satisfaction that the Zionists were defeated and have nothing else to show for.

iii. There are no Muslim democracies with possibly the exception of Turkey but before our eyes she Turkey too is becoming more like the rest of the Muslim countries, leaning toward Islamic fundamentalism; a move that will certainly do away with the right to choose. Palestinians will certainly not part with Islam, on the contrary, they are moving towards fundamentalism faster than most other Muslim groups. Hamas, a terror group amongst them never had such popular support as they do now.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Angela Bertz, October 22, 2006.

No one likes a long after dinner speech.

On October 11th 2006 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took 13 minutes to deliver her simpering keynote address at the American Task Force on Palestine Inaugural Gala. I read it out and timed it, and for good measure added on an extra two minutes for cheesy grins and a couple of effective pauses, where she should have had trouble looking at her audience.

Fifteen minutes, a quarter of an hour.

Fifteen minutes, is probably as long as it took Condoleezza to be driven in the comfort of her secured chauffeur driven limousine from her Washington D.C. residence to the Gala.

At the same time, those same fifteen minutes is probably as long as it took "the moderate" (word used seven times in the speech) President Abbas to put on his latest designer suit with matching tie and beautifully polished shoes.

Fifteen minutes, a quarter of an hour can seem like a lifetime.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as it takes the average Hamas/Fatah terrorist to don a suicide belt, and give his farewell address in the presence of his proud mother before heading for a packed pizza parlour in Jerusalem and the empty promise of 72 vestal virgins.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as it takes an Israeli paramedic to fight for the life of one of his victims, often a child whose body is riddled with shrapnel and 75% burns.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as it takes for a doctor to tell distraught parent that they tried all they could to save the life of their child, and they must take comfort that there was no suffering.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as it takes for that same child to be lowered into the ground and a lifetime of hopes and aspirations to be buried with him.

Fifteen minutes is probably about as long as it takes his friends to travel on buses to their local school, never knowing if among their midst sits a Palestinian man or a women with explosives strapped round their waist.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as it takes the Palestinians to fall into their streets with their own children whooping for joy, and firing guns in the air to celebrate this child and a dozen more innocent people's death.

Fifteen minutes is probably half a geography/history lesson in an average 5th grade Palestinian classroom, where children will look at maps of Palestine incorporating the whole of Israel and be taught that this land is theirs by whatever means.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as the average Palestinian child will spend watching enlightening advertisements on their television showing a thirsting earth quenching for their blood.

Fifteen minutes is as long as it takes to watch two articulate 10 year old girls interviewed on television, where their aspirations are not to see the world or become doctors, but to follow in the footsteps of more than150 before them who have succeeded in taking the lives of more than a 1000 innocent Israelis.

Fifteen minutes is probably as long as it takes the average Palestinian farmer to go just a little out of his way, because a sovereign state has now been forced to build a security barrier in an attempt to stop the infiltration of these attacks on its citizens.

Fifteen minutes is about as long as it took for that UN kangaroo court in The Hague to hand down its one-sided verdict on that barrier.

Fifteen minutes is about all it takes for Kofi Annan to crawl out of the UN building to utter his endlessly useless platitudes, where deliberate acts of terrorism, aimed at killing and maiming scores of innocent people are exactly the same as self defense.

Fifteen minutes is about all it took for the likes of Pink Floyd's Roger Waters to go through passport control at Tel Aviv's Airport in June 2006. Armed with spray paint, this aging rocker made his first stop at the security barrier where it probably took journalists no more than 15 minutes to record Waters wallowing in sanctimonious drivel at such "a horrific edifice" before spraying it with a line from the title song of The Wall "no thought control".

There was no thought of Waters spending 15 minutes with an Israeli teenage fan who might have been saved by the barrier, and could not have attended the concert, but after years of plastic surgery, dozens of operations and immense physical and mental trauma still dreams of playing football again and making his parents proud by going to university.

Fifteen seconds is probably all it took for Americas founding fathers, so eloquently referred to in her address to turn in their graves. Their decomposed bones must have rattled with indignation at being compared to Yasser Arafat, and that the PA has any similar agenda that has in just over 200 years produced the mightiest nation on earth, which in turn gave the world, not only the true meaning of freedom and democracy, but condemned intolerance, discrimination and persecution.

Maybe Condoleezza in her recent summer of reading missed the following words spoken by Thomas Jefferson about the founding father of her nation "His integrity, was the most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known. He was, indeed, in every sense of the word, a wise, a good, and a great man."

Come off it Condoleezza you had to have winced reading out some of the diatribe in that speech, which in short apologized and lauded terrorism.

"The Palestinians are some of the most talented, best educated, and hardest working people in the Middle East. What they need more than anything are opportunities to prosper". I see a little confusion here and I think you will find that such superlatives belong to Israel, who have in 60 years, made the desert bloom and whose innovative ideas in science, medicine and technology have reached every corner of the globe.

Israel hasn't hung around UN warehouses for the last 58 years waiting for handouts, or bleating like sheep to the worlds press that their poverty, traumatized children and inept infrastructure is all another countries fault. They didn't wait for opportunities to prosper, they created them and they inspired their children with self worth and belief, not in some useless death.

The Palestinians certainly deserve a better life, certainly not one of humiliation, but there is a need to recognize that the humiliation is of their own doing, and they are the only ones who can insist on an end to it.

Frankly my dear Condoleezza, to quote another very Southern Lady, maybe the time to think about that is not tomorrow.

Angela Bertz -- Israel

Contact Angela Bertz at angela03@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 22, 2006.


What we've all long suspected: though publicly funded, the BBC is the bastion of trendy, left-wingers, with a large number of homosexuals, who spurn America, Christianity (and guess what else....they don't have to say it, do they?)

This was written by Simon Walters and appeared in the Daily Mail
(www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htm l?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770).


It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a qmirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 22, 2006.

There is absolutely no excuse for presumed movers and shakers of nations or national agendas to be ignorant of relevant facts or just plain stupid when assessing such facts. Apparently, many United States policy makers, including those in intelligence agencies, were and still are sorely unacquainted with those pertinent religious and philosophical differences between Sunnis and Shiites, dating back to the time of their prophet Muhammad, now creating enormous secular strife, indeed morphed to virtual civil war, in dysfunctional occupied Iraq. It boggles the mind so little care went into planning the aftermath of a successful invasion of Sadist Hussein's tyrannical autocracy presumably to be followed by a bold attempt to remake the Middle East. Nevertheless, the past is the past, and ample numbers of feckless hand-wringing Monday morning quarterbacks will not fix a no doubt less than excusable failure bearing potentially perilous worldwide overtones. Prescient strategic policies thus must be initiated forthwith by those seriously interested in implementing decisions that will effectuate damage control and indeed reverse the momentum in favor of civilized mankind.

Let us be clear. Non-Muslim nations have no ability and truly no obligation to act as peacemakers between now raging Iraqi Sunni and Shiite combatants. The sword wielding Islamic genie was released from its bottle once its metaphorical stopper, embodied by Sadist Hussein, was corkscrewed out. United States and partnering coalition forces, not at all attuned to or indeed accepted by collective Muslim culture, will be ineffective in quelling century old grudges no matter what they do. Surely imperialistic frothing Iranian Shiites, as well as Sunni terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda, kindred spirits in violent behavior but not in religious philosophies, will continue to permeate the bowels of chaotic lawless Iraq, attempting to tilt power balances in their respective directions. As this human tragedy unfolds, while feuding Islamic fanatical factions continue to duke it out, settling scores concerning who should have succeeded Muhammad merely thirteen centuries ago, non-Muslim forces will be needed at the peripheries to contain the violence within the confines of central and southern Iraq. De rigueur beheadings and homicide bombings, all the rage in Baghdad and other cerebrally challenged cities, will not succumb to any voice of reason or military mission. Thus all civilized occupying non-Muslim forces should go north into friendly Kurdistan, out of harms way, away from the exponentially increasing insanity now defining two thirds of post-Hussein Iraq, ever ready to deploy whatever troops are necessary to insure other parts of the Middle East as well as Europe and perhaps other regions will not be perilously sucked into to an expanded Sunni Shiite civil war.

Logically dividing Iraq into three sovereign nations, loosely connected by a mandate to share all oil wealth, cannot be achieved while Sunni and Shiite citizens of today's Iraq, with more than a little help from their maniacal Muslim friends, attempt to destroy each other and any perceived 'infidels' in their way. At some point, hopefully soon, wise religious Muslim observers, in conjunction with other religious and secular leaders worldwide, should follow the implied pronouncement of Pope Benedict XVI, abandoning a self-defeating accusatory 'blame Israel and the West' attitude, replacing it with productive intrepid assertions of moral authority, demanding all violence cease, for the sake of peacefully interpreted Koranic verse and more essentially all of humanity. How much longer indeed will pious moderate Muslims allow their faith to be so blasphemed by those obsessed with fanatical fundamentalist sanguinary urges, justified by warped intolerant jihadist interpretations of the presumably 'peaceful' gospel they worship? Per the immortal words of Albert Einstein, "Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God." When some disturbed martyring Muslim screams "God is great"!, then proceeds to detonate, blowing the flesh and organs of himself and surrounding victims asunder, he has disgraced humankind by committing the most abominable immoral act imaginable, in the name of his perverted conceptualization of God. He has in fact mocked the very essence of humankind. Deafening silence whenever such an act is committed, by those who declare Islam peaceful, is in effect acquiescence to the act and blatant hypocrisy. Every homicidal/suicidal manifestation of martyrdom, every roadside bombing, every violent episode perpetrated by some fulminating Islamic fanatic, throws more dirt over of a jeopardized faith clinging by fingernails to the sides of a grave of its own making. If ever seemingly oblivious mankind needed a wake up call, inspiring a sense of urgency to douse a conflagration in progress, one that surely could rage into a blazing planetary inferno, it is now. If the mere possibility of one jihadist accessing one nuke provided by any one rouge state including but not confined to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan does not provide such a wake up call, what will!?!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, October 22, 2006.

In a nice long feature interview in The Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1159193481388&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), Natan Sharansky said a lot, and one statement is extremely correct:

'A dream is not a strategy'

Unfortunately, not even he follows it.

Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky is a modern Jewish icon. His history is legendary. A Soviet Jewish refusenik in the 1970's, he had already attracted international attention before his arrest. He's one of those my husband met when visiting refuseniks in the USSR in late 1976. The mantra "Our fame will keep us out of jail," proved inaccurate, and Sharansky was one of those arrested soon after the visit.

After his arrest, his lovely wife, Avital, became an international celebrity while leading protests to achieve his release. During that difficult time, she became an Orthodox Torah observant Jew, which gave fuel to the gossips after his release that their marriage couldn't last. Twenty years after his release from Soviet jail, they and their two young daughters show the world a strong family unit.

Sharansky is a very well-respected (and well-paid) lecturer and writer about international politics and government. World leaders, politicians, diplomats and the media trust and believe him and quote him extensively. Personally, I find a serious inconsistency in what he says, and this interview captures it perfectly!

My personal understanding of the world fits the quotation the Jerusalem Post used as the title of the article. I see myself as a strict pragmatist, a realist. There are times when I've described myself as "sandwiched between a CPA and a lawyer," since my father is a CPA and one of my daughters is a lawyer. I can easily analyze things into concise "numbers," and I also have an extremely strong sensitivity for "justice."

I don't believe that people can easily (if at all) change their basic value system. To do so is long and drawn out. If you're referring to individuals, it can take a life-time if ever, but if you're talking of a society, it will take generations.

That's why I consider it a miss-guided mistake for Americans to have taken over Iraq and superficially imposed a "democratic" government. The people aren't ready for it, and the terrorism there will only get worse, until America and its allies flee, like from Vietnam.

Closer to home, I consider all of Israel's "peace moves" to be mistakes, because as Sharansky says:

'A dream is not a strategy'

The Arabs are continuing to educate their children to hate us and destroy us. Superficial "stock phrases" are not signs of friendliness. They don't respect us. They consider us weak and laughable.

I wish that a person of such stature, as Sharansky, would not say:

"I have no doubt that in 10 years, Israel will be the country where a majority of Jews live, with a vibrant economy and democracy. I also believe that it will no longer be the only democracy in the Middle East."

He's talking "dream," not reality. And what's this worship of "democracy?" Dictators can be elected. Hitler came to power via democratic means. A democratically elected government can vote to destroy another country.

There is a very dangerous naivete in his reasoning and statements.

Our growth and survival are dependent on being realistic and accepting that we have no true allies and that it will take many generations for the neighboring Arabs to accept us. The stronger we are the more quickly it will go. They respect strength. Our weakness, being nice, is causing their attacks.

We must stop looking around us waiting for the world's approval. We must ignore world demands. We must shed that "galut" (diaspora) thinking.

We must act like a truly independent country which has every right in the world to exist in our Land. We must develop our Land, settle it proudly. Only that will bring lasting peace!

Chodesh Tov and Shavua Tov

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 Max Yas, October 20, 2006.

In the years since 9/11, radical fundamentalist Muslims have committed acts of terrorism in:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chad, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Jordan-Iraq, Kabardino-Balkans, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza-Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic, United States, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

How many of the above states have you seen mentioned in the media lately? Probably only VERY few. The media is too obsessed with events in one, relatively minor, conflict. The total number of Muslims killed in all their wars against Israel since the first attack in 1948, is 60,000. Only a small portion were Palestinian-Arabs, the rest were Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Iraqis.

Some of the victims of Muslim terror:

2,000,000 Christians in the South of Sudan killed by Arab militias since 1955
1,000,000 Muslims killed by Muslims in a civil war in Algeria 1980's - 1990's.
400,000 Black Africans, mostly Muslims in a racist genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
400,000 Muslims killed by Muslims in a civil in Somalia since 1977
100,000 Yemenites, Egyptians and Saudis killed in a civil war (1962) and riots during 1984-1986.
18,000 Lebanese killed by other Lebanese and Syrians between 1975-1990
3,000 Americans in the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks on New York and Washington;
333 schoolchildren and teachers in Beslan, Chechnya;
299 US and French peacekeepers in Beirut, Lebanon;
292 mostly native civilians in attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania;
202 tourists, mostly Australians in a Bali nightclub in Indonesia;
191 passengers on trains in Madrid, Spain;
52 passengers in the London underground;

In addition, at least 26,000 more killed and 50,000 wounded in other attacks around the world.

In all about 10,000,000 world-wide. Whenever more than one number was available from a reliable sources the lowest number was used.

The numbers of Muslims killed by Muslims in sectarian wars are not available, but it has to be in the thousands as Shiia and Sunni are killing each other daily.

Muslim terrorists take random hostages in Iraq, beheading some, even sawing some of their heads off on TV. And still they claim to be peaceful, which they further 'prove' by staging violent protests in Denmark, France, Germany, killing a Dutch movie producer, and plotting terror attacks in Britain and Canada.

An article by Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas spokesman, as reported by AP and the Jerusalem Post (17th October, 2006).

...The spokesman for the Hamas-led government, reported on Tuesday, launched a scathing attack on armed Palestinian groups, holding them responsible for the continued state of anarchy and lawlessness. "Has violence become a culture implanted in our bodies and our flesh?", he asked in an article published in the PA-funded daily Al-Ayyam newspaper. "We have surrendered to it until it has become the master and is obeyed everywhere, in the house, the neighborhood, the family, the clan, the faction and the university. We want to get rid of this lethal disease - cancer - that has destroyed our brains and paralyzed our hearts."

He pointed out that 175 Palestinians have been killed in internal fighting since the beginning of this year.

Addressing the armed groups, he wrote, "Please have mercy on us. We want to get rid of this monster that is living amongst us. Please don't kill the hope that's left in us."

Please note that Israel was not involved in any of the above listed killings

Shalom from Max

Contact the poster at maxyas@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 20, 2006.


A British solider, wounded in Afghanistan, awoke in a British civilian hospital to a threat or having "killed our Muslim brothers," since Britain no longer has military hospitals. Wounded veterans prefer treatment at American facilities in Germany.

How did France react to the journalist who supported the Pope's criticism of Islam by denouncing Muhammad as "a merciless warlord, looter, mass-murderer of Jews, and a polygamist?" (That's the record, most of which is confirmed in the Koran, itself.) Muslim death threats sent him into hiding. Most of the country's leading "thinkers" asked the country's leading tinkers (government officials) to help him. Cabinet Ministers did not fully condemn the intimidation. They act as if death threats and repression of free speech are, themselves, exercises in free speech (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 10/5).


After the airliner plot in Britain, 10% of Muslims there expressed willingness to commit a suicide attack in Britain and 70% of Britain's Muslims refused to condemn that view. (That leaves at most 20% who are moderate, but would they allow freedom of thought?)

In a three-week tour of Europe, journalist Youssef Ibrahim sounded out influential people about their reactions to Islamic militancy. He found that the political and intellectual elites, in general, still are making excuses for inaction, but the people, in general, want action. The people recognize the ailment and propose strong medicine.

The people are moving from dialogue to confrontation and perhaps to provocation. They laugh at the naivete of the recent US intelligence recommendation that Islamic countries institute pluralism and responsible politics. Europeans have caught on that the supposedly secular rulers of Egypt, Pakistan, and S. Arabia shares the jihadist goal of the terrorist leaders, but is more circumspect about it.

The Pope had said that Turkey's 70 million Muslims have no place in "Christian Europe." "...parliaments are restricting the freedom of expression of Muslim fundamentalists, preachers, and madrassas, and questioning every value that militant Islam has attempted to sneak into the Continent of the past 20 years." (NY Sun, 9/6, p.8.)

Muslims in W. Europe largely are unpatriotic and a danger to freedom. Europe's very democracy impedes its self-defense. Muslim district' representatives, themselves usually not Muslims, cater to their constituencies in preference to the national interest.

Some people would consider the Islamist menace a matter of opinion. I think it is too clear a menace that would get worse for a decade, then become irreversible, to be a matter of opinion. Counter-action must be taken soon, for self-preservation.

Some Westerners consider themselves "citizens of the world." That makes sense when taking responsibility for preserving the planet. It does not make sense when failing to preserve their own countries from malicious enemies. If those Europeans think they have a broad responsibility to other countries, let them ponder what would happen to those countries if Europe fell to Islam.


Fatah and Hamas confirm the Israeli security warning that Hamas has imported hundreds of tons of advanced weaponry into Gaza and built the kinds of bunkers that Hizbullah used effectively in Lebanon. The arms come through the gates, observed by Egyptian and P.A. inspectors and sometimes by European inspectors, and through tunnels that the IDF no longer is present to destroy. Hizbullah trains Hamas in the use of the weaponry and in military tactics.

"The Sinai is an excellent ground for training, the exchange of information and weapons and for meetings on how to turn every piece of land into usable territory for a confrontation with Israel," said Abu Ahmed, Hamas' military leader. When the truce ends, Hamas would be ready. With an ability to bombard Israeli cities, he said that the strategic balance with Israel has altered in the Arabs' favor (IMRA, 10/3).

The Olmert regime still relies upon Egypt and Europeans to guard the border he abandoned and through which so much ordnance is smuggled! (Smuggled or poured?)

Still the Olmert regime doesn't resign in favor of someone who understands what to do! Probably the regime remembers the poor showing Hamas made, and does not realize that Hamas has revitalized its military operation.

Note the use Hamas makes of the truce, to ready itself for a better military showing, instead of letting itself get wiped out. That is a basic Islamic tactic that the West doesn't learn to recognize or doesn't want to when Israel is the victim of phony peace moves.


"For over a decade, Ronald Montaperto, a former pentagon analyst gave highly classified information to the Chinese which seriously damaged US National Security. Montaperto was just sentenced to 3 months in prison." ("Just" meaning now or meaning onlyu?)

"U.S. officials say a major U.S. electronic eavesdropping operation against China went silent around the time Montaperto admitted passing the highly classified data to the Chinese in 1988. According to Bush administration officials, the loss of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping operation hampered US efforts to track China's covert arms sales to nation sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria and Pakistan."

"Incredibly, Montaperto told investigators he could not remember the specifics of the classified information he passed to Chinese intelligence, lapses that prosecutors claim prevented them from charging him with more serious spy charges!" (IMRA, 10/8.)

I think that the comparison is not valid. Pollard and Israel provided the evidence against Pollard. Who knows what charges might have been leveled against Montaperto, and what penalty would have been imposed, if there were sufficient evidence?


A TV station owned by a Saudi has been broadcasting comedies mocking Islamism. Islamist clerics are angry. Government TV does not carry the broadcast, but reformist elements in the royal family promote it on the alternative station (IMRA, 10/3), because Islamists are seditious.


"The Western rules nowadays assume that every Muslim is guilty and a terrorist until proven otherwise. Each mother and father must think twice before sending their children to universities in the United States. ...it was becoming dangerous for Saudi and Muslim students to live in the United States." (IMRA, 9/18 from Arab News.)

Those are not Western rules. The West remains too multicultural and politically correct to consider every Muslim potentially a radical. Otherwise, S. Arabia would not have just increased its scholarships for Saudi students in the US to 2,000 youths a year.

The accusation is the typical Arab way, presenting themselves as victims of infidels without citing any cases. Actually, Muslim students in the US are given the run of the campus, not run out of campus. They abuse their freedom to undermine ours. They drive yarmulkes and stars of David off the campus, as their threats and attacks intimidate open display of Jewish affiliation. It is becoming dangerous for American Jewish college students in the US. The US Left is part of this antisemitism.


Ehud Yaari reports that many Hizbullah units have left the border regions for the Bekaa Valley. They can't openly run training camps there or store weapons where they might be confiscated by the Lebanese Army. No longer dominating southern Lebanon, Hizbullah influence is waning. Its allies are lukewarm. The Sunnis are hostile. Hizbullah head Nasrallah, good at rallying his people, lost his buildings to Israeli bombers and has been forced into hiding. He cannot retain influence as well merely by issuing recordings. The popularity he attained by defying Israel is similar to that of Nasser, Saddam, and Osama, but it did not keep them in power long. In dictatorships, popularity is not as necessary for keeping power as in democracies. If the other Lebanese factions realize that Nasrallah led them into a ruinous war for the Shiites they dislike, they may steer their country away from his radicalism (IMRA, 9/19).

There were other reports of Hizbullah returning from their northward flight during the war.


Not getting paid, P.A. government workers went on strike. Striking P.A. teachers sneak into Israel to work as construction laborers. They don't like toiling in the sun, but they earn more as laborers in Israel than as teachers in the P.A. even when the P.A. pays them (IMRA, 9/19/).


No, not just enhanced security around the big mosques to which Muslims flock, but extra and festive lighting. The City fired a special, ceremonial cannon. The municipality brought in special lamb meat for Muslims to buy from stores, let Muslim employees off early each day, and gave a holiday gift to needy families (IMRA, 9/19).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 20, 2006.


Although the article below is from a satirical website, nevertheless Muslims really are complaining that the Apple Store in New York resembles the holy "cube" in Mecca. They are outraged.

Below, a response from the People's Cube website
http://peoplescube.com/radio/lt.php?id=ek8FVV5RBA9KUAABHggFB1Y%3D and was written by Red Square. See the website for some superb satirical pix.

Dear radical Muslim comrades!

While you are the best allies the Left could ever have in the great patriotic war against American Capitalism, there are limits in every relationship, even the most intimate one like ours. Thus, your latest allegation that the Apple Mecca Store in New York amounts to a deliberate insult to Islam (because it resembles your big black Ka'bah cube in Mecca) is not just inane, it's an unprovoked stab in the back. This isn't how good allies treat one another. Yes, our cube-shaped Apple store resembles Ka'bah - so what? It's not like your real Mecca. To be more like the real Mecca it must have regular stampedes crushing thousands of geeks to death every year, aggravated by outbreaks of dysentery among huge crowds of Apple users crammed together in anti-sanitary conditions.

It must also have violent stoning rituals, it must require that female users be covered from head to toe in black robes hiding their faces, and a never-ending stream of hundreds of thousands of geeks must be moving around the Apple store day and night in mind-numbing circles every day of the year. If that were to take place, you might rightfully seethe over Apple's blasphemous imitation of your holiest cite. Otherwise, you might as well claim that ice cubes in Ted Kennedy's vodka on a lunch break are made in the image of Ka'bah cube. Come on! Comrades don't do this to comrades.

We supported you when you pounded Nike into recalling 800,000 shoes because the English word "Air" in its logo allegedly resembled the Arabic lettering for one of the 99 names for Allah. We laughed in approval when you shook down a Swiss supermarket chain, forcing it to withdraw 16,200 rolls of toilet paper with Zodiac signs because the Virgo symbol, when seen upside down "could be taken to resemble the word Allah" in Arabic. We cheered on your heroic boycott of imperialist Coca-Cola because its logo, if flipped horizontally and tweaked slightly, sort of reads "no Muhammad, no Mecca" in Arabic. We nodded when your complains forced the corporate Burger King to withdraw ice cream cones because the line-drawing on the lid resembled Arabic lettering for Allah. We gloated when British banks banned the display of piggy banks and British stores banned pig calendars and pig toys because they might offend Muslims. We refrained from comments when you rioted against the beauty pageant in Nigeria, killing 200, burning churches, and destroying property. We pretended the riots over the Danish cartoons never happened.

We did our best to help you get away with 9/11 by framing it as a legitimate response of the oppressed minorities against Western imperialism, and by positioning the WTC victims as "Little Eichmanns." We blamed the attack on the Bush administration, or on the Mossad, or on both. We explained your kidnappings, beheadings, hijackings, bombings, and sniping as a heroic fight against the reactionary occupiers. We accepted and rationalized a great deal of your shenanigans, including the pointless murders of policemen, civilians, construction workers, partygoers, vacationers, children on the way to school. But Apple Computer Inc. (PBUH) is where we must draw the line, comrades.

Apple is a progressive company that supports the revolution, donates to liberal causes, and even created a "Product Red " iPod and gift card (to help fight AIDS among African Muslims). Most importantly, it encourages the American populace to abandon its pig-headedness and think different (that is, conform to narrow guidelines of political correctness and avoid thoughtcrime). Their marketing slogan was most likely inspired by the French deconstructionist philosopher Michel Foucault, who called for the West to think different - and he himself followed this rule to the logical point of converting to Islam, embracing Khomeini's theocracy in Iran, and ending up by contracting HIV at a gay orgy in San Francisco and dying of AIDS.

Some say that the Apple cult is reminiscent of Islam. That Apple zealots are intolerant of non-Apple products, they proselytize, despise non-believers and deem converts to PC (apostates) unworthy of living. They treat the Macintosh Bible as holy scripture (the Macintosh Quran coming soon), they perform frequent virtual hadjj to Apple.com, and pronounce fatwas against Microsoft and Bill Gates. They believe that there is no OS but Mac OS and regard Steve Jobs is its Prophet But this is where the similarities end.

In fact, Apple users are more like what the media refers to as "moderate Muslims." They don't issue death threats to apple sauce manufacturers who put pictures of apples on their labels. They don't demonstrate with placards saying "Behead those who insult Mac OS," and "Geeks will dominate the world." They don't burn down and vandalize CompUSA stores. They don't riot over Dell commercials. And they don't sneak into PC-equipped corporate offices and blow themselves up in the name of Apple and its prophet Steve Jobs.

So how about a tradeoff? You leave Apple alone, and we'll find you a different great excuse to boil and seethe with rage. Are you familiar with the insensitive American tradition to carve crescent-shaped windows in the doors of their outhouses? "Protect the Muslim Crescent" would be a great, clean campaign allowing you to channel your massive creative energy into protecting Islam from this real and present danger. We will send out our activists to gather exact names and locations of the blasphemous wooden cabins, so you can demonstrate in front of them and possibly burn them down - to reinforce the positive image of Islam as a true force of peace in this world.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 19, 2006.

First PM Yitzhak Rabin, then Shimon Peres, then Ariel Sharon, now Ehud Olmert - each of whom seemed to change character once they achieved the seat of Prime Minister. They drifted more Left and into the orbit of being quietly Pro-Arab. It was almost as if their minds belonged to someone else. Perhaps they do.

Who but a mind controlled by others would give up, abandon, surrender vital Land, knowing it was going to be flooded with hostile Muslim Arabs and turned into a firebase, perhaps for a Global Terror Base. Are they all "Manchurian Candidates" controlled by the advanced chemical and electronic mind control methods known to be in development by the U.S., Russia, China since WW2 which have now advanced to the point of science fiction? Whether brain-washed or merely the election of political trash whose only interest is their own political futures and the cash flow it brings to them.

We have been told that our most deadly enemies will come from within - which regrettably, has come true again and again. Israel desperately needs to replace the Olmert government with people of integrity who actually like their own nation and her people. Comments by Emanuel A. Winston

This essay was written by Helen Freedman of AFSI. Contact her at afsi@rcn.com or go to the AFSI website: http://www.afsi.org

Generous Jews donated many millions of dollars to the Jewish National Fund/JNF for the purchase of land. What they may not know is that in Jerusalem, a portion of that land ends up in Arab hands. These are some of the very same Arabs that celebrate Israel's defeats and Arab suicide bombings, and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Documented facts, supplied by Aryeh King, resident of East Jerusalem, were submitted to Avinoam Binder, Chief Israel Representative for Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, the Hebrew version of JNF, at his New York office.

Mr. Binder confirmed that large scale give-away of JNF lands to Arabs has been occurring through government decisions, and the failure of JNF to oppose those decisions. Four plots, which make up 772 dunams (approximately 193 acres) near Bethlehem, which had been purchased by JNF, are now unavailable to Jews. Mr. Binder explains that the military status of the area makes this problematic.

In north Jerusalem, the JNF owns an area that is known as Shoafat. Arieh King tells us that the plots were registered as belonging to the State, but they really belong to JNF and were purchased by JNF. Today, the area is the site of hundreds of buildings occupied by Arabs whose Orange ID's theoretically keep them from entering Jerusalem, however, they live inside Jerusalem. The JNF does nothing to remove the Arab squatters from the land. There is also a "refugee" camp on the site, housing about 10,000 persons. When asked why they are not removed, Avinoam Binder replied,"How could so many be removed and relocated?" I pointed out to him that the government had no problem removing 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and setting them down wherever they might land. He smiled at the impossibility of the thought that Israel would try to do the same thing to Arabs. He agreed that scant attention is paid to the Jewish Gush Katif refugees.

In northern Jerusalem, near the Atarot airport, to which Jews dare not travel today, there are thousands of dunams (calculate approx. 4 per acre) that are owned by the JNF. This land exists between the airport, in the top of the finger of Jerusalem, and the borders of the Jerusalem municipality. Avinoam Binder shrugs his shoulders helplessly when questioned as to why this land is being sold to Arabs.

The ghastly wall that scars its way through Jerusalem is also leaving huge tracts of JNF land on the "Arab" side. Once again, JNF looks at this as a decision by the government of Israel, and one they refuse to appeal.

JNF donors, who were under the impression they were reclaiming holy Jewish land through their generosity, will be dismayed to learn that NO land was purchased by JNF in Jewish east Jerusalem in the past twenty years. And with the above information as evidence, land that was purchased for Jewish use has been released into Arab hands.

JNF donors should be outraged by this situation. Questions should be asked whether similar situations are occurring throughout Israel. Is JNF land in the Galilee and the Negev falling into Arab hands? If you are a donor operating on the premise that JNF money is going into Jewish projects protected by that organization, you should immediately request an accounting.

Write to Avinoam Binder at Jewish National Fund, 42 East 69th Street, New York, NY 10021; abinder@jnf.org; www.jnf.org to register your protest.

Resolve not to give any more money to JNF unless there can be a guarantee that Arabs will not profit from your gift. Send this information to your local newspapers and radio stations. Take part in alerting generous Jews to the deception perpetrated upon them. Contact Arieh King in Jerusalem for more details - kingshir@bezeqint.net - 011-972-54-550-1182.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by AFSI, October 19, 2006.

Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is celebrating its 20th Anniversary of leading Chizuk missions to the threatened communities of Israel. Once again, Rabbi Bruce Rudolph, and Helen Freedman, AFSI's former Executive Director, along with Barry Freedman, AFSI's present Director, will be the tour planners. As always, local guides will greet us at each stop. In addition, there will be meetings with important grass roots leaders, as well as figures from the Israeli political scene.

AFSI prides itself on knowing that through these unique trips we have created strong ties with the land, and with the Jews who are most threatened by the lost leadership in Israel today. AFSI follows the biblical "road map", which charts a whole Israel, and an indivisible Jerusalem. We urge everyone who believes as we do to join this trip.

After arriving in Israel on Nov. 13, we will head for the Ashel HaShomron hotel in Ariel. From there we will tour the hilltop communities in the Shomron and meet with the inspirational pioneers.

Tuesday, Nov. 14, we will continue our visits in the Shomron, and then head north to Tsfat for a two day stay at the Ruth Rimon Inn. This lovely hotel will be our home base for our exploration of the Galilee and the Golan. Tsfat, the ancient, mystical city, and Kiryat Shemonah, on the Lebanese border, along with other northern communities that were shelled during the Lebanon war, will be our focus. We will meet and talk with the residents who spent weeks this past summer in bomb shelters, and get their first-hand reports. We will also meet with reservists who are critical of the Israeli government's failure in the war. The Golan visit will once again reinforce the absurdity of any possibility of a give-away of the area to Syria.

Thursday, Nov. 16, we will be in Jerusalem, exploring the eastern half of the city that is being reclaimed by Jews. Overnight will be at the Kings hotel.

On Friday, Nov. 17, we will head for Hebron for the incomparable experience of Shabbat Chaye Sarah in Hebron. The celebration of the reading of the Torah portion that documents Abraham's purchase of Sarah's grave in Hebron is one that draws thousands of people to the holy city. We will be housed at the Yeshivat Nir in Kiryat Arba.

Sunday, Nov. 19, we will head south to the Negev area to visit the refugees from the Gush Katif expulsion of August 2005. AFSI took a leading role in efforts to prevent the expulsion, and we continue to be closely involved in helping the refugees who have been bitterly betrayed by the government.

Following our gala farewell banquet, we will head for the airport and our return to New York on Nov. 20.


The cost is kept at a modest $2200 (not including airport taxes, gratuities, and any additional charges for personal changes in the flight arrangements), which covers round-trip airfare, expert tour guides, tour bus and driver, all hotels (double occupancy -- additional cost for single supplement), and most meals.

Reservations, requiring a non-refundable deposit of $200, are now being accepted. Please call AFSI, 212-828-2424; 1-800-235-3658; or email: afsi@rcn.com. VISA or Mastercard charges will be accepted for members only. Land only arrangements will be made for those who have made their own flight plans and wish to meet us at the airport in Israel. Israelis are also welcome to join us for land only.


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, October 19, 2006.

This was written by Sharon Rofeh-Ofir and i appeared today in YNET (Yediot). It was translated to English by Justice4JP.

Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy imprisoned in the United States, this week relayed a letter to the prime minister in which he expressed strong criticism of the omission of his name from the list of captives and MIAs that Ehud Olmert read this week in his speech at the first sitting of the winter session of Knesset.

This morning (Thursday) Pollard's wife, Esther, told YNET that her husband painfully related in a conversation yesterday about the reaction in prison to the prime minister's failure to mention his name. "Those who are responsible for Jonathan in the prison follow the media. They knew that the prime minister did not mention his name. Jonathan told me that he was given a hard time when he heard comments like, "And you think you will ever get out of here?! Your own prime minister doesn't even know your name!" Esther recounted.

Yesterday Jonathan was visited by the Israeli Consul General Reda Mansour, who is the Government official responsible for him. In the course of the meeting, Pollard asked Mansour to relay his letter to the Prime Minister. The letter strongly criticizes Olmert who was a member of the Eban Commission (the Knesset committee which investigated the Pollard case two decades ago) for never bothering to do anything to help him.

During the time that Olmert was a member of the Eban Commission a report was published which expressed [Olmert's own position] that the cooperation of the State of Israel with the US and its assistance in the prosecution of Pollard was wrong. Israel's return of the documents was, according to the report, "fundamentally mistaken and caused serious damage." The report stressed that "These documents constituted the basis for the conviction and life sentence that Pollard received..."

In his letter to Olmert Pollard continued, "You had direct access to all of the information. There was so much you could have done right from the start to help me...Since taking office as Prime Minster, you have comported yourself as if I do not exist. Even as recently as two days ago, at the inaugural winter session of the Knesset you read out the names of all of Israel's captives and spoke of Israel's dedication to their swift and safe return home. My name was not on the list."

Next month Olmert it is expected to visit Washington at exactly around the same time that Pollard will be completing his 21st year in prison. "Mr. Olmert, it is no secret that you bear a personal responsibility for the years of affliction I have endured in prison... What you have done and what you have failed to do has been instrumental in prolonging my agony for more than 2 decades."

A source close to Pollard added, "Jonathan's not naïve, he told me yesterday, for 21 years I have been in Gehinom (a living hell). There has been one prime minister after and other, and I know that they have done absolutely nothing to secure my release. But this is the first time he feels that a prime minister is actually trying to totally obliterate all memory of the fact that he exists. "

See Also:
Text: Jonathan Pollard's Letter to Prime Minister Olmert (October 18, 2006)
Hebrew Text: Jonathan Pollard's Letter to Prime Minister Olmert (October 18, 2006) www.jonathanpollard.org

Contact Justice for Jonathan Pollard at Justice4JP@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcel Cousineau, October 19, 2006.

Friend or Foe?

The U.S under a supposed "Christian" president continues to trample Israel's sovereignty with increasing impunity while he is silent towards the Palestinian terrorism and their arms smuggling and buildup for war.

Always threatening and intimidating Israel and making excuses for the terrorists who have been placed in the role of victims by Satan's Bush-Rice team.

There is no peace with the Bush Road Map only war and destruction. The agenda has always been to weaken Israel in preparation for the next war.

IT IS NOT THE MOSLEMS, not Syria or Iran or Russian or Chinese communists or the Palestinians who throw the Jewish people off of their God given land and throw them out of their homes to reward both to intolerant and extremely violent Islamic terrorists whom even blind dogs know desire no peace with the Jews but a supposed 'BORN AGAIN' Christian president. It goes beyond hypocrisy.

Think about it, a Conservative Christian America president has been tapped by Satan to do his dirty work, effectivly weakening Israel in preperation for the final push solution, not Bill Clintion, not the left, not the Democrats, no other nation but the U.S. pressures Israel into sucide under the guise of ally and friend.

And the Church in the U.S. continues to support the leader they put into office for such a time as this.

Their hands partake of the innocent blood on the head of this president who continues to give weapons and millions of dollars in support under the lie of peace to Israel's enemies. America learned nothing from Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The God of Israel will respond to U.S interferecene in His agenda for Israel as His word stands and this empire falls

Contact Marcel Cousineau at up2zionsg8@yahoo.com or go to his website

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 19, 2006.


The director of a Berlin opera said she would reschedule a performance canceled due to fears of Muslim rioting at a performance featuring the severed heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad, when security officials give clearance (Catherine Hickley, NY Sun, 10/4, p.7).

As described, the opera is in poor taste, but it is difficult to tell what is offensive about it. There is no fear of rioting by Christians and Buddhists. Why do you suppose that is?

The director's notion of security is parochial. Police may secure the opera and even the city, but that is not sufficient. Demagogues use the media to whip up Muslim rage all over the world. Muslim rioters pick on the nearest infidels, however tenuous their connection with what is offending the Muslims at the moment, or, rather, whatever Muslim leaders think they can get their followers offended over, and extract concessions for.

The only real security is to separate from the Muslims. Where they are the minority, expel them; where they are the majority, evacuate. One cannot live with them as a majority, under such a threat of riot any time one disagrees with them. Neither can one live with them as an oppressed minority and threatened by a riot when someone is accused of offending Muslims somewhere else.

An associate put it that when Muslims are not humiliating infidels, they feel humiliated.


The Security Council imposed the duty upon Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (with UNIFIL help if asked). Israel's Foreign Minister said that If Lebanon does not, and if Hizbullah renews its war on Israel, Israel would be stop minimizing damage to Lebanon the expense of finding more Hizbullah gunmen.

The West over-estimated the effect of elections upon terrorists, she said (IMRA, 9/17).

Will Israel act more swiftly and with better explanation, next time? Elections don't moderate Islamists, they give them another means of taking over.


The editor reminds us that Christian leaders had spread the faith by the sword, what the Pope quoted a Byzantine as observing that Islam does. Examples of Christian militancy were Inquisition, Crusades, repression of science, and witch hunts (IMRA, 9/17).

A weaker rebuttal would be that those repressions were not on Christian principles. A stronger one is that Christianity overcame those impulses, but Islam still has not. Islam remains primitive, intolerant, and brutal.


Sec. Rice said she wants to strengthen Abbas' hand against Hamas "radicals." "Innocent Palestinians are caught in the crossfire, and we call on all parties to stop,' Ms. Rice said of the worst" internecine violence. "The Palestinians deserve calm." (Anne Gearan, NY Sun, 10/4, p.8 from AP).

The Associated Press implies that Abbas is not radical. Of course he is! To strengthen his faction against a similar one makes no sense. But the West thinks it is axiomatic that one faction is radical, the other must be moderate. Among the Palestinian Arabs, all factions are extremist. They all want to wipe out the Jews.

How then, do such people, whose culture is violent, "deserve calm?" By what criteria are they "innocent?" Their victims deserve calm.


"Iran has handled the nuclear issue brilliantly. In diplomatic exchanges, it has repeatedly demanded concessions, hinting that once these are given it will accept a compromise solution. Yet when the United States and Europe offer attractive packages, for example helping Iran get nuclear power as long as there are safeguards to keep it from using the technology to build bombs, Iran stalls or makes promises that it quickly breaks. Avoiding any punishment, Iran makes still more demands -- and sometimes threats -- thus beginning the next round."

"Aside from eating up a great deal of time that is used to make progress on nuclear weapons research, Iran is being taught the lesson that it can get away with doing just about anything it wants without penalty. Equally, Iran's leaders have absorbed the idea that Europe will appease them and that the United States -- which Ahmadinejad calls 'an imaginary superpower made of straw' -- in Khomeini's words, 'Cannot do a damn thing' against Iran."

Iran claims it is not developing nuclear weapons, but it spent a lot developing long-range missiles capable of carrying them. What does that imply?

How responsible would Iran be with such weapons? Consider this: it gave Hizbullah some long-range missiles. What if Hizbullah gets nuclear weapons, too? The writer asks other such questions, all with pessimistic outlook (IMRA, 9/18 from Barry Rubin.)

It's up to the US and Israel to save the rest of the world and get criticized for doing so.


Every day, about 14 French police are injured by Muslims in French housing estates. Interior Min. Sarkozy has sent heavily equipped units there to regain control from drug-smugglers and other criminals. Other police consider the warfare an intifada, and demand armored cars (David Rennie, NY Sun, 10/5, p.7 from Daily Telegraph).

This is an important story with consequences. Reports about it should be definitive.


Influential organs of the Mideast media imagine the Jews sponsored the Pope's quotation about the evil in the Muslim injunction to spread the faith by the sword.

A Saudi reformer interpreted the statement as an attempt to become friendlier with Israel (Steven Stalinsky, NY Sun, 10/4, p.8 from MEMRI). That sword smote more Christians.

The Pope stands on his own. The last thing he would do is take orders from the Jews or make dangerous statements in order to curry favor with them.

If the Church wanted closer ties with Israel, it could do so without making statements that are used to conjure riots against Christians. It could stop denouncing Israel unfairly, as it recently did over the war. It could stop trying to deny Israel its capital, Jerusalem, in the hope that it would gain control over it (though the Muslims would, if Israel lost it). The Arab conspiracy theory is ridiculous.


Lebanon reports that it has army units on the border with Syria, that they have battled with arms smugglers, and that they have captured some but lost one of their own (IMRA, 9/18).

I was skeptical whether the Lebanese Army would try to restrict Hizbullah, which is a stronger military force and which is part of the governing coalition. Let's await further developments beyond this initial report.


Some Israeli children are suing Hamas for punitive damages, for murdering their parents. The theory behind the case is that punitive damages would make terrorism too expensive for terrorists. Victorious plaintiffs would be entitled to collect wherever the terrorist organization has assets (IMRA, 9/18).

The PLO has assets hidden by Arafat. Hamas and Hizbullah probably don't have assets where they can be attached, unless they have undelivered cash in fundraising places.


The US Agency for Intl. Development is giving $2.5 million a year to Al Kuds U., in Jerusalem, for 2,000 scholarships and other purposes (IMRA, 9/19).

Al Kuds is run by an associate of Arafat. It promotes and teaches bigotry and terrorism. The jihadists who emerge are enemies of the US, too. Charity to the needy should be for the deserving; I do not think our enemies are deserving of our money. The State Dept. workers against the US national interest. It simple-mindedly thinks that since education is good for Americans, it is good for Arabs, as if Arabs indoctrination is equivalent to American education.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 18, 2006.
1. Quick. Name the only country on earth where loyalty and patriotism to that country are regarded by that country's own legislature as a form of racism!

Well, if you said Israel, you win two points and a two-fer-one coupon to Wonderland.

The Knesset yesterday rejected a proposed law that would require people to sign a loyalty oath in order to vote or sit in the parliament of Israel (see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/776547.html). The proposal was the initiative of the National Union Party.

"Racism" is suddenly all the concern of Israel's Caring Left. In the past few days, there have been negotiations between Olmert's people and Avigdor Lieberman's party to see if the latter will join the coalition. That triggered soiled panties among hordes of Israel's Caring Left. These folks regard Lieberman as a "racist". Among those who regard Lieberman as a racist are open anti-Semites, cheerleaders for terror, fans of Holocaust Deniers, supporters of Iran, and people who openly demand that Israel be destroyed.

Meanwhile, the Left has been denouncing the proposal for a "loyalty oath" yet as another form of blatant Jewish racism against Arabs. After all, we all know that many Israeli Arabs and also many Arab Knesset Members in Israel's parliament are disloyal enemies of their own country, seeking its destruction and cheering on genocidal terrorists. Azmi Bishara is perhaps the most open about it, but lots of others, including many Arab students enjoying subsidized classes at state-financed universities, hold exactly the same political positions. So clearly asking such people to sign a loyalty oath before allowing them into the voting booths or the Knesset restrooms would violate their delicate sensitivities and offend their sense of being as "The Other".

The majority of Jewish Knesset Members agree that it would be racist to ask voters to swear allegiance to their own country. Really.

2. The Rwanda solution to the problem of the existence of Israel is once again being raised by Israel's Caring Left. Indeed, it is the theme of a long Op-Ed today in Haaretz, the Palestinian newspaper printed in Hebrew.

The Rwanda solution is where Israel would cease to exist at all and instead would be folded into a new state with an Arab majority, covering all of Israel and "Palestine" west of the Jordan river, and governed by a democratic secular regime composed of genocidal Hamas and Jihad terrorists. That new state would then solve all remaining demographic issues the same way they were dealt with in Rwanda.

The Rwanda Solution, known by the Caring Left as the "One-State Solution" (and no -- by that they do NOT mean that all "Palestinian" or Israeli Arabs be invited Kahane-style to move to some of those 22 Arab countries), is being openly touted in Haaretz. Today's call for the annihilation of Israel comes from one Aharon Amir. (Available only in Hebrew, at http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/776846.html ).

Amir is a member of the Israeli Literary Left, and once got the Israel Prize for translation. He was a leader in the so-called "Canaanite" movement, a flaky movement of Jewish "intellectuals" in the 1950s who wanted to see a new non-Jewish Israeli emerge, a new "nationality" that would transcend Jewishness and Arabness and so guarantee peace. You will not be surprised to hear that the movement never had any Arab members, and THAT fact - in and of itself - explains why its "ideas" were absurd. Curiously, Amir was a member of a group in the 70s that wanted to annex the "occupied territories", but not out of Zionist zealotry; rather, it was out of anti-Zionist determination to see Israeli Jewishness drowned out, producing those nice new mongrel "Canaanites". Here is a sample, in English: http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=93&search_text= and also https://ofakim.secured.co.il/zope/home/en/1119245649/1119245922_en ). His article in Haaretz today has pretty much the same agenda in mind.

He is so wacky that he is even celebrated on the official web site of the Israeli Ministry of Education (http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/PrasIsrael/Tashsag/AharonAmir/) 3. October 19, 2006
Congress to Courts:
'Get Out of the War on Terror' By John Yoo
October 19, 2006; Page A18, Wall Street Journal Online

During the bitter controversy over the military commission bill, which President Bush signed into law on Tuesday, most of the press and the professional punditry missed the big story. In the struggle for power between the three branches of government, it is not the presidency that "won." Instead, it is the judiciary that lost.

The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world. It was passed in response to the effort by a five-justice majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to take control over terrorism policy. That majority extended judicial review to Guantanamo Bay, threw the Bush military commissions into doubt, and tried to extend the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, overturning the traditional understanding that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor "combatants" in an internal civil war under Article 3.

Hamdan was an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy. The court must have thought its stunning power grab would go unchallenged. After all, it has gotten away with many broad assertions of judicial authority before. This has been because Congress is unwilling to take a clear position on controversial issues (like abortion, religion or race) and instead passes ambiguous laws which breed litigation and leave the power to decide to the federal courts.

Until the Supreme Court began trying to make war policy, the writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to benefit enemy prisoners in war. The U.S. held millions of POWs during World War II, with none permitted to use our civilian courts (except for a few cases of U.S. citizens captured fighting for the Axis). Even after hostilities ended, the justices turned away lawsuits by enemy prisoners seeking to challenge their detention. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the court held that it would not hear habeas claims brought by alien enemy prisoners held outside the U.S., and refused to interpret the Geneva Conventions to give new rights in civilian court against the government. In the case of Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, the court refrained from reviewing the operations of military commissions.

In Hamdan, the court moved to sweep aside decades of law and practice so as to forge a grand new role for the courts to open their doors to enemy war prisoners. Led by John Paul Stevens and abetted by Anthony Kennedy, the majority ignored or creatively misread the court's World War II precedents. The approach catered to the legal academy, whose tastes run to swashbuckling assertions of judicial supremacy and radical innovations, rather than hewing to wise but boring precedents.

Thoughtful critics point out that because the enemy fights covertly, the risk of detaining the innocent is greater. But so is the risk of releasing the dangerous. That's why enemy combatants who fight out of uniform, such as wartime spies, have always been considered illegals under the law of war, not entitled to the same protections given to soldiers on the battlefield or ordinary POWs. Disguised suicide- bombers in an age of WMD proliferation and virulent America-hatred are more immediately dangerous than the furtive information-carriers of our Cold War past. We now know that more than a dozen detainees released from Guantanamo have rejoined the jihad. The real question is how much time, energy and money should be diverted from winning the fight toward establishing multiple layers of review for terrorists. Until Hamdan, nothing in the law of war ever suggested that enemy status was anything but a military judgment.

While there may be different ways to strike a balance, this is a decision for the president and Congress, not the courts. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts in peacetime, and also declares that habeas corpus can be suspended "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" when "the public Safety may require it." Congress's power is even greater when it is correcting the justices' errors. Courts are ill-equipped to decide whether vast resources should be devoted to reviewing military detentions. Or whether military personnel's time should be consumed traveling back to the U.S. for detainee hearings. Or whether we risk revealing information in these hearings that might compromise the intelligence sources and methods that may allow us to win the war.

This time, Congress and the president did not take the court's power grab lying down. They told the courts, in effect, to get out of the war on terror, stripped them of habeas jurisdiction over alien enemy combatants, and said there was nothing wrong with the military commissions. It is the first time since the New Deal that Congress had so completely divested the courts of power over a category of cases. It is also the first time since the Civil War that Congress saw fit to narrow the court's habeas powers in wartime because it disagreed with its decisions.

The law goes farther. It restores to the president command over the management of the war on terror. It directly reverses Hamdan by making clear that the courts cannot take up the Geneva Conventions. Except for some clearly defined war crimes, whose prosecution would also be up to executive discretion, it leaves interpretation and enforcement of the treaties up to the president. It even forbids courts from relying on foreign or international legal decisions in any decisions involving military commissions.

All this went overlooked during the fight over the bill by the media, which focused on Sens. McCain, Graham and Warner's opposition to the administration's proposals for the use of classified evidence at terrorist trials and permissible interrogation methods. In its eagerness to magnify an intra-GOP squabble, the media mostly ignored the substance of the bill, which gave current and future administrations, whether Democrat or Republican, the powers needed to win this war.

Mr. Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served in the Bush Justice Department from 2001-03. He is the author of "War By Other Means" (Grove/Atlantic 2006).

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 Women in Green, October 18, 2006.
font size="2">

Did You Know?

Nineteen Jews from various meahazim (outpost settlements) have, over the past few weeks, received restraining orders, ordering them to stay away from Judea and Samaria for long period of times. No explanation was given.

The individuals who received the restraining orders are the leading people in the outpost in which each lives. Their "restraining" (actually, expulsion) is obviously an attempt by the government to directly lead to the elimination, Heaven forbid, of those outposts.

Below are (1) details of a demonstration and other actions to protest the restraining orders;
(2) a list of those expelled;
(3) a must article by Eliakim Haetzni concerning the restraining orders.

Elad Keller was arrested:

Two days ago, October 16, 2006, Elad Keller, 19 years old, a resident of Maon, was arrested, after he refused to sign an administrative order that deports him from his home and from the area of Judea and Samaria. Plainclothes detectives beat and injured him. Elad is the first of those expelled to be arrested.He will remain in prison as long as he does not consent to be deported from his home.

We Cannot Be Silent!

The restraining orders are the opening step in the operation to destroy the outposts.


This Sunday, Rosh Hodesh Sivan (October 22, 2006), at 6 p.m., a demonstration will be held opposite the home of the person who signed the restraining orders, GOC Central Command Yair Naveh.

Where? in Givat Shmuel, Rabbi Yehudah Halevi Street (opposite the synagogue).

Participants (partial list):

The families of those expelled, Land of Israel Loyalists, Land of Israel Youth, Komemiyut, Mateh ha-Tzafon (the North Committee), Women in Green, Meginei Eretz (the Land's Defenders), Gamla Will Not Fall Again.

For details: 050-4482848

The public is also requested to flood Yair Naveh's office with faxes and telephone calls in protest:

Yair Naveh's office fax: 08-8680240

Central Command telephone: 02-5305738 or 02-5305294

Also, it is clear that the actual decision to kick out those 19 Jews from their homes was made by DM Amir Peretz. Swamp his assistant with calls of protest.

Her name: Danielle. Her number: from Israel 0505 733 676, from abroad: 00-972-50-5-733-676

DM Peretz's office: tel: 972-3-697-6663 fax:972-2-649-6545

The following is A LIST OF THE EXPELLEES, by courtesy of Honenu:

Name Residence Marital status Expulsion period
Boaz Albert Yitzhar, 725 married + 5 1year
Eren Schwartz Yitzhar, Lahavah married + 1 half a year
Yehoyariv Meir Bracha, Ronen married + 1 1year
Shlomo Meir Bracha, Ronen married + 1 3 months
Yehudah Meir Od Yosef Hai yeshivah single half a year
Uriah Cohen Od Yosef Hai yeshivah single half a year
Edan Melul Od Yosef Hai yeshivah single 3 months
Hanan Herbst Od Yosef Hai yeshivah newlywed half a year
Han Raz Od Yosef Hai yeshivah single half a year
Yehoshua Albert Od Yosef Hai yeshivah single half a year +
house arrest in Eilon Moreh
Aryeh Tessler Od Yosef Hai yeshivah single half a year in Shikmah Prison
Hillel Noam Sheked Farm single half a year
Mordekhai Noam Sheked Farm engaged half a year
Ariel Grunner Yitzhar, 725 married + 1 house arrest, half a year
Hanokh Albert Ahiyah married + 3 house arrest, with his wife's parents
Neriah Ofen Lahavah, Yitzhar married + 5 half a year
Meir Brettler Adei Ad, Kol Zion married + 1 half a year
Elad Keller Maon Farm single half a year
Yehudah Albert Tapuah single half a year

This was written in Hebrew by Elyakim Haetzni and was translated by Women in Green. It is entitled "Sodom in the outposts".

1. An administrative detention order was issued before the uprooting from the [Gaza] Strip and northern Samaria (the "Disengagement") against Neriah Ofen. Neriah lives in the outpost of Lahavah (Yitzhar), and is married and the father of five. The detention, for which no reason was given, severely harmed his livelihood. We can guess that he was suspected of opposing the "Disengagement," and so, he was released immediately following the elimination of the Jewish settlement in the Strip and in northern Samaria.

The recent wave of arrests (5 "restraining orders"), close to Sukkot this year, once again struck Ofen, and he was "restrained" from his home for half a year. Once again, he was not given any explanation. According to the press, he is suspected of intending to disturb Arabs during the olive harvest. The harvest, however, lasts, at most, one month, and not six.

It may be assumed that, like the rest of the arrests and "restraints," this deportation is the opening phase in the operation to destroy the outposts, the "thinning out" of the outposts in which opposition is expected, and the removal of people thought to be activists and ringleaders.

The issuance of security orders without due process, with neither proof nor reason, when the argument of severe and immediate danger for the security of the region is not even raised, constitutes the misuse of authority, and it denies an entire public of the most elementary human rights.

We will demonstrate below how restraining orders are applied to Arabs who aided terrorists-murderers. The comparison teaches of a shocking perversion of justice, that cries out to Heaven.

2. The story of Ariel Grunner in "the land of military orders" graphically demonstrates the degree of arbitrariness, cruelty, maltreatment, and brutality brought to bear against the Jews in the outposts.

Ariel, who is married and the father of a child, lives in Hill 725 in Yitzhar. Since the system of orders operates without giving any justification, we are left to guess at the reasons for his being persecuted: his being an activist in the outpost and his position-livelihood in the Honenu organization, being in charge of the Arrests Department.

On July 12 of this year, by order of the Defense Minister, Grunner was issued with three months of administrative detention. The reasons presented to the judge in his chambers, without enabling the affected party to be present, were so weak that the period was shortened by the court to one month and three weeks. Grunner was incarcerated in Shikmah Prison (Ashkelon), but the moment he was released, he was handed a new order, this time for house arrest for six months in his home in Yitzhar, "until further notice." The new notice was not long in coming, in the form of an expulsion order to Rotem, a settlement in the northern Jordan Valley, but there was no vacant place in Rotem. The matter came before the court, that commented on this to the authorities.

Nonetheless, NIS 2000 of a guarantee of NIS 5000 that Grunner was forced to deposit was deducted, as punishment for his not reporting to Rotem for "house arrest," actually, to be in the street. Afterwards, Grunner found a little room in Rotem with an iron "Jewish Agency" bed [i.e., extremely primitive furniture] and a dresser, without air-conditioning, in the blazing heat of the Jordan Valley. When he argued that he could not bring his family there, the answer he received was that there was no intention for him to live in Rotem with his family. The question that arises, therefore, of how he is to observe the house arrest by himself in his room, since even going out to buy food is a violation of the order, remains unanswered.

3. An analysis of those receiving restraining orders reveals the systematic persecution of the settlement of Yitzhar. Of the some 20 victims, 13 live in the outposts of Yitzhar. The direction is clear: the paralyzing of the system as preparation for its destruction.

The majority of the others receiving restraining orders are from the Ronen Farm in Har Bracha, and from the Maon Farm, prominent places in the list of outposts to be eliminated. Of those restrained-expelled, nine are married, one is engaged, two are the fathers of 5 children, and one is the father of 3 children. Apart from the yeshivah students, the livelihood of the "restrained" is severely harmed.

4. A barometer for measuring the full dimensions of the human and legal scandal inherent in the system of persecution of the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria is provided by the decision by Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, in HCJ Ajuri (7015/02).

The Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria issued an "order assigning place of residence" against the Arab appellants, residents of the area, in which they were ordered to move to the Gaza Strip for a period of two years. In his decision the justice portrayed the harsh security circumstances: the terrorists "are supported by part of the civilian population, and by their families and relatives." The State of Israel was faced with "a new and difficult reality," and, on this background, the decision spoke of the transfer of the family members of suiciders or those conducting severe terror attacks, and their dispatch to Gaza.

As regards Abed Alnasser Mustafa Ahmed Asida, Justice Barak established the following facts:

His brother was wanted for the murder of two people from Yitzhar and nineteen souls in two attacks at Emmanuel. Alnasser Asida admitted that he knew his brother was wanted for the murder in Yitzhar, and also saw him carrying an assault rifle. He admitted to giving him food and clothing, he gave him his private car, and also drove him to Shechem. (He argued, however, that he did not know for what end.) Additionally, he drove his terrorist brother to the hospital when the latter was injured in the course of preparing an explosive charge. He also drove to the hospital another person who was injured in a similar "accident." He likewise aided another fugitive, his brother-in-law, with clothing and food, and lent him his car.

Based on these facts, Justice Barak decided to cancel the restraining order, giving the reason that it was not sufficient that the person receiving the restraining order "was aware of the grave terrorist activity of his brother," and that the active deeds that he carried out fall below the level of danger required under the provisions of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: a real danger to the security of the area.

The justice added that the goal of deterring others is an insufficient cause for the issuance of restraining orders. The goal must be "in special cases in which real danger to security of the area is foreseen if this measure is not adopted."

What remains is to summarize the difference between Alnasser Asida and Ariel Grunner and Neriah Ofen (and the other Jews on the list of the 19)

An Arab accomplice to murderers was given the reasons for the steps taken against him, while the Jewish settler was not; and the Arab accomplice to murderers received a rigorous legal defense, while the rights of the settler are abandoned.

After all, what "real danger to security of the area" do the nineteen expelled Jews pose? And, especially, in comparison to Abed Alnasser Asida and his actions?

5. These are the principles that are a guiding light to the High Court of Justice in its defense of the rights of the Arab accomplice to murderers, as articulated by Justice Barak:

"The fundamental premise is that the displacement of a person from his place of residence and his forcible assignment to another place seriously harms his dignity, his liberty and his property. A person's home is not merely a roof over his head, but it is also a means for the physical and social location of a person, his private life and his social relationships.

Several basic human rights are harmed as a result of an involuntary displacement of a person from his home and his residence being assigned to another place, even if this assigned residence does not involve him crossing an international border."

It is a mark of disgrace for the State of Israel that these sublime principles are applied only to Arabs, while they are brutally crushed underfoot in regard to Jews.

We hereby wish to bring to the knowledge and consciousness of people in Israeli society, both the facts and the moral barometer, for your moral judgment.

As regards the persecution of the inhabitants of the outposts, until now our society could wash its hands of any responsibility, due to lack of knowledge, in light of the silence of the Israeli media, that turns a deaf ear to the suffering and justness of Jewish settlers.

This material is accordingly being sent to rabbis, politicians, academics, and fashioners of public opinion, for their knowledge, judgment, and actions that they will see fit to take.

If we remain indifferent in the face of this blatant wickedness - at least we will all share in the moral responsibility.

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 Dave Nathan, October 18, 2006.


This article was entitled "Pro-Israeli editor beaten in Bangladesh," and was written by Michael Freund.

A Muslim journalist facing charges of sedition for advocating ties with Israel was recently attacked and beaten by a crowd in Bangladesh that allegedly included leading officials of the country's ruling party, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz newspaper, an English-language publication based in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, was working in his office on October 5 when nearly 40 people stormed the premises.

The mob beat Choudhury, leaving him with a fractured ankle, and looted cash that was kept in the company safe. Choudhury was briefly hospitalized.

According to a statement appearing on the Web site of the Weekly Blitz, the attackers were led by Helal Khan, international affairs secretary of Jasas, and included Babul Ahmed, Jasas's secretary- general. Jasas is the cultural wing of the ruling Bangladeshi National Party (BNP).

During the assault, Ahmed is said to have shouted at Choudhury, labeling him an "agent of the Jews."

In a photo taken shortly after the incident that was obtained exclusively by the Post, Choudhury can be seen hunched over a table wearing a torn shirt while a Bangladeshi policeman dressed in blue chats with two BNP officials. Both officials took part in the attack. No arrests were made, and police refused to allow Choudhury to file charges against his attackers.

As the Post first reported last month, Bangladesh is moving forward with plans to try Choudhury on charges of blasphemy, sedition, treason and espionage in connection with his articles critical of Islamic extremism and favorable to Israel. After several delays, his trial is due to start in Dhaka on Thursday. If convicted, Choudhury faces the death penalty.

The charges stem from November 2003, when Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka's International Airport as he was preparing to board a flight on his way to Israel, where he was due to deliver a speech on promoting mutual understanding between Muslims and Jews. Choudhury's visit to Israel would have been the first by a Bangladeshi journalist. Bangladesh does not recognize Israel's existence.

After being held in prison for 17 months, where he was reportedly tortured, Choudhury was released in April 2005. But authorities in Bangladesh, which is ruled by a coalition government that includes Islamic extremists, decided to pursue charges against him. Dr. Richard Benkin, an American human rights activist leading the fight for Choudhury's release, expressed grave concern about the current situation.

"Choudhury is unique because he has not fled to the West, but continues to oppose militant Islamists from inside the Muslim world," Benkin told the Post. "He feels that if he can defeat the radicals in their own back yard it will be a victory for peace and justice unlike any other thus far."

"More and more Muslims are looking at this case," Benkin said. "They want to see if Shoaib will get the support and protection he needs from the West. If he is victorious, other Muslims will try the same; if we allow him to go down, they will remain silent."

Both the American Jewish Committee and the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN have protested Bangladesh's treatment of Choudhury and called for the charges against him to be dropped.

Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 18, 2006.

I have met Ehud Olmert many times and he impressed me (at the time) as articulate and able to think quickly on his feet. The first time was at the famous Ted Koppel TV show, where the Arabs insisted on a fence down the middle of a stage. Ehud spoke very well that night. He seems to have done a decent job as Mayor of Jerusalem. But, I cannot be sure of that.

So what caused his complete inability to deal with the Lebanon surprise by Hezb'Allah or his cruel advise to then PM Arik Sharon to abandon Gush Katif in Gaza.

There are several answers:

1. Olmert had zero experience in thinking about military strategy or tactics.

2. Olmert could not possibly assess the advice of General Dan Halutz whose Air Force mind-set told Olmert that air power could easily win any war. Olmert accepted Halutz' outlook.

3. Olmert has a facile, quick mind which is geared more to the courtroom, legal machinations - all of which narrows into maneuvering politically. While that served him well in the vicious battle of politics, none of which prepared him to protect the Jewish nation militarily.

4. He cannot grasp the fact that radical Islamic Muslims will accept anything Israel gives up but not change their Islamic doctrine to eliminate Israel.

Moreover, he was easily manipulated by President Bush and Secretary Rice who had their own political problems and used Israel as one element in ameliorating their political problems with the Arab Muslim world. Regrettably, this is still continuing as Olmert complies with U.S. pressure to pretend that the Palestinian Authority's President Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abut Mazen) is a peace maker. Despite the fact that Abu Mazen is President of the Fatah movement (whose military wing is the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade) and that the P.A. never cancelled the PLO Charter which avows to occupy all of Israel, Olmert still gives him the kosher stamp of credibility.

Olmert's supposed "smarts" as a behind-the-scenes advisor to Sharon was totally short-sighted.

Both Sharon, advised by Olmert, ignored the larger threatening picture in Gaza, focusing instead on their personal political needs. Sharon and family, as published, were under a legal cloud for using his office for personal gain which led inevitably to subsequent indictments of, at least, Omri, Sharon's son, who "fell on his sword" to keep his father in power.

Most of the IDF General Staff and Heads of the Security Services advised Sharon NOT to evacuate Gush Katif, specifically speaking to the fact that abandoning the Land would give the Arab Muslims an operating base on Israel's Southern border. This, of course, has happened, as forecast by all of Israel's security services as we have quoted often. Since more than 5,000 Kassam rockets had landed in Israel even before Abu Mazen, Fatah and Hamas had full control, it was obvious that after Israel abandoned the land, the 21 communities and the 10,000 Jewish men, women and children in Gush Katif (and Northern Samaria), the bombings would increase. Kassam rocket bombings did increase, as well as increasing their accuracy and their range.

Olmert's advise to ignore the expert military advice was totally political and devoid of any consideration for the dangers it posed to all of the Israeli population. Olmert's focus was totally political namely, keeping Sharon in power while the risks to everyone else simply didn't enter his calculations. Nothing in Olmert's background prepared him to think in terms of exposing all of Israel's southern and (from this summer's war) northern borders to missiles launched from an abandoned Gaza and an undefeated Hezb'Allah.

All of these factors coalesced when Olmert was confronted with a full scale missile attack by Hezb'Allah from Lebanon. Olmert not only fumbled the proper response to that war, he became primarily responsible for the unnecessary deaths of Israel's career soldiers, reservists and civilians because of his stupid vacillation. Here we must add that Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Chief-of-Staff General Dan Halutz as equal partners in fumbling the response to the Hezb'Allah assault.

What is more vexing at this time is that what should be rapid re-training of the career soldiers and reservists is again being fumbled by Olmert and his entire Kadima Party as they concentrate on staying in political power and holding onto their precious seats and perks.

Olmert is doing the only thing he understands - which is to maneuver politically. This is particularly dangerous as Syria and Iran pour weapons into Lebanon, Gaza, Judea and Samaria more missiles, rockets and anti-tank weapons which were supplied by President Vladimir Putin of Russia - despite his promises NOT to do so.

Olmert and his people are not only indecisive about what to do, their decisions lack coherence, quality and are loaded with self-serving politics - all of which leaves the Jewish nation vulnerable and in a leadership vacuum at a very dangerous time in the world.

What is even worse, Olmert cannot see or understand his faults. When he makes grievous mistakes, he does not fault himself - he never faults himself. But, immediately and by an amoral character moves to cover it up!

Olmert cannot help himself and will continue being what he is. He has the qualities of a highly paid "Pakid" (clerk) or bureaucrat unable to rise above his basic character and incompetence. Therefore, in these perilous times with Hezb'Allah in the North, Hamas in the South - both backed by Iran (probably nuclear) and Syria (probably armed with chemical warheads) - Olmert is a Clear and Present Danger to the Jewish Nation.

That government of Kadima must fall immediately and be replaced by a Government who understands peril and not serve the political interests of other nations at the risk of its own survival. Shimon Peres in linkage with PM Olmert has virtually told Iran and Syria that Israel's cities are NOT prepared for a saturation missile assault. It was a terrible mistake to publically proclaim that weakness.

But, even worse, it was the Rabin, Peres, Barak, Netanyahu, Peres, Sharon, Olmert governments who didn't have the foresight or interest in developing that protection for Israel's cities. They even cut back on arming both the city "Shomrim" (civil guards), the outer towns and kibbutzim - lest it irritate the Arab and Muslims nations. Clearly, it is past time to push Olmert's government out of power and start creating a survival government before Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Syria and Iran make good on their threats to eliminate the Jewish State.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 18, 2006.

This was written by Dennis Prager and appeared on the Townhall website
www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/10/17/ some_sobering_lessons_from_muslim_taxi_drivers

Understandably, those troubled by the contemporary Muslim world point to the amount of gratuitous violence emanating from it and the apparent absence of Muslim anger against it.

In response, Muslim defenders of their faith -- and Western defenders such as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito -- inform us that the terror, suicide and cruelty that emanate from a portion of the Muslim world are all aberrations. We are assured that the average Muslim is as appalled as all other decent people are by Muslims who torture, decapitate and blow up innocent people.

Some recent news items from Britain, Australia and the United States, however, suggest that we can make a more accurate assessment of contemporary Islam by looking beyond Islamic terror and beyond the lack of Muslim opposition to it.

I am referring to news reports not about Muslim terrorists but about the far more mundane group of religious Muslims who happen to be taxi drivers. In Britain and Australia, Muslim taxi drivers refuse to pick up passengers who have a dog with them -- even when the passenger is blind and the dog is a Seeing Eye dog. Nearly all-religious Muslims believe that Islam forbids them to come into contact with dogs. Therefore, Muslim taxi drivers will even drive by a blind person standing in the cold, lest they come into contact with the dog.

And in Minneapolis, Minn., Muslim taxi drivers, who make up a significant percentage of taxi drivers in that city, refuse to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or other alcoholic beverage with them.

This is significant. We are not talking here about Muslim fanatics or Muslim terrorists, but about decent every day Muslims. And what these practices reveal is something virtually unknown in Judeo-Christian societies--the imposing of one's religious practices on others.

Now, many of those with a graduate degree in the humanities, and others taught how not to think clearly, will object that religious Christians do exactly this sort of thing when they try to impose their religious views on abortion, for example, on society.

But there is no analogy between a Muslim not allowing a non-Muslim to bring a bottle of wine or a dog into a Muslim-driven taxi and Christians trying to convince a democratic society to outlaw most abortions.

There is no comparing ritual prohibitions with moral prohibitions. Christians argue that taking the life of a human fetus where the mother's life is not endangered is immoral. And so do religious Jews (and Muslims) and many secular individuals -- because the issue of abortion is a moral issue. Contact with dogs, on the other hand, is a ritual issue, not a moral issue, which is why non-Muslims do not consider it immoral -- unlike the many non-Christians who consider most abortions immoral.

And Christians and others who deem abortions immoral when the mother's health is not threatened have as much right to argue for passing laws banning most such abortions as other citizens do to pass laws banning racial discrimination.

Ah, the skeptic may argue, but what if Muslims deem human contact with a dog (except, according to Muslim jurists, for security purposes, farming and hunting) an immoral act, not just a ritually prohibited act for Muslims?

If indeed such were the Muslim argument, we would have an example of an unbridgeable difference between a Muslim conception of morality and that of non-Muslims.

There is then no analogy between Christians wanting to use the democratic process to ban a practice regarded by hundreds of millions of non-Christians as immoral and the Muslim ban on human contact with dogs, a practice regarded by no non-Muslims as immoral.

The appropriate analogy to Muslim taxi drivers refusing to take passengers accompanied by a dog or carrying a bottle of wine would be religious Jewish taxi drivers refusing to take passengers eating a ham sandwich or Mormon drivers refusing to take passengers drinking alcoholic or caffeinated drinks.

But such Jewish or Mormon examples don't exist (and if they did, religious Jews and Mormons would regard such persons as crackpots). They do not exist because Jews and Mormons do not believe that non-Jews are required to change their behavior owing to Judaism's or Mormonism's distinctive laws. Religious Muslims, on the other hand, do believe that wherever applicable, non-Muslims should change their behavior in the light of Islam's distinctive laws. And that difference is at least as important to Muslim-non-Muslim relations as the vexing issue of violent Muslims.

As for the difference between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians, a Christian mailman in Denver called my radio show to say that despite his profound religious objections to pornography, he could not imagine objecting to delivering even the raunchiest porn to homes that ordered it. First, religious non-Muslims, especially in America, believe that liberty, too, is a religious value; that is why Christians put a quote about liberty from the Torah on the Liberty Bell. And second, they have no doctrine that holds outsiders bound to their religious practices.

And that is why there may be more to be learned about the future of religious Muslims' relations with non-Muslims from Muslim taxi drivers than from Muslim terrorists.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 18, 2006.


Sen. Frist said that the Taliban are too strong to defeat. He recommended bringing them into a coalition government (NY Sun, 10/3, p.5).

He implies that they would take that as a constructive opportunity to legislate some of their program, eliminating the need to fight for it.

Their program is to eliminate all other programs but their backward Islamist one. Bringing them into the government would deprive the people of at least some of their rights. Being Muslim, part of their creed is deception. They would retain their forces, continue their terrorism, and gradually take over the country. Women would become chattel, again. Modernizing and civilizing tendencies would be repressed brutally.

Sen. Frist should have figured that out. Apparently he does not understand how vicjious the Taliban are, nor what their jihad is. He apparently is unaware of European experience in making coalitions with the Communists. The Communists usually ended up dominating the democratic parties and came close to taking over the country. One must not give totalitarians a foothold.

The situation in Afghanistan is complicated, for it is not a country but a collection of ethnic or tribal groups, some with warlords that make shifting alliances, resist central government, and make money from the drug trade.

What did the US do about it? We licked the Taliban with the help of minority groups, but failed to put enough troops there to wipe the Taliban out and put down all the warlords. We overlooked the likelihood of interference by Iran and Pakistan. We installed a weak central government.

The government's weakness brought chaos. The Taliban were able to return and promise order, same as their counterparts did in taking over Somalia, promise to impose order by deposing the warlords


She hoped Israel would ease travel restrictions, "because the economic situation in the territories is, of course, made very much worse if there is not the ability to move through some of the crossings." (Philip Shenon, NY Times, 10/4, A8.)

Never have I heard of her demanding that the Arabs end the terrorist situation in the territories, which hampers Jews' ability to move around and that, in turn, compels the government, when it is being responsible to its people and not responsive to US demands, to impose travel restrictions upon those Arabs. Her sympathy is one way, and her demand for concessions is one way. Both are the wrong way.

Why shouldn't Israel make the P.A. economy worse? The P.A. launched wars of aggression against Israel, using criminal means, intended to destroy the Jewish state and the Jewish people along with it. Israel is derelict in not undermining the P.A. economy. The US should be siding with Israel against the common jihadist enemy. UNO ROLE IN KIDNAPPING OF ISRAELI TROOPS

In 2004, Hizbullah kidnapped and murdered three Israeli soldiers. The UNO stonewalled investigation and then was proved to have been an accomplice. Recently, a film was broadcast in Israel and in Lebanon about the kidnapping. It showed Hizbullah training for the mission within sight of UNIFIL. The question not asked was why didn't UNIFIL apprehend the Hizbullah men or warn Israel. As we stated, UNIFIL was an accomplice. The broadcast omitted some of the strongest evidence of UNIFIL participation. The father of one of the slain soldiers released that evidence, to supplement the deficient broadcast (Arutz-7, 9/7).

After UNIFIL collaborated in terrorism and cover-up, Israel should not have allowed it to interfere with its clearing out of Hizbullah, or at least not without protest. Olmert let down his people and persists in incredible naivete.


Secretary-Gen. Annan "will be linked, for all time, to Sbrenica, Rwanda, the Oil-for-Food scandal, and his decisions to pause, en route to Yad Vashem, to place a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat." (NY Sun, 01/3, Ed..)

Having a membership largely corrupt and malign, no wonder the organization permits or performs much evil! An organization formed to uphold freedom and democracy has turned into one whose leader honors a dictatorial terrorist. That's how the Secretary-General gets and keeps his post. Odd that many Americans suggest the Us work more with the UNO.


If ports are unguarded, the terrorists could ship the kidnapped Israeli soldiers to Tehran. Israel would have little chance to retrieve them (Arutz-7, 9/7).

Thus PM Olmert betrays his people and his promises to the families of the victims.


After abandoning Gaza, PM Olmert started a campaign of publicity for national reconciliation over the abandonment. Nevertheless, he still is warning, detaining, arresting, and expelling people over it, such as soldiers who refused to participate in the attacks on their own people, and various opponents (Arutz-7, 9/12).

Israelis need lessons in civil liberties for Jews and in national loyalty.


Engineers, doctors, academics, businessmen and others with marketable skills have been leaving the P.A. for places with regular payrolls and secure business environments and streets (Arutz-7, 9/10).


"The difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is as follows: Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely, that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving G-d. Christianity speaks about the idea that every own land, ruled by its own king and serving G-d. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. " As the Muslims put it, "'Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.'"

Islam does not admit of peace. Its mission is to conquer the other religions. It considers it a violation of the course of history for a country to rid itself of Islamic rule and worse, that Israel now rules a million Muslim citizens. Arafat seemed to make peace with Israel, but used Israeli's relinquishment of acquisition of territory to him to make war on it, as his phased plan lays out.

Iran's President is enthused with the notion of conjuring up the "hidden imam" by an Armageddon. That is his special motive in building nuclear weapons (Arutz-7, 9/15). We shouldn't let people with 7th century mentalities rule modern countries.

We in the West haven't heard of the half of Muslim atrocities, such as those committed in the conquest of India and the enslavement of Greeks.


UNIFIL's new commander said that UNIFIL: (1) Will not diarm Hizbullah; (2) Will not immediately open fire on Hizbullah men moving to attack Israel or making an attack; (3) Will not guard against arms coming to Hizbullah through the Syrian border; (4) Will not stop Hizbullah supporters from throwing stones at Israeli patrols along its border.

He worries about Israeli intelligence-seeking flights over the border, which he finds dangerous and says are no longer needed now that UNIFIL is there. But since UNIFIL won't do anything, what good is its presence? Israel won't invite European help, again.

If Europe played a constructive role in Lebanon, Israel might have let it help "in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories as well. One could even speculate about a revival of the idea of an Israeli withdrawal from most of the W. Bank, with a European force similar to UNIFIL taking responsibility for the area evacuated." (Hillel Halkin, NY Sun, 10/3, Op.-Ed..) Trade land for peace by getting the Arabs to withdraw.

Mr. Halkin did it again, as always. He writes what seems to be a good analysis, and then ends with his defeatist obsession to abandon Jewish territory. If he understood the phased plan and that Islam cannot make peace with a Jewish state on land Islam once had conquered, he might not suggest territorial concession. This time he refers to that territory in pro-Arab terminology, as "Israeli-occupied Palestinian." Territory within the Jewish homeland that the Mandate calls for Jews to settle in cannot be occupied by Israel nor should it be called Arab territories. Actually Israel was not running Judea-Samaria, except for the small part Jews live in, but the Arabs made war on Israel, so the IDF again has forces there.


The "NY Times" published leaked excerpts from an intelligence evaluation of the Iraq war. What was printed emphasized that the war had brought people into jihad.

Since then, the full publication has been published. It made two other points. One is that if Muslims think we lost the war, more would join jihad. The other is that if Muslims think that the jihadists lost the war, fewer would be inspired to persist. That puts a different complexion upon the matter (Michael Barone, NY Sun, 10/3, Op.-Ed.).

The true complexion is that if we forfeit this war, we face a greater one. The intelligence agents were unethical to leak parts of the report out of context, to support their position. Did the "Times" know what was in the full report, at that time?


"Dershowitz continues, "The total number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Israeli weapons during a month of ferocious defensive warfare was a fraction of the number of innocent Muslims killed by other Muslims during that same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and other areas of Muslim-on-Muslim civil strife. Yet the deaths caused by Muslims received a fraction of the attention devoted to alleged Israeli 'crimes.' This lack of concern for Muslims by other Muslims - and the lack of focus by so-called human rights organizations on these deaths - is bigotry, pure and simple." (Arutz-7, 9/15).

The right-to-life people should be anti-Muslim, for the Muslims have little concern for life. When they express concern, it is for propaganda.


Oil prices cannot be expected to fall much lower than their present range, more than $60 per barrel. One reason is that demand has been rising, but the existing producers cannot extract significantly more oil. (Saudi and Iranian wells are aging.) Another reason is that it will take some time for planned refineries to be built and prepare the oil for use (IMRA, 9/17).

A Democrat told me, without citing her source, that the price was dropped recently in order to help Republicans win the coming election. That's so cynical, it is amusing.


His spokesman said that the basis for his coalition with the Hamas regime should be the Oslo accords. The PLO, however, never abided by them. Contrary to the accords, the PLO had illegal militias, attacked Israel, and integrated terrorists into the official police against Israeli wishes (IMRA, 9/17).

What Abbas means is that if Hamas pretends to endorse Oslo, just as Arafat and Abbas pretended, then it could form a coalition government with Abbas and the rest of the world could pretend that it is ethical to resume financial aid to the P.A.. The P.A. got a lot of foreign aid. Could it be for being the enemy of the Jewish state?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by 17, October 17, 2006.


Remember that article I sent you about the staging of the death of that little boy-Mohammed Al Durah- at the beginning of the Intifada?

How it was all a fake, a performance put on by Pallywood?

Well, Richard Landes who publicized this, is now testifying in a trial in France in a case brought by the journalists at French TV who faked the whole thing and now want to defend their "honor." The only problem is, they are losing. They didn't even show up for the trial they initiated, which continues next week. Instead of defending themselves, they've become the defendants.

Below, Dr. Landes shares some insights about the trial and the Al Durah blood libel in an article in The New Republic. It is called "How French Tv Fudged The Death Of Mohammed Al Durah'" Camera Obscura, TNR Online.


On September 30, 2000, images of 12-year-old Mohammed Al Durah and his father--cowering behind a arrel at Netzarim Junction, in the Gaza Strip--circulated globally, along with a claim that they had been the targeted victims of Israeli fire. If Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount two days earlier had sparked riots, these images triggered all-out war. The ensuing horror and outrage swept away any questions about its reliability. Indignant observers dismissed any Israeli attempt to deny responsibility as "blaming the victim."

But, by 2002, two documentaries--one German, one French--raised troubling questions. The raw footage (http://www.seconddraft.org/rushes.php) from that day reveals pervasive staging; no evidence (certainly not the most widely circulated tape offers evidence of Israeli fire directed at the barrel, much less of Israelis targeting the pair; given the angles, the Israelis could scarcely have hit the pair at all, much less 12 times (indeed the only two bullets that hit the wall above them came from the Palestinian side, inexplicably 90 degrees off target); there was no sign of blood on the ground where the father and son reportedly bled for 20 minutes; there was no footage of an ambulance evacuation or arrival at the hospital; there was no autopsy; and none of the dozen cameraman present filmed anything that could substantiate the claim that the father and son had been hit, much less that the Israelis had targeted them. These documentaries had limited exposure, in part thanks to France2's refusal to run the one by a sister station in Germany. But they did spark a demonstration in Paris outside the France2 offices by citizens outraged to discover that so horrendous an image may well have been a fake.

The demonstrations apparently ruffled feathers. Some writers lambasted France2's coverage--most prominently Philippe Karsenty, who called for Al Durah beat chief Charles Enderlin and France2 chief Arlette Chabot to resign, and, in response, Enderlin and France2 itself--using the same law invoked against Emile Zola in the Dreyfus Affair--have accused three critics (including arsenty) of "striking at their honor and respectability."

Now, four years later, the lawsuits are finally coming to trial in Room 17 of the Palais de Justice in Paris. The three suits (one for each defendant) come in rapid succession--September 14, October 26, and November 30--with judgments four weeks following each hearing. And, in at least two of the trials, I, a medieval historian, have been asked to testify.

I have become involved for two reasons. First of all, I noted almost immediately that Palestinians and anti-Zionists, insisting that Israel killed the boy on purpose, used Al Durah in a way familiar to medievalists--as a blood libel. This was the first blood libel of the twenty-first century, rendered global by cable and the Internet. Indeed, within a week, crowds the world over shouted "We want Jewish blood!" and "Death to the Jews!". For Europeans in particular, the libelous image came as balm to a troubled soul: "This death erases, annuls that of the little boy in the Warsaw Gherro," intoned Europe1 editorialist Catherine Nay. The Israelis were the new Nazis.

And second, when I saw the raw footage in the summer of 2003--especially when I saw the scene Enderlin had cut, wherein the boy(allegedly shot in the stomach, but holding his hand over his eyes) picks up his elbow and looks around--I realized that this was not a film of a boy dying, but a clumsily staged scene.

On October 31, 2003, at the studios of France2 in Jerusalem in the company of Charles Enderlin and his Israeli cameraman, I saw the raw footage (http://www.seconddraft.org/france2.php) of Al Durah from the only Palestinian cameraman who actually captured the scene on film--footage France2 still refuses to release for public examination. I was floored. The tapes feature a long succession of obviously faked injuries; brutal, hasty evacuation scenes; and people ducking for cover while others stand around. One fellow grabbed his leg in agony, then, upon seeing that no one would come to carry him away, walked away without a limp. It was stunning. That was no cameraman's conspiracy: It was everyone--a public secret about which news consumers had no clue.

But the real shock came when I mentioned this to Enderlin, who said he trusted this cameraman. "They always do that," he said. "It's a cultural style." So why wouldn't they have faked Al Durah? "They're not good enough," he said. A year later, the higher-up at France2 made the same remark to three French journalists who also noted the pervasive staging: "You know well that it's always like that," they said.

I tried unsuccessfully to interest the mainstream press in this obvious fakery, but nobody was interested. "I don't know how much appetite there is for this material here," one person at a major studio told me. So I made Pallywood (Palestinian Hollywood) http://youtube.com/watch?v=zTX3CZqDyOA --a video-essay showing the dishonesty and the still-more-astounding Western complicity in using this footage to inform us about the Middle East. Then I made a follow-up, Al Durah: The Making of an Icon http://youtube.com/watch?v=pOwZ8wgV7I4 (and soon, Icon of Hatred). I established a website, The Second Draft (http://www.seconddraft.org/), where I posted the movies along with my evidence so that, unlike France2, people could check my sources. And now the accused have asked me to testify.

Why did they want me? In trying to dismiss my first testimony, the plaintiff's lawyer wondered, "what does he know about images? He's a medievalist." Well, I know about the power of images, of narratives, and of forgeries, and especially blood libels. And, since my first book, Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History
(http://www.powells.com/partner/24626/biblio/0674755308), was about a set of forgeries that continued to fool historians for decades even after a critic revealed them as fakes in the 1920s, I also know something about the difficulty of getting specialists to acknowledge they were duped.

But this image goes beyond blood libel and anti-Semitism, beyond blackening Israel's image and whitewashing Palestinian violence. Al Durah became the icon not only of the Intifada, but of global jihad. Within months of the incident, bin Laden came out with a recruiting video that featured extensive Pallywood footage and highlighted Al Durah. Months later, Pakistani jihadis killed Daniel Pearl, interweaving Al Durah's image into their tape of the execution.

In 2000, anyone told of Muslim plans to Islamicize the West laughed with scorn. It was the least of Western worries. Today, some have already given up Europe for lost; others see it in the balance; and others are finally awakening with shock to the radical shift in the balance of forces. And every aspect of l'affaire Al Durah is emblematic of why: from the Palestinian forces that staged it; to the Western mainstream press and the NGOs that presented it as news without asking hard questions (and that believed any subsequent Palestinian claims of Israelis killing children and resisted efforts at correction); to the Muslim world that turned it into an icon of hatred and a call to genocidal holy war; to the "leftist" revolutionaries who jumped on the jihad bandwagon in Durban, South Africa; to a public distressingly eager for "dirt" on Israel and unaware of the forces empowered by diffusing such poisons.

Three court trials, then--in which France2 seeks to bury any serious assessment of their coverage--are also trials of France's ability to defend her republican values against an Islamist onslaught that it seems ill-equipped to resist. And, as France goes, so goes Europe. (Would France have it any other way?)

The plaintiff at the first trial, on September 14, was Philippe Karsenty of Media-Ratings, the boldest of France2's critics. No one from France2 showed up. Its solitary lawyer had no witnesses, no questions for Karsenty's witnesses, and no comments about the evidence damning her clients. Her summation insisted on France2's honor and reputation, offered a letter of praise from President Jacques Chirac, and cast aspersions on the defense's witnesses.Then the procureur de la republique (a court-appointed officer charged with assessing the case in the interests of civil society) gave her nonbinding opinion. She rebuked France2 for not addressing the evidence, for not showing their raw footage, and for not even showing up in court. She further admitted that, although Karsenty had impugned Enderlin's and France2's reputations, he had offered enough evidence to make such assertions a legitimate part of public discourse. Judgment on Karsenty's case is Thursday. Next trial: October 26. So far, the best coverage--surprise!--comes from the blogosphere

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Cinnamon Stillwell, October 17, 2006.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the claim has often been made that no further acts of terrorism have occurred on U.S. soil. But anyone following the news closely knows better.

While there has not yet been another large-scale attack, a number of terrorist plots have been broken up and a variety of suspicious crimes and incidents have occurred across the nation. But each time, authorities seem to have made every effort to downplay the terrorism angle.

News of the shooting rampage at Seattle's Jewish Federation building last month involved the usual avoidance of the term "terrorism." Instead, the attack was labeled a hate crime and the perpetrator, Naveed Afzal Haq, just another in a long line of lone gunmen with a history of mental instability. As Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels put it,[1] "This was a purposeful, hateful act, as far as we know by an individual acting on his own."

While this may be true, trying to separate Haq's actions from the larger context of the war on terrorism is tunnel vision at its worst. It is not just hate that motivates such acts, but ideology. One needn't be a bona fide member of an Islamic terrorist group to share their outlook.

Haq made his motivations quite clear when he told[2] a 911 operator during the attack that he was a "Muslim American" who was "angry with Israel" and the United States for the war in Iraq. "I want these Jews to get out -- I'm tired of getting pushed around, and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East," he added.

Indeed, it was Haq's "anger" that led him to stake out the building of a prominent Jewish organization, hide behind a vestibule, kidnap a 14-year-old girl at gunpoint as she entered the building and then proceed to shoot six women, including one who was 17 weeks pregnant, almost all in the stomach. One of the victims died on the scene and several remain in the hospital.

There are also questions about Haq's background[3] that should at least raise a flag or two. His father, Mian Haq, founded the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities, which is affiliated with Saudi-financed Wahhabist organizations. An engineer, Mian Haq and other members of the local Pakistani American community work for the nearby Hanford Site (a nuclear reservation). The junior Haq was not known to be an observant Muslim, and a Christian evangelical organization in the Tri-Cities area claims that he was baptized last year. But Haq was clearly identifying himself as a Muslim at the time of the shooting.

The prosecutor in the case, Norm Maleng, did concede[4] that the attack involved "the seeds from which the war on terror springs." In fact, just 48 hours before Haq's killing spree, Al-Jazeera ran a video[5] of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri exhorting "Muslims everywhere -- to fight and become martyrs in the war against the Zionists and the crusaders." And it appears that that's exactly what Haq did.

Officialdom in Denial

This was the hardly the first time that a Muslim seemingly unconnected to organized terrorist groups nevertheless acted out their agenda. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes even came up with a term[6] to describe this phenomenon: Sudden Jihad Syndrome.[7]

Pipes and other scholars, such as Robert Spencer, have been tracking these cases for years. It is not certain that Islamist ideology was the motivation in each instance. But strangely enough, authorities almost always dismissed the possibility from the onset. Either that or they jumped on the "no possible known motive" bandwagon. The following examples bear this pattern out:

  • March 2006: Mohammad Taheri-azar plowed into a group of students at the University of North Carolina with his SUV. Afterward, he surrendered to authorities with a 911 call, telling them[8] that he was trying to "punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world." Meanwhile, in a letter[9] to the police, Taheri-azar spoke of exercising "the right of violent retaliation that Allah" had given him. Nonetheless, local officials and university officials immediately ruled out terrorism, leading several student groups to hold an "anti-terrorism" rally in protest.

  • September 2005: University of Oklahoma engineering student Joel Henry Hinrichs III blew himself up[10] outside a packed stadium in what was dubbed a suicide. But it was more likely a botched suicide bombing. Beyond incriminating evidence found in his apartment, Hinrichs had connections to a local mosque and appears to have been a convert to Islam. Nonetheless, university officials and authorities studiously avoided the term "terrorism" and instead focused on Hinrichs' alleged history of personal problems.

  • January 2005: The Coptic Christian Armanious family, originally from Egypt, was found dead in their home in Jersey City, all with their throats slit. Hossam, the father, had been debating religion with Muslims on a Middle Eastern chat room and had received at least one death threat. The entire family had been involved in converting Muslims to Christianity, and the daughter, Sylvia, was particularly outspoken. When her body was found,[11] it was discovered that she had been stabbed in the chest and the wrist, precisely where she wore a tattoo of a Coptic cross. Authorities chalked up the case not to religious hatred or terrorism but to a robbery gone bad. But questions remain[12] about the true impetus for the murders.

  • August 2003: Saudi Mohammed Ali Alayed slit the throat of former friend and fellow Houston Community College student Ariel Sellouk, almost decapitating him in the process. The fact that Sellouk was Jewish and that Alayed had broken with him right after becoming a more devout Muslim played no part in the trial.[13] Not only was the term "terrorism" avoided, even "hate" and "anti-Semitism" were left out of the equation. To this day, Alayed's motive remains a mystery as far as the official version is concerned.

  • October 2002: The "Beltway Snipers" John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo went on a killing spree across Maryland and Virginia, terrorizing the nation. Despite the fact that Muhammed was a convert to Islam and member of the Nation of Islam, authorities and media coverage[14] focused solely on his troubled background and his ties to the military. Malvo was portrayed simply as a young victim of Muhammed's sinister tutelage. Rarely was jihad or terrorism mentioned. Later, Malvo's defense attorneys, attempting to illustrate their client's mental instability, presented the judge in his trial with Malvo's jailhouse drawings.[15] Along with anti-American sentiments and drawings of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the burning towers of the World Trade Center, Malvo repeatedly emphasized jihad against America.[16]

  • July 2002: Egyptian immigrant Hesham Mohamed Hadayet walked into Los Angeles International Airport on the Fourth of July (also his birthday) and opened fire at an El Al (the Israeli government-owned airline) counter, killing an employee and a customer. Hadayet also stabbed an El Al security guard before he himself was shot. Hadayet had been known to express hatred for Jews, Israel and the United States, and according to his political asylum application,[17] which was denied, he had been involved with an Egyptian Islamist group. The initial conclusion was that there was "nothing to indicate terrorism"[18] and that it was simply an "isolated incident," although officials finally dubbed the case[19] an act of terrorism almost a year later.

It's possible that in these cases authorities were simply hesitant to release sensitive information that might have threatened the investigation at hand. But in a time when average citizens can access all sorts of information for themselves on the Internet, this policy of official denial is becoming untenable.

Besides, Americans deserve to know the truth about the threats to their lives and their country. It may be uncomfortable for some to swallow, but it helps no one, least of all those within the Muslim community working for reform, to shield the public from reality. For one cannot properly fight a battle if its true nature remains obscured.

Similarly, at a certain point, authorities will need to take the blinders off and start acknowledging that lone gunmen and Islamic terrorism are not mutually exclusive. As President Bush has repeatedly emphasized,[20] "this is a different kind of war" and therefore a different kind of thinking is needed in order to win it. Unfortunately, it is our own officials who most seem to need an update.


1.  " One dead in hate-crime shooting at Jewish center," July 29, 2006, CNN,

2. "Charges Filed in 'Heinous, Tragic Hate Crime'" August 2, 2006, Kiro 7,

3. Stephen Schwartz, "The Shadow of Seattle," August 2, 2006, The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

(www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php? id=188527&PHPSESSID=d9202e4654c9748bb9e3b664514d66c7).

4. Mike Carter, Natalie Singer and Jennifer Sullivan, "Haq allegedly shot woman, then chased her up stairs, killed her," August 3, 2006, Seattle Times,
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2003171616_haq03m.html).

5.  Andrew Cochran, "Entire Zawahiri Video Now Available," July 29, 2006, Counterterrorism Blog,
(http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/07/ entire_zawahiri_video_now_avai.php).

6. Daniel Pipes, "Sudden Jihad Syndrome (in North Carolina)," March 14, 2006, New York Sun,

7. Daniel Pipes, "Sudden Jihad Syndrome in Seattle," August 9, 2006, Front Page Magazine,

8.  "Taheri-azar Wanted To Punish U.S. Govt., He Says In 911 Call," March 6, 2006, WRAL,

9.  Robert Spencer, "Killing for Allah," March 29, 2006, Front Page Magazine

10. Cinnamon Stillwell, "Terrorism Strikes the Heartland," October 7 2006, Accuraca in MEI,

11.  Robert Spencer, "New Jersey: an Islamic murder of Coptic Christians?," January 16, 2005, Jihad Watch

12. Robert Spencer, "Final note on the New Jersey murders," March 5, 2005, Jihad Watch,

13. "The Religion of Peace Strikes Again," Reductio Ad Absurdum weblog,

14. Daniel Pipes, "The Snipers: Crazy or Jihadis?," October 29, 2002, New York Post,

15. ;Robert Spencer, "Malvo sketches depicted 'jihad'," December 5, 2003, Jihad Watch,

16.  Andrea F. Siegel, "Malvo sketches depicted 'jihad'," December 4, 2003, Baltimore Sun,
(www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md. malvo04dec04,0,3960951.story?coll=bal-local-headlines).

17. Kelli Arena, "Airport gunman spoke of terrorism allegation in '92 interview," September 25, 2002, CNN,

18. Daniel Pipes, "Terror & Denial [by Hadayat at LAX]," July 9, 2002, New York Post,

19.  "FBI, Justice: El Al attack was terrorism," April 12, 2003, CNN,

20. "President Honors Veterans of Foreign Wars at National Convention," August, 2005,

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com

This version appeared on the San Francisco Gate website: August 9, 2006,
(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ g/a/2006/08/09/cstillwell.DTL)

[Editor's note: For additional information on "isolated incidents", see "Terrorist attacks reported as "isolated incidents," August 17, 2006, http://www.akdart.com/med14.html]

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 17, 2006.


How does one compare the menace posed by the different strains of totalitarianism? By murders done and planned. The Nazi regime had embarked upon mass-murder, but was stopped before it extended its "final solution" as such to gentiles, though signs of intent were there.

The Soviet Union murdered millions twice as mamy, especially of its own people. That regime supposedly is gone, but Putin either is reviving aspects of it or of traditional Russian authoritarianism and imperialism. The USSR was responsible about weapons of mass-destruction, but Putin helps proliferate them among less responsible states.

China murdered more than the Nazis and Soviets combined. It has slave labor, along with a capitalist economy. It's ambition is shadowy, but it is building a huge military.

The Islamists are taking over education in Egypt and other Muslim states, turning them Islamist. They indoctrinate more people in greater hatred and murder than the Nazis and Communists ever could. That makes the Islamists more intolerant and dangerous. Can "moderate" Muslims stop them? What moderates? Islam approves of jihad.

Muslims are working to expand their hegemony all over, including taking over nuclear armed Europe. Diffused now, the Islamists seek a cohesive empire and weapons of mass-destruction. Some emphasize willingness to use such weapons, regardless of the consequences to them. They are more frightening than were the Communists.

Earlier, Islam generally did not commit genocide. Now they have begun doing so. Their hatred of Christians and Jews and their threats indicates a switch from a policy of protection-with-humiliation towards Christians and Jews and Americans, to genocide, either as such or in the course of warfare with nuclear weapons.

There are individual, non-Islamic states that may be as bad or worse, in their region. N. Korea is one. However, most such states do not have grand imperial ambitions.

In my judgment, Islam is the clearer and more present danger among totalitarians.


I find editorials in the NY Sun and NY Times, which may take opposite sides on Zionism, unfair. They may mention some opposing arguments, but rarely sufficiently to do them justice. It's cowardly and arrogant to treat with contempt opposition that they bar from their papers.

The origin of "Times" anti-Zionism was in its Reform Jewish owners' fear of being accused of dual loyalty, if they supported the Jewish people as a nationality rather than just as a religion. Then they stopped supporting the religion, and converted to Protestantism. Although no longer having to worry about being accused of dual loyalty, the unethical anti-Zionist ethos there continues, perhaps because the publishers have become leftist in foreign policy. The former Jewish owners brought in anti-Zionists, most of whom are leftist, and they set the cultural tone of the publication.


Driving four Arab fellow-workers home, an Israeli resident of Judea-Samaria shot three to death and wounded a fourth, in the hope of thwarting Israeli abandonment of Gaza. The same brief said the death toll was four and a fifth was wounded. He was convicted and sentenced to four consecutive life terms plus 12 years plus fines (Ali Daraghmeh, NY Sun, 9/28m, p.7 from AP). He should have known that his ploy would not work.

I included this news, because anti-Zionists often claim without evidence that settlers keep attacking Arabs. They generalize without examples. It is so rare as to be newsworthy. By contrast, many times, Palestinian Arabs have murdered Jewish co-workers.


Brandeis is America's Jewish-founded, non-sectarian college, more than half of whose students are Jewish. This year, Brandeis U. hired Khalil Shikaki as a senior lecturer on the Mideast, although he was a founder of the World & Islam Studies Enterprise, shut down by the government for association with the terrorist Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Evidence in court indicated that Shikaki had participated in Islamic Jihad operations until 1995. A Brandeis student was murdered by Islamic Jihad. Brandeis refused to take up the matter on the grounds that Shikaki had not been indicted for any crime.

This April, Brandeis set up a formal relationship with Al-Quds U. of Jerusalem. The Al-Quds website denies there was a First Jewish Temple and a Jewish historical connection with Jerusalem, accuses Israel of undermining the foundation of the Dome of the Rock, and asserts that the "Palestinians" are descended from the aboriginal Canaanites. On the advisory board of Brandeis' Intl. Center for Ethics sits Pres. of Al-Quds U. Sari Nusseibeh. He has demonized Israelis, praised jihadists, justified killing so-called Palestinian 'collaborators,' and been arrested by Israel for spying for Iraq.

Brandeis offered an honorary degree to playwrite Tony Kushner. Kushner wrote "Munich," which was inaccurate about Israel and sympathetic to Arab terrorists. He has accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and destroying Palestinian Arab cultures. He is a Board Member of a group that advocates boycott of Israel. He calls Zionism shameful.

Brandeis' Goldfarb Library held an exhibit, "Voices from Palestine," of children's paintings that were pro-PLO and anti-Israel propaganda, rather than just art. It was about "dreams of Liberation" from Zionist "aggression" and claimed all of Israel as Arab.

All those activities were protested. Brandeis canceled the exhibit after four days, but did not take any other action. It claimed not to have known of Kushner's antagonism towards Israel, but defended the award to him as for his "art." (ZOA Report, Fall 2006.) The Canaanites were absorbed into the Jewish nation long before the Arabs invaded the Holy Land from the Arabian Peninsula. Al-Quds' claim is false. Americans should learn that the Palestinian Arabs are full of false claims. What a poor excuse, to ignore evidence until a prosecutor acts on it! The University didn't check whom it was appointing and awarding, and didn't care. It forfeits respect.

American colleges should shun Arab colleges and most Arab professors. The Arabs are enemy propagandists who don't know or care about the facts, lacking academic integrity as they do.


"Walking the streets of Gaza, you get the feeling that you have to close your eyes: anarchy everywhere, policemen who don't care about public order, boys carrying guns, people setting up condolence tents in the middle of the street, and murders between rival families. Gaza has become a garbage dump, with a stink everywhere and sewage everywhere. The government can't do a thing, the opposition watches, the two sides fight between them, the Presidency is helpless; we have caught the bug of apathy." (Arutz-7, 9/4.) Caught from whom?

They admit their disgusting failure. They had no purpose and no unity except in trying to conquer Israel. They don't deserve part of the Jewish homeland.


1, Mishandled the war

2. Served his friend's interest

3. Appointed friends and political allies to no-show jobs

4. Enable a developer to build twice as many units as originally allowed, in return for paying the developer hundreds of thousands below market price for an apartment

5. Received as bribes 240 fancy pens worth a total of hundreds of thousands of dollars. One was from a businessman who wanted a golf course removed from the Israel Lands Authority. Olmert tried but failed to get the change. The businessman gave Olmert a pen. Olmert tried to remove the pens from his house. That may be obstruction of justice (Arutz-7). The pen is mightier than his word.


Most of the incidents are by college students, in physical or verbal assaults, including e-mail (Arutz-7, 9/6).

What is college for, but to educate youth to take a position of responsibility in our tolerant society.


A Hassid prayed while his Air Canada plane was taxiing before the flight to New York. A flight attendant told him that his praying, involving swaying, was making other passengers nervous. The attendant knew he was not a Muslim (though that is not yet a reason to bar a passenger), but asked him to leave the plane.

"Air Canada Jazz later said it received more than one complaint about the man's behavior, and that 'the crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers.'" Montreal Jewish leaders said the solution would have been to explain the situation to the other passengers. "B'nai Brith Canada offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training, CBC reported." (Arutz-7, 9/6.)

"Interest" or prejudice? What "interest" of the other passengers? How were they being harmed? From a few complaints to a "majority?" I think the airline acted highhandedly. If it doesn't accept the offer of free training, it should be prosecuted for discrimination.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Singer, October 17, 2006.

King Abdullah of Jordan is jittery and for very good reason.

He has publicly expressed his growing concern at the continuing power struggles, internal fighting and economic disaster occurring in Gaza and the implications this will have for the "two-state solution" sponsored almost four years ago by America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - the so called Quartet.

The Quartet's proposal called for the creation of a 23 rd independent Arab State within Gaza and the West Bank - the remaining 6% of the former League of Nations Mandate for Palestine unallocated between Israel (17%) and Jordan (77%).

The Quartet has suffered acute embarrassment and loss of face as the plan still remains unimplemented in even one small detail, whilst Arab intransigence continues to deny any claim by Israel to even one square kilometre of this territory.

Even worse, the Quartet's diplomatic failure to get the process up and running has exposed it as a toothless tiger in the face of resurgent Arab nationalism and mounting Islamic terrorism worldwide.

Seeking to create yet another Arab State within all or part of the West Bank and Gaza - an area of just 6200 square kilometres - rather than dividing this territory between the 90000 square kilometres of Jordan and the 22000 square kilometres of Israel has proved to be an error of disastrous proportions.

The Quartet endorsed the claim that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza were entitled to a separate State of their own even though they were no different in religion, language or culture to their brethren and families living less than one hour's drive away.

Additional Arab League demands for the transfer of 400000 Jews back to Israel, as well as the return of millions of Arabs or their descendants to Israel displaced as a result of the War in 1948 effectively ended any possibility of the Quartet's plan ever succeeding.

Now King Abdullah has had enough and has firmly spoken out against these failed Arab policies.

In an interview published in the Khaleej Times on 11 October 2006, King Abdullah declared:

"I really think that by the first half of 2007 we might wake up to reality and realise that the two-state solution is no longer attainable, and then what?"

He gave further vent to his frustration by saying:

"I think we are really running out of time. Physically on the ground and geographically, I think there is less and less of a West Bank and Jerusalem to talk about"

He warned:

"We want to go back to the 1967 borders. We are talking about that today. Are we going to talk about that tomorrow though? This is the danger."

King Abdullah recognises that compromise with Israel to achieve the Quartet's two-state solution will involve the return of something less than the entire West Bank and Gaza.

His view will not resonate well with the Arab League, which is in no mood to moderate its extreme and totally unrealistic demands.

If the two-state solution falls by the wayside as a result, King Abdullah is clearly fearful that another war might break out that could involve Jordan and even possibly lead to an attempt to overthrow his rule in Jordan as radical terrorist groups seek another springboard for their assault on Israel.

The rapidly deteriorating conditions in Gaza and the threat of civil war there spilling over into the West Bank could well see Jordan and possibly Egypt intervening with Israel's support to oust the Hamas Government in Gaza, restore law and order and regain international financial support to assist and rehabilitate the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza to live in peace among themselves and with their neighbours.

This could ultimately involve what should have been the Quartet's objective in the first place - the division of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and possibly Egypt.

This is and has always been the only possible solution for the West Bank and Gaza.

It is a pity that international and Arab diplomacy for the last 13 years has totally focused its efforts on imposing another Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

King Abdullah now fears this diplomacy will come to nought by the first half of 2007.

If this indeed happens, then the opportunity must be taken by Israel, Jordan and Egypt, with the assistance of the Quartet, to restore some sanity and reality by creatively resolving a conflict that has defied everyone's best efforts for the last 125 years.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International -- an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Mrg, October 16, 2006.

This was written by Tovah Lazaroff and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post today.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Monday he intends to move against a number of unauthorized outposts within two weeks, following talks he plans to hold with settler leaders, according to MK Ran Cohen (Meretz).

Settler leaders said they had heard nothing about such discussions except for reports regarding Peretz's comment to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministry on Monday.

"It takes two to tango," said Emily Amrusi, the spokeswoman for the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

She said the council hoped that such talks would take place so that settler leaders would have a chance to dissuade the government from moving against the outposts.

Last week, sources close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not act against the outposts at this time and accused Peretz of bringing up the issue to stop Israel Beiteinu from joining the coalition.

Israel Beiteinu has said it would not enter the government if it moved to dismantle unauthorized outposts.

However early this month, before any talk of expanding the coalition, Peretz spoke with The Jerusalem Post about removing outposts. He was apparently speaking about the 12 (out of a total of 105) outposts that were earmarked for destruction prior to the start of the war with Lebanon.

Peretz spoke out against about the outposts on Monday when quizzed by Cohen at the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee regarding the government's failure to move against them.

"He [Peretz] said he is working on a plan to dismantle the outposts," said Cohen. "I said, 'When?' He replied that he had set aside these two weeks to negotiate with the settlers and after that, 'We will do it,'" Cohen reported.

Also speaking to the panel, Peretz said the IDF was stepping up its anti-terror activity in the Gaza Strip. "Gaza will not become like southern Lebanon," said Peretz.

A high ranking intelligence officer who also briefed the committee said that 17 to 20 terrorists were killed over the weekend.

"We are attacking every terrorist no matter which organization they belong to," said Peretz, who added that the IDF "was not stopping to check the addresses on the missiles to see who had launched them."

The intelligence officer told the panel that Hamas was arming itself and preparing for a different form of combat. For example, the officer said said, Hamas was building an underground military area in Gaza.

Arms are continuing to be smuggled into Gaza from the Rafah border with Egypt and from the sea, including weaponry from Syria, said the officer. Hamas was also receiving military assistance from Iran and Hizbullah, he said.

Some of the Syrian weapons are also making their way to Palestinian areas in Judea and Samaria, and terrorists are traveling to Syria and Iran for training and then returning to Gaza.

Terrorists in the Strip, mostly associated with Hamas, were working to increase the range of Kassam rockets.

Despite the arms buildup by Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza, Peretz said he was not interested in conducting a ground operation in the Strip. He said he hoped that a diplomatic solution would be found to the violence.

Knesset members were also briefed on issues relating to Syria and southern Lebanon.

Syria came out of the war believing there were tactics to that could be used to fight the IDF even though they understand that this came at a great risk, the intelligence offer said, adding that Syria was preparing to fight Israel. Its long-range rockets could reach the north of Israel, he said, and Syria had not closed its border with Iraq.

Peretz said the IAF would continue to fly over southern Lebanon to gather valuable intelligence. He said the flights were a contentious subject in the international community and that this was likely to get worse. But Israel had no choice in the matter, Peretz said.

Without such flights, Israel would not be able to monitor violations of the cease-fire, Peretz said. "We would be blind to what is happening." Based on information acquired in this fashion, Israel believed that Syria has renewed its arms smuggling into Lebanon, Peretz said. He added that proof of this violation of Security Council Resolution 1701 had only been gathered three or four days ago.

"UN Resolution 1701 has not been fulfilled," he said, because arms were still being smuggled into the country and the two IDF soldiers Hizbullah kidnapped on July 12 had not been returned.

The intelligence officer said additional violations were evidence by the fact that Hizbullah has not been disbanded and its arms were hidden in southern Lebanon.

Contact the poster at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 16, 2006.

Newspapers devote a lot of space to nonsense, but bar intelligent dissent for "lack of space." Informed readers read helplessly what they know should be contested. So it was with Warren Kozak's attack on conspiracy theorists (NY Sun, 9/29, Op.-Ed.).

In his world, there are no conspiracies. In mine, half of government is deception, sometimes lying, sometimes plotting, and the other half is falsely accused of conspiracy. Mr. Kozak questions the reason of whoever suspects a conspiracy. I question his reasons for believing in governmental innocence, contrary to experience.

His method for ridiculing conspiracy buffs is specious. He tars all alleged conspiracies for the falsity of some. He tars all buffs for the nonsense of some. That is demagoguery, not logic.

Was there a conspiracy to assassinate Pres. Kennedy? Kozak lists the types of people who think there was. It runs the gamut. It's funny to read. But there is no logic in that to indicate that they are wrong, just as the Muslims have no logic in their fantasies about current matters. Each case is individual. Evidence is needed.

Sure the Muslims suspect everybody else of everything. Ridicule them. Don't deny that there are some conspiracies.

Let's cite a few more conspiracies, besides those I mentioned in earlier pieces. The forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a conspiracy by the Czarist government to divert attention from their failures to the Jewish people.

Islamists conspire to attack and overthrow governments, while pretending to be moderate and charitable.

The US, Arabs, and Israeli Left conspired to impose Oslo on Israel. Arafat and the State Dept. wanted to undermine Israel, and the Left gave false assurances about it.

Pres. Bush, among others, appoints enemies of the environmental regulations to regulatory posts to sabotage those regulations, as he does by cutting enforcement budgets and devising programs. His latest program is "Affordable Water" -- cities don't have to purify drinking water if it would cost a lot. He pretends to protect the environment he actually scuttles or sells off.

Pres. Roosevelt and PM Churchill held refugee conferences for the purpose of soothing the Jewish people during the Holocaust, but had agreed in advance not to offer many Jewish refugees haven. Pretenders, they were conspirators.

The Soviets sponsored peace movements and pretended to be "progressive," but had vast concentration camps and stimulated rebellions in the name of "national liberation."

Some business frauds were conspiracies. Some government bailouts come close to conspiracy to favor rich groups in the name of a popular principle. One might consider the whole US legislature conspirators who tax in order to gain credit from the lobbyists among whom they distribute the revenues for no public purpose. But that digresses. You can see that there were major conspiracies and minor ones. It is common. ANOTHER EXPLANATION FOR IDF UNDER-SUPPLY For two years, the IDF built a regional supply system. The theory was that army units could get supplies from any center, en route to battle. During the Lebanon war, some units found the center's supply already requisitioned (IMRA, 9/17). The plan wasn't organized. NEW WARNING, WHAT PLANNING? Israel's military experts believe that next year, the Arabs in Judea-Samaria will have gained the technical knowledge to build rockets of sufficient range to inflict damage almost all over Israel (IMRA, 9/17). Israel is warned. What is it going to do about it? No indication. Israel rarely plans ahead. So far, it has been lucky despite shortsightedness. It is running out of luck. LEFTIST WOMEN IMPEDE NATIONAL SECURITY An Arab wore a suit in the heat, at a checkpoint. This is suspicious. Was the suit to conceal an explosives vest? Operating procedure is to inspect him more closely. The troops were about to order the man to raise his shirt, when a leftist Jewish women's Arab human rights organization, Checkpoint Watch, telephoned the checkpoint commander. Contending that that Arab "is a respected man," they persuaded the commander to order no inspection. One of the soldiers' parents complained about the commander's behavior. That soldier was removed from the checkpoint (Arutz-7, 9/1). There was at least one case in which soldiers, inhibited by Checkpoint Watch, failed to inspect Arabs carefully, and an Arab set off an explosion, killing a soldier. The parent's complaint was justified. The commander should have been demoted. The organization should be prosecuted for interference with military duty and endangering lives. ISRAEL COULD HAVE DONE THIS WITHOUT WAR Israel is said to be planning to exchange about 800-1000 Arab prisoners in stages, for the three Israeli soldiers held by Hizbullah. Officials indicated that Israel does not intend to release Marwan Barghouti or Hamas leaders (Arutz-7, 9/3). Israeli officials who state in advance what Israel won't concede, often relent. This would be another lopsided exchange. Most Israelis disapprove of such a deal, knowing that it means more of them will be killed by released terrorists. These deals encourage kidnapping to get more prisoners freed, and by not specifying that the prisoners be alive, encourage the Arabs to murder them. Israel doesn't know whether the Israelis are alive. This exorbitant ransom is contrary to Judaism, but Israel doesn't act like a Jewish state. When hundreds of Arab terrorists stream back into the terrorists ranks, the terrorists will claim victory, which it would be. A better deal would be to exchange the prisoners for Olmert, Peres, and Peretz, who failed to win them back.


PM Olmert asserted that the war in Lebanon served to deter Syria from making war on Israel. He said that Syria understands that the restraint with which Israel waged the war would not hold back its forces against Syria. He also claimed that he did not impede the military in Lebanon. Senior IDF officers contradicted him, citing his delaying their use of ground forces by days (Arutz-7, 9/4). The delay thwarted their objective.

He was lying about non-interference with military operations, which he notoriously micro-mismanaged, so why not about the effect of the war on Syria, too? He seems to be grasping for something good to be said about his conduct of the war, in advance of the hearings to be held about it. Likewise, he and Sharon kept grasping for something positive about the withdrawal from Gaza, as each reason they gave was shown false.

To claim that Syria was deterred is ridiculous. There was no indication that Syria intended to go to war at that time. The opposite is more likely. Israel's relatively poor showing and Olmert's hesitancy induced the Arabs to consider Israel vulnerable. Olmert's assurances to Syria that Israel would not bomb Syrian trucks moving arms in Syria en route to resupply Hizbullah, seemed weak. A confident premier would have warned Syria to stop trucking those arms or Israel would bomb the Syrian trucks in Syria and their depots. That could have deterred Syria. If not, actual bombing could have. It also could have brought war. Far from deterring Syria, Syria mobilized, but the IDF did not move up its forces until some time had passed, and Olmert looked weak.


This had come up before the war in Lebanon, but the war has stimulated strenuous efforts by European organizations to gather evidence. These organizations are citing a Shas Cabinet Minister who said that Lebanese villages harboring terrorists should be wiped out and a Labor Minister who said the same about a village that Hizbullah was using to fire upon Israel. The government has warned high-ranking officers to avoid Europe, where the law allows such charges to be made (Arutz-7, 9/4).

Those Ministers did not run the war, and the villagers were not wiped out. Israelis bluster, but it only is talk. Although there was no crime, the officers might be convicted, because truth in Europe bows to prejudice. Europe has been misinformed.

Inconsistently, Europe harbors Islamists who inspire or conspire to commit terrorism.


AI based the accusation on Hizbullah's firing of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities, i.e., at civilians (IMRA, 9/16).

AI has focused primarily on Israel and falsely accusing it of wrongful warfare, but finally couldn't totally ignore the Arabs' constant wrongdoing. If Europeans really opposed war crimes, let its troops disarm Hizbullah and try them for war crimes!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Mrg, October 16, 2006.

From Sweden comes the news (link to Danish newspaper) that as an replacement for honor killings young Muslim women are forced to commit suicide by their families.

"Balcony girls" is the term for girls who are forced to suicide by jumping from balconies of their homes. The young are forced to defend the honor of their families by committing suicide.

The girls may themselves decide on the method. They can suicide by overdosing on pills, hanging, jumping in front of a train or by jumping off the apartment balcony.

The suicides makes it easier for the families. They avoid getting blood on their hands. Not to mention avoiding problems with the authorities.

The girls are pressured into killing themselves by being told: Either you do it yourself or we will kill you.

How widespread is this phenomena? How many young women, including girls, children of 17 or less, are we talking about? We don't exactly know how many honor killings there are either - but many cases are well documented.

The news from Sweden state that 3 out of 5 young Muslim women who turn to the authorities and private support groups have felt pressure to commit suicide.

I am sure this is not only a Swedish problem. In how many western countries does this happen? What about the Muslim world? Maybe we are talking thousands of lives a year? Are there any statistics which confirm the practice? Do more young Muslim women commit suicide than other young women? Maybe a police inquiry in Sweden on three suspect cases will uncover some proof. Just how I don't know as it must be very difficult to prove.

I am deeply appalled. How can any father, mother or sibling kill or pressure a daughter or a sister into killing herself? And this in cold blood? This is barbaric, inhuman and sick. It is just another form of terrorism. Just imagine for one moment the terror of a young women, in some cases a child, when she finds out that her family desires her dead? The horror is unimaginable. How does a father or mother tell this to a daughter? "Sweetheart dearest - we need you dead!"

We must do all in our power to fight this heinous practice - I do not want to share planet with that sort of "people".

Contact the poster at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Mgr, October 16, 2006.

This was written by Yehuda Avner and it appeared October 12, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1159193424599&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) He served on the staff of five prime ministers, including Golda Meir and Menachem Begin. Contact him at avner28@netvision.net.il

Golda Meir, Israel's most celebrated model of straitlaced probity, once gave a pep talk to 15 diplomatic probationers at the Foreign Ministry whose head she was in 1958. Clearly wishing to take our measure, she leaned leisurely into her chair, combed back her bunned hair with the fingers of both hands, lit up a cigarette, and eyeing us through the flame of the match, said in a Hebrew filled with Milwaukee-sounding pronunciations, "Are you sure you greenhorns want to join the Foreign Service? Representing the Jewish state can be a very lonely experience. I'll tell you why: When I'm at the United Nations I look around me and think to myself, we have no family here. Israel is entirely by itself in the international community, less than popular, and certainly misunderstood. All we have to fall back on is our own Jewish, Zionist faith."

Whereupon, her tone gritty, her fists balled, she proceeded to ask herself, "Why should this be? Why such solitude? Why is it that we are the one country in the world that is Jewish? Why are we the one country in the world whose language is Hebrew? Why is it that we have no independent kith and kin, or any historic relationship with any other state, or group of states, or cultures, or religions, or languages, as do say, the Anglo-Saxon nations, or the Christian nations, or the Muslim nations, or the Nordic nations, or the Slav peoples, or the Francophonic nations, or the Spanish-speaking, or the Arabic-speaking, or the Chinese-speaking peoples?"

HERE SHE paused to rummage inside her copious black leather handbag, from the depths of which she extracted a handkerchief with which she blew her bulbous nose, and then, shoulders stooped, face glum, voice pensive, continued, "Everybody in the world has sovereign and cultural family except us. Everybody in the United Nations is grouped into blocs bound by a common geography, or religion, or history, or culture, except us. They vote in solidarity, like family. We belong to no family. Our most natural regional allies - our Arab neighbors - don't want anything to do with us. Indeed, they want to destroy us. So we really belong nowhere and to no one except to ourselves, impelled by our own Jewish, Zionist faith."

With that, the foreign minister stubbed out her cigarette and brooded over the ashtray, clearly pondering her next thought. When it came her voice was mulish: "Since we have no blood ties to stand by us in solidarity we suffer severe diplomatic consequences. Nobody recognizes Jerusalem as our capital city. We have no membership in any international regional alliance. We have no membership in any trade area. We enjoy no international recognition of our national medical emblem, the Magen David Adom. We have no accredited membership in any United Nations regional grouping. Consequently, we are the only UN member that has no prospect of ever becoming a member of the Security Council.

"Of course," she added with a pious smile, "there is one important exception - our natural blood ties with our fellow Jews in the Diaspora. But everywhere they are a minority, and nowhere do they enjoy any form of national or cultural autonomy, let alone sovereignty."

Thus spoke this extraordinary woman, then in her early sixties, making no attempt to answer her own earth-shattering question: why, indeed, was the Jewish state without any sovereign kith or kin in the family of nations? Why was Israel the odd state out?

Why was Israel the odd state out?

Years later, when she was prime minister and I a member of her staff, I discovered she had an aversion to analytical, conceptual discourse of any sort. A tough character with a domineering streak, Golda Meir knew to ask the right questions but was wont to simplify the most complex issues and go straight to the crux of the matter for a practical answer. Impatient with the convoluted theorems favored by academics and seasoned career diplomats, she wanted bottom-line answers. And, for her, "Jewish, Zionist faith" was a bottom-line answer.

THIS ENIGMA, of Israel's diplomatic solitude, once came up for discussion at the Bible study circle which Menachem Begin regularly hosted at his home when he became prime minister in 1977. Every Saturday night 20-odd people, among them Bible scholars of repute, would seat themselves comfortably around the couch on which Mr. Begin sat, and for an hour or so would zestfully delve into an attention-grabbing biblical text.

On the Saturday night in question the chosen text was from the Book of Numbers, chapters 22 to 24, in which the Bible records how, 38 years after the children of Israel embarked on their Exodus from Egypt and two years before entering the Promised Land, the heathen prophet Balaam was coaxed by the Moabite king Balak to curse the advancing Israelites and thereby devastate them.

However, Balaam, impelled by God's command, and much to Balak's fury, found himself involuntarily blessing them profusely instead.

The discussion that evening centered primarily on the evocative verse nine of chapter 23, in which Balaam foretells with remarkable prescience the future destiny of the Jewish people, predicting that "this is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations."

Reading the verse out loud, prime minister Begin fixedly peered at the page of his Bible as though studying a museum manuscript and, sounding a mild chuckle, said, "One does not have to be a mystic for the imagination to be stirred by such an improbable vision of a nation 'dwelling alone.' What Balaam said is a startlingly accurate prophecy of our Jewish people's experience in all of history."

Professor Ephraim Urbach, a rotund, semi-bald scholar of refinement, wit and brilliance, cited classic commentators to suggest "dwelling alone" really meant voluntarily setting oneself apart. In other words, the Jewish nation distinguished itself from other peoples by virtue of its distinctive religious and moral laws, and by the fact that it had been chosen by God as the instrument of a Divine purpose within the family of nations.

A woman in her fifties raised a finger for attention. She was fairly tall and lean, her face equine, her dress an unfussy nut brown, her beret a plain gray, her shoes sensible, and her eyes brilliantly intelligent. This was Nehama Leibowitz, famous for her profound biblical scholarship and for her immensely popular weekly Torah discourses, composed in a comprehensive and highly comprehensible style, graspable even to laymen.

Deftly, she drew attention to the verse's grammatical structure, elaborating upon and reinforcing Professor Urbach's comment, explaining that the verb yit'hashav, generally translated in English to mean reckoned - "this is a people that shall not be reckoned among the nations" - was here rendered in the reflexive form [hitpa'el], meaning, "this is a people that does not reckon itself among the nations."

As an aside, she pointed out that this form of that particular Hebrew word - yit'hashav - occurs but once in the whole of Scripture.

Professor Ya'acov Katz, a slight figure with dour features and a deeply analytical disposition, broke in to refer to the eminent talmudist Marcus Jastrow. Citing Jastrow's talmudic sources, Katz showed the hitpa'el of the root word hashav, ["reckon"] signifies "to conspire," meaning that Israel "is a people that dwells alone and does not conspire against other nations."

Another participant, whom everybody knew simply as Srulik - a ginger, bushy-haired archeologist and Bible prodigy in an emerald-green yarmulke which he had picked up at the door - provocatively remarked that whatever which way one interpreted Balaam's prophecy it stamped the Jewish people as an eternally abnormal nation within the family of nations. This flew in the face of the classic Zionist creed which expounded that Zionism's aim was to normalize the Jewish people so that it should become a goy k'chol hagoyim - a nation like other nations.

Indeed, the central thesis of the Zionist theorists and thinkers of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries was that once Jews possessed what every other normal nation possesses - a country of their own - they would automatically become a normal nation within the international community. And the consequence of that, so the classic Zionist theory went, would be that anti-Semitism would wither and die.

TO WHICH Dr. Haim Gevrayahu, chairman of the Israel Bible Society, and involved in one way or another in many high-profiled Bible study circles throughout the country, added words to the effect that, in making their confident predictions, one wondered in hindsight what led those brilliant secular Zionist founding fathers of yesteryear to believe that Jewish self-determination would, of itself, lead to national normalization and put an end to anti-Semitism. Indeed, were Jews to become a normal people they would cease being Jewish. But that could never happen because nothing could ever put an end to anti-Semitism. In fact, one thing to be learned from the biblical portion under review was that the so-called prophet Balaam was the archetype anti-Semite. His whole intent was to curse the Jews, not to bless them. The blessing was God's doing, not his.

This triggered off a firestorm of controversy because some of the scholars present took the Bible as a paradigm of God's own writing, while others related to it secularly as a piece of extraordinary literature.

LISTENING attentively, Mr. Begin lowered the temperature by saying in an earnest voice that it could hardly be denied by any reading of the text that the Jewish people did, indeed, live separate, apart, and often alone. And to prove his point he picked up a volume called A People That Dwells Alone. This was an anthology of the utterances of Dr. Ya'acov Herzog, confidant of several prime ministers, and universally admired for his remarkable gifts as a diplomat, philosopher, talmudist and theologian. Scion of a famous rabbinic family, he was the son of Israel's first chief rabbi, Yitzhak Isaac Halevy Herzog, and younger brother of Chaim, who was to become Israel's sixth president. He died in 1972 at the age of 50. To me, he was a mentor, counselor and tutor.

The prose of Ya'acov Herzog's anthology reads like a great rolling stone, accumulating intellectual threads and philosophic concepts as it gathers momentum and accelerates deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Jewish identity and eternity. And it was one such concept that Menachem Begin chose to quote that night to the members of his Bible study circle. He read:

The theory of classic Zionism was national normalization. What was wrong with the theory? It was the belief that the idea of a "people that dwells alone" is an abnormal concept, when actually a "people that dwells alone" is the natural concept of the Jewish people. That is why this one phrase still describes the totality of the extraordinary phenomenon of Israel's revival. If one asks how the ingathering of the exiles, which no one could have imagined in his wildest dreams, came about, or how the State of Israel could endure such severe security challenges, or how it has built up such a flourishing economy, or how the unity of the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora has been preserved, one must come back to the primary idea that this is "a people that dwells alone." More than that, one must invoke this phrase not only to understand how the Jews have existed for so long; one must invoke it as a testimony to the Jewish right to exist at all in the land of their rebirth.

"So there you have it," concluded Begin, closing the book with a resolute air. "Cease 'dwelling alone' and you cease to exist. What a conundrum!"

Contact the poster at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 15, 2006.

If the Arabs insist they want peace, but turn down every offer Israel made/makes and always manage to come up with some, this or another, new excuse, and the world buys it, it is time Israel turns negotiations in her favor.

For years the Arabs rejected peace they never really wanted, now all talks about "peace" MUST stop at once. Until now the Arabs had no peace to sell, but Israel have paid for it dearly anyhow.

FROM NOW ON, Israel should have new state of affairs that will compel the Arab side to ask for peace -- pay for it in real terms.

If the Arabs conclude that Israel is so strong they cannot destroy it, it will lead them to pay?

From now on, if anyone asks Israel for "plans," the answer should be: "No plans, no suggestions, no constructive ideas" -- in fact no negotiations at all. If the Arab side wants to negotiate, let it present its plans and ideas. And if and when it does, the first Israeli reaction should always be: "Unacceptable -- come up with better ones."

NOW it is the best time ever and Israel's best opportunity to drastically change the [bazaar] manner of negotiations with the Arabs. Unlike the Arabs, Israel has merchandise [peace] for sale. As of today, a different show must go on the road; the price for being on Israel's side is NOW VERY HIGH and let the world know just that!

This article was written by Barry Rubin and it appeared in the

Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2006

To understand what is going on now in the Middle East, and in Western perceptions of the region, it is a revelation to recall the brilliant prophesy made by Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara in January 2000...

In his speech to the Syrian Writers Union, Shara opened on a pessimistic note. After their defeat in the 1967 war the Arabs seemed to be "really cornered and faced with one of two choices. Either we have to accept a peace that is akin to capitulation and surrender, which can never be the peace we want, or we have to reject peace without a solid ground on which to base this rejection."

"Surrender" meant any compromise peace agreement, which secured Israel's existence even if it paid for that privilege by giving up the territory captured in 1967 and accepting an independent Palestinian state. Rejecting peace without a solid basis meant just sounding extremist by preaching perpetual war on Israel.

For decades, Arab states had publicly insisted they would never make peace with Israel. After Egypt did so in the late 1970s, every regime tried to prove it was not a traitor like Sadat. Then Arafat made a deal in 1994 and Jordan signed a peace treaty thereafter. The old position was not just untenable, it was recognized as a public relations disaster.

Here is how Shara put it prophetically in 2000, a few days before Syria rejected getting its land back through the peace process:

"If we do not get our land through the peace process, we will win the world and Arab public. For Israel has continued to claim that it is always with peace and that the Arabs are against it. True, the media are directed against us and are in favor of the enemy to a large extent, but it is possible to penetrate these mighty, hostile media ... Our strong, solid, and persistent position and the reaffirmation of our constants in a convincing way are bound to have an effect."

In other words, as long as the Arab side explicitly rejects peace, Israel will have the diplomatic and media advantage. What must be done is to say the Arabs were ready for peace, to repeat demands and persuade the international community that Israel was at fault for the conflict since it rejected these demands.

When Israel did offer almost everything the Arabs sought, new issues were found to explain why the Arabs said no. Such issues include the Palestinian demand that all refugees should return to Israel...

Then there are always tiny, forgotten pieces of territory, as with the Hizbullah claim that Israel is occupying a small piece of Lebanon (the Shaba Farms), which everyone else -- including Syria -- regards as Syrian territory. Another is the Syrian demand for Israeli land illegally occupied by Syria in 1948 which would give Damascus a claim on Israel's main water source...

And so, six years after Israel offered to give up all the land it captured in 1967 it is possible to persuade the world that Israel has not offered to do so. Immediately after Israel withdraws from all the Gaza Strip and proposed large withdrawals from the West Bank, much of the Western media and even governments are convinced that the problem is that Israel is still an occupier.

No wonder Shara concluded: "So, in either case, we will not lose."

With Arab regimes insisting they did want peace -- but avoiding any irreversible step in that direction -- the world's diplomats beat a path to their door. Even after Arafat and Assad rejected peace in 2000, an Arab leader merely had to say he wanted peace -- even if only in English words that were contradicted by what was said in Arabic -- and the onus was put on Israel for the failure to make a breakthrough...

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, October 15, 2006.

This appeared in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193424689&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Send comments to letters@jpost.com or to me directly at msfreund@netvision.net.il

Quietly, and without much fanfare, an important and painful anniversary slipped by this week virtually unnoticed by most of world Jewry.

It may seem hard to believe, but it was just six years ago, on October 7, 2000, that a turbulent mob of Palestinians assaulted Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus), demolishing the millennial-old holy site in a matter of hours.

In scenes broadcast worldwide, Palestinians armed with sledge-hammers put on a memorable display of their notion of religious tolerance as they hacked, chopped, smashed and destroyed one of the most hallowed sites belonging to the Jewish people.

As a result, the pristine sounds of Jewish prayer which had once filled the skies over Joseph's Tomb were replaced by plumes of smoke as the invading Arab throng pillaged the compound, setting alight holy books and other sacred religious objects.

Much, of course, has happened in the interim on the Palestinian front, from suicide bombings to the destruction of Gush Katif to the kidnapping this past summer of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. Nonetheless, it is worth taking a look back at that horrible day, if only because it encapsulated everything that was - and still is - wrong with Israel's approach to the Palestinians.

THE ATTACK on Joseph's Tomb was the culmination of a process that had begun several days beforehand, when Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists launched a coordinated attack on the Israeli soldiers guarding the location. One of the brave young men defending the site was a 19-year old Druse border policeman, Cpl. Madhat Yusuf. After being shot in the neck by a Palestinian gunman, Yusuf lay wounded for more than five hours, slowly bleeding to death as then-prime minister Ehud Barak turned down repeated requests from the army to send in a rescue team from a nearby base.

Astonishingly, Barak preferred to rely on promises from the Palestinian Authority that Yusuf would be allowed to be evacuated to safety. In effect, Barak was counting on those who had shot Yusuf to save him - a foolhardy decision by any stretch of the imagination, and one that proved lethal to the young soldier.

Adding insult to injury, Barak shortly thereafter ordered the army to abandon Joseph's Tomb in exchange for still more promises from the Palestinians that they would honestly and truly - with no fingers crossed behind their backs - do their utmost to protect the very site they had just spent several days blasting with automatic weapons fire.

Not surprisingly, a few hours later, Joseph's Tomb was overrun, and quickly reduced to flaming ruins.

In retrospect, it was and remains abundantly clear that Israel made a grievous strategic mistake in pulling out of Joseph's Tomb.

The withdrawal marked the first time that Israel had directly retreated under fire in the face of Palestinian violence, sending the other side an unequivocal message of weakness and vacillation.

And coming just days after the start of the September 2000 Palestinian terror campaign, Israel's capitulation served as an inspirational recruitment tool for the likes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which were only too happy to point to the incident as a sign that if you keep hitting the Jews hard enough, they will eventually turn tail and run away.

Moreover, by so ignominiously forsaking such a prominent historical and holy site, and allowing one of its own soldiers to slowly hemorrhage to death, Israel was essentially declaring to its foes that its own sense of national dignity and self-respect had been all but shattered.

YEARS LATER, we now find ourselves in much the same straits, as we once again tolerate the intolerable and accept the unacceptable, repeatedly closing our eyes to violent Palestinian misdeeds. It has been 14 months since the withdrawal from Gaza, and Kassam rockets continue to rain down on the Negev and its environs as the terrorists taunt our unwillingness to shut down their operations once and for all.

Days, even weeks go by at a time, and Israel's military barely even bothers to respond to the ongoing rocket assaults against Jewish towns and cities, as though this is a reality that we just have to learn to live with.

In effect, the town of Sderot has become the new Joseph's Tomb, symbolizing our leadership's lack of will to defend even the most basic of our national values. And just as the government left the fate of Madhat Yusuf in the hands of his Palestinian attackers six years ago, it now relies on negotiating with the thugs who kidnapped Gilad Shalit in July, as though they are worthy of our trust and confidence.

Don't think for a second that the mullahs in Teheran, and the dictator in Damascus, aren't following all of this very carefully. They know a wimp when they see one, and certainly won't hesitate to exploit it to the fullest.

There is a way out, if only we can muster the necessary will. To break out of the Middle Eastern "cycle of violence" in which we find ourselves, Israel must first break free from its self-imposed "cycle of weakness" and start defending itself like any normal country should.

And nothing would be more symbolic, or more meaningful in this regard, than to take back Joseph's Tomb and restore it to full Israeli control. To continue leaving it at the mercy of the Palestinians only serves as a tangible reminder to them that organized violence does indeed have its benefits.

It is essential that the Palestinians unlearn that lesson as quickly as possible, and that Iran and Syria see that our fighting spirit remains firm. The best way to do so would be to turn back the clock and reclaim this precious piece of our religious and historical heritage.

Twice in Jewish history, Joseph was forsaken by his brothers and handed over to foreign control. The first time was in the biblical story, when he was tossed into a pit and sold to traveling merchants. The second time was in October 2000, when his tomb became a grave for a young Israeli soldier before being surrendered to a horde of bloodthirsty rioters. once again raise the Israeli flag over the tomb of our collective biblical forebear. Doing so will send a message to our enemies that we shall never again retreat under fire, and that we will defend our right to live and worship in this land as we see fit.

So let's at last do what should have been done long ago - take back Joseph's Tomb, and our dignity with it.

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, October 15, 2006.

I am afraid that when the danger of the bomb becomes palpable the Israelis will debate the moral aspects of pre-emptive strike or how such an action would be seen by the rest of the world. Israel will ultimately sacrifice its life in order to appease its conscience and its self-image. Once again the Jews will gain their place of honour as the victims in this world. Many Jews will certainly love this status that sits with their image as self-righteous more comfortably then using power and force.

A heart-wrenching article... It's called "Should we prepare for the unimaginable?" and was written by Haggai Avisar, who lives in Melbourne, Australia. It appeared today in

Imagine yourself as a journalist from New Zealand coming to Berlin in 1936 to report on the Olympic games. Some Jews approach you to share their horrible concern. They say to you that there is a plan to exterminate millions of Jews in gas chambers. It is quite likely that you report about some lunatic Jews who hassled you with their fantasies and paranoias...

In recent years I have been following the news and their analysis with fear and trepidation. I am an Israeli who since 1997 has lived in Australia and while in Israel was a peace activist. I am not an expert in security matters but as a psychologist I have some understanding of human nature. When I look at the reality with eyes free from the veils of 'ideals' or 'peace hopes' I believe what is unfolding should terrify the Jewish people and Israel in particular. Here are some of the trends that I fear are leading to a possible catastrophe:

1. Suicidal passion to destroy Israel -- there is nothing new about the Arab-Muslim desire to remove the cancer of democracy from the heart of their nation. It indeed presents a real danger to their culture. What's new is the willingness of the Muslim leadership to sacrifice the lives life of millions of their people in order to solve once and for all the Zionist problem. "What is 15 million in a nation of 1.2 billion?!" argued the Iranian supreme leader.

2. Promotion of martyrdom - The idea of martyrdom is well indoctrinated into the minds of children as young as 3 years old. Mothers and wives who lost their men for the Jihad are encouraged to celebrate rather than grieve. To my knowledge it is probably the first time in the history of mankind that death has become a desired solution not just for a weird cult, but for an increasingly large part of the Muslim's world who crave the dream of paradise. Their numbers are growing by the minute thanks to an effective system of religious incitement and exploitation of women. Muslim women are treated as machines in the war of Jihad. They are the factories that produce the martyrs for the holy war. Poor and oppressed women whose natural pro-life instincts and empathy are tamed by brainwashing of fear and hatred.

3. Islamic atomic bomb -- such a bomb already exists in Pakistan and their main scientist has admitted he has shared his knowledge with other nations. Iran is progressing in its nuclear arms project that takes place deep under the ground of its deserts. The scariest moment will come when their promises to stop the project appease a tired and unresolved West. With the right passion and right technology it is hard to see what is going to stop some fanatic Muslims from committing the suicide act.

4. Israel's failures to prevent attacks - sadly, the last war against Hezbolla in Lebanon demonstrates what has now become a pattern: Israel works effectively to regain the initiative when attacked but fails to prevent the first strike. It happened in 1973, during in the first Gulf war in 1991 and in the terror attacks from 2000 to 2004. One should ask how an army that failed to prevent thousands of rockets from being hid and launched only 2-3 km across its northern border with Lebanon could prevent a missile or a warplane from dropping the bomb. Israeli authorities have shown themselves incapable of providing the vigilance, intelligence capability and discipline needed to protect their people

5. Israel's poor resolve in defending its citizens -- when you watch how hard the Israelis are trying to justify their actions to the world media you can't help but feeling how pathetic, defensive and whinging they sound. In the battle against freedom fighters that use their children as human shields and against the cameras of the BBC, Israel doesn't stand a chance. The Israelis would have tried hard to justify themselves even if told that Germans suffered more then Jews in the second world war because their were 10 million dead Germans and only 6 million Jews. I am afraid that when the danger of the bomb becomes palpable the Israelis will debate the moral aspects of pre-emptive strike or how such an action would be seen by the rest of the world. Israel will ultimately sacrifice its life in order to appease its conscience and its self-image. Once again the Jews will gain their place of honour as the victims in this world. Many Jews will certainly love this status that sits with their image as self-righteous more comfortably then using power and force.

6. Explosive mix of deception, denial and confusion -- very few in the west are aware of how Muslims perceive deception as a valid and essential strategy in their holy war. (to educate yourself you may want to Google Islam, Deception). Once you understand that, the exploitation of the TV cameras, spreading lies and manipulation of public opinion make perfect sense. Deception can be effective if it is met by complacent and ignorant people in a prosperous culture that prefers to deny the danger rather than confront it. Just as people didn't read Mein Kamf in the 30's they don't read the Koran today and don't follow the sermons in Mosques throughout the Muslim world. Even the 5 tenets ("pillars") of Islam people don't know. Add to this a bit of confusion as to what is right and what is wrong (moral relativism) and you get an explosive development.

7. Weakening of America's resolve -- America is failing in its ambitious plan to bring democracy to the Muslim world. The people in the West don't see the promised results of this hopeless situation and they are tired of the "conflict in the middle East". The next leadership might choose to adopt a less ambitious policy and withdraw altogether from the struggle.

8. Strengthening of the Left -- as America is losing in the hopeless battle to democratise Islam, the left wing voice in Europe, the media and academia is growing louder. Now we are likely to have governments with"pro-peace" policies. Softly spoken and gentle leaders will speak to us from TV screens about peace and harmony. Oh, we will love their message of faith, tolerance and "peace in our time". This is the girl in red that the wolf has been waiting for. They have recently met in Iran: the head of the organization that won Peace Nobel prize - Koffi Anan -- came out of a meeting with Iran's leader and denounced the denial of the holocaust. Not a word about the publicly stated intention to wipe Israel off the map.

9. The old strategy - Muslim leaders with the support of Europe will use the same method that was used successfully some 70 years ago: demand the world to appease the monster by letting her swallow the Jews, or Israel in this case. As then so today, I believe that a scared world will collaborate with such a desire that will promise to solve once and for all the Muslims' anger. As then so today they will say they never imagined what could have happened...

Is there any hope?

Ironically, our best hope is the Mulsims themselves. If they increase their acts of hatred and suicide attacks against people in the West it is more likely that people will sober up in time to confront this culture before it is too late. Ultimately only if we succeed in liberating the Muslim woman so that she can love her children more than hate the infidels can we move the whole culture from pro death to pro life. Will their sisters in the West support that?!. I doubt that.

The other hope is that the Muslim world goes through the revolution we had some 5 centuries ago, that is, separating religion from state and secularise their life. The respect for basic human rights will have to come through some kind of a bitter conflict or a civil war within this community. Well, they have not yet started even some kind of intellectual debate over this matter.

How should we prepare?

* First we need to discuss "underground" this possibility since no one would dare to publish such a discussion. The Internet provides a good way to do so.

* Second, Israel should make clear statements to the Muslim's neighbours as to the horrific consequences if attacked. Such a horror may get some sane leaders to pressure the insane ones.

* Third, Jews and Israelis need to prepare their actions for the aftermath of such a possible catastrophe. If and what kind of Israel we want to re-build? Should we remove from Israel all Islamic population and symbols? Should we pressure our government to absorb Israelis who run away for their life?

Well, the truth is that at this point my wild imagination can't carry on because the pain is too hard.

Contact Boris Celser at celser@telus.planet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 15, 2006.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 15, 2006.

Don Morris is an American living [most of the year] in Israel.

Day by day Israel's bloodthirsty neighbors are closing on her with the idea to engage her in a war; is she going to regain her gumption and be preemptive? Or she will remain reactive, as she was on July 12, 2006 or before on Yom Kippur 1973? Ehud Olmert entered his premier position already tired of defending Israel and ready to give chunks of her away. Is he fit for the job? Read this article and I am sure you will figure this out yourselves. The alarm is about to go off again.

Here are the facts:

* [Israel] We are now being fired at from the West Bank with rockets
* Hizzbolah is and has been re-armed and more powerful weapons have made their way into South Lebanon
* Iran has announced it will send aide to Hamas in Gaza; in the last week rocket attacks against Sderot outside of Gaza have increased dramatically
* Fortunately our [Israel] intelligence and border forces have intercepted several homicide bombers enroute to Israel proper
* One of the largest weapons cache in the [Palestinian] territories was located and destroyed
* Over 19 tons of new weaponry have been smuggled into Gaza via the tunnels from Egypt
* This same Egypt has taken no action to stop this illegal action
* Syria has moved its army to the border on our Golan Heights and increased their war threat level
* Iran has said it will support Syria, Hizzbollah, Lebanon (and now I suspect Hamas) should war break out with any of these groups
* Jordan is to build a fifth mosque on our Temple Mount
* The new PA textbooks preach hate and disdain for Israel

What is Israel doing?

* Olmert is trying to realign his government
* Sharansky has left the government
* Peretz is spending his time planning to dismantle more "illegal settlements" in the territories
* More blame, more "behind covering" by government and IDF officials
* The public has no idea if we have "fixed" the problems in the IDF or within the operational protocols necessary to successfully engage in a war
* Business is booming in spite of all of this
* Citizens are enjoying the last of the holidays
* Israel has no comment re: George Soros et al forming a new anti-Israel group--no comment to the development of a powerful out of country "fifth column" and the American Jews are suppose to be our [Israel] friends;
* And the government ignored secretary Rice's insulting Israel, said nothing about her use of a revisionist historical fact to justify the plight of the very people who we are at war with, every day of our lives.

I have purposely left out some facts, as I do not want to overwhelm you. I realize this may also sound like doom and gloom. Please notice I have never said this, rather I am reporting what is.

I was always taught that we must learn history so as to use it for good and not to make the same mistakes again. Therefore, if you know your history, this appears eerily familiar. Our focus was off the enemy; we were delighted not to be in "another war", we were celebrating the newer more comfortable life ahead.

Finally, I realize it is election season in America; I am preparing my absentee ballot. I understand the Bush Group's perception is that it must demonstrate it is not anti-Arab or anti-Islam; I realize that it also feels it needs some form of Arab coalition as it is at critical mass with regards to Iraq. Without the Muslim vote and every other group it influences, the Republicans appear to be in trouble. Without some Arab consensus and military strategic support (air force fly over permission for example) our Iraqi plans may fail. How best to accomplish this? Use the old stand by technique-give up part of Israel. I am reminded of the oft-criticized Arafat who would say one thing in English and just the opposite in Arabic to his followers. This is a technique used by Nasrallah, Mazen! and most other Arab leaders. We did not appreciate nor like the application of this technique, fact we shouted to the world when it was in play. Well, in principle the Bush Group is currently applying the same technique and behavior. President Bush says how supportive he is of Israel, the very next day his SOD Rice says not once, but multiple times, words that are inaccurate, false and harmful to the security of Israel.

It really does seem we have been down this road before; this time let us be brave enough to announce it to the world and then to hold our allies accountable.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 13, 2006.

Israel, Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, and several other European nations, justifiably outraged by deniers of 'The Holocaust', have passed statutes prohibiting such venomous speech. Indeed, the methodical torture and slaughter of six million Jews as well as multitudes of other humans, clearly demonstrated the worst instincts of dysfunctional mankind. Those who might deny or trivialize such atrocities deserve the strongest rebuke from civil societies. Yet today, despite such laws and their implied significance regarding the very act of genocide, oil rich Sudan's disgusting Islamic leaders continue to support and in fact encourage janjaweed militias to torture, rape, mutilate, and exterminate Black Muslims living within the Darfur region of that war raved regime. Hypocritically, the outer presumably civilized world pays but lip service to this soul-sucking scourge. Might Faustian fossil fuel covenants, especially with China the surging economic dynamo of the East, and a cozying current effort by Uncle Sam's energy-hungry current administration in sync with Big Oil, be significant factors in overriding planetary ambition to stop the bleeding? Furthermore France, in lieu of meaningfully expressing ever-needed moral indignation at such real-time African genocide by perhaps organizing a coalition of intrepid soldiers willing to confront and eliminate the sadistic janjaweed, legislates a criminal statute prohibiting instead the denial of an erstwhile Ottoman Turk genocide perpetrated against Armenians. Could such a less urgent edict be somewhat influenced by a predilection to discourage Muslim Turkey from entering the European Union, more so than say any morally instigated high dudgeon? Sanctimonious feel-good or manipulative edicts or less than result-oriented expressions of outrage can never substitute for tangible acts that truly produce tangible solutions in real time.

Israel, populated by descendants of victims of 'The Holocaust', must do more than legislate criminal statutes or verbally condemn 'scum of the earth' deniers of past subhuman genocide. That alone will not serve well the memories of those buried victims of ...The Holocaust' or in fact defiled victims of mankind's inhumanity time immemorial. Whenever ongoing atrocities are exposed, a ready reserve of worldwide soldiers, equipped with state of the art weaponry, must be forthwith deployed and put an end to the carnage, with or without consent from sovereign nations housing such occurrences. Today's disgraceful debauched feckless politically pandering United Nations, even condoning Sudan's membership to its Commission on Human Rights, is surely not up to organizing such a force. Thus Israeli leaders should initiate a conference in Israel's capital Jerusalem, inviting political, military, religious, academic, and scientific movers and shakers affixed to this slowly evolving orb to attend, for the purpose of creating such an army of mercy as well as a research center dedicated to developing ways to reprogram mankind's destructive behavior. Nothing is more essential!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professors for a Strong Israel, October 13, 2006.
Amir Peretz, the so-called Minister of Defense, Ehud Olmert's senior partner in the Lebanon fiasco, has demonstrated beyond doubt his helplessness in anything related to defense matters. Now he hopes to shore up his standing by resorting to the usual secret weapon: attacking Jews, specifically "settlers," and the settlement outposts in Judea and Samaria. Professors for a Strong Israel condemns Peretz's attempt to distract public attention from the impotence of the Kadima government by offering up the traditional scapegoat of the Left.

Contact PSI by writing to Benjamin Svetitsky at bqs@julian.tau.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 13, 2006.


George Soros, a Jew, is helping to form an anti-Israel coalition in Washington aimed at weakening support for Israel among its friends, enlisting "North American Jewish plutocrats like Charles and Edgar Bronfman to join forces with him and leftist Jewish American organizations including American Friends of Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and the Reform movement's Religious Action Center to form a political lobby that will weaken the influence of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC."

Since Israel's Prime Minister will no doubt be drinking clueless cocktails with these people if invited, it's up to us to stop him. Caroline Glick explains in this article from yesterday's Jerusalem Post Internet Edition


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's speech at the American Task Force for Palestine's inaugural dinner in Washington on Wednesday evening was but the latest sign that America's alliance with Israel is weakening.

Rice's statement that "there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state," just about says it all. The secretary of state of a president who was once friendlier to Israel than any of his predecessors now claims that the establishment of a state for a people who have distinguished themselves as the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in the world, would be the greatest thing American could ever do.

Unfortunately, unless concerted steps are taken by the Israeli government, Israeli citizens and the American Jewish community, the downward trend in relations with the US will only get worse. Perhaps most upsetting is the central role that a tiny minority of American Jews has played in souring ties between Jerusalem and Washington. That minority has undermined support for Israel in the Democratic Party and now seeks to undermine Israel's position in the US in general.

The Democratic Party's sharp turn leftward in recent years has been a major factor in weakening the US-Israel alliance. The ideological transformation of the party is the fruit of a collaborative effort by leading financiers, radical-leftist ideologues and political activists. Together these forces built organizations that dictate the party's agenda; finance the campaigns of politicians who embrace this agenda; and work to defeat conservative Republicans and Democrats who disagree with their agenda.

MoveOn.org is the most influential organization of this type established in recent years. Its principal financiers are American Jewish billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis.

MoveOn.org first gained national prominence during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. Howard Dean, a previously undistinguished governor of Vermont, was an eminently forgettable also-ran with a reputation among the few who knew of him as a political moderate who was hawkish on national security. Then he was discovered by MoveOn.org.

As the group began pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his campaign,Dean veered to the left and began roundly condemning the war in Iraq. Caught off-balance by Dean's challenge, all but one of the other candidates shifted left as well and joined him in criticizing the war. For his principled refusal to disavow the war in Iraq, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman earned the enduring enmity of MoveOn.org.

This summer, MoveOn.org played a central role in Lieberman's defeat in the Democratic primary for his Senate seat. It contributed funds to Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, and its Web site served as a clearinghouse disseminating anti-Lieberman propaganda.

Propaganda posted on the Web site was laced with blatant anti-Semitic attacks. Postings repeatedly referred to Lieberman as "the Jew Lieberman," and "ZioNazi Lieberman." These attacks were by no means unusual. Indeed, anti-Semitic slurs against Israel and Jewish Americans, and belittlements of the Holocaust, appear regularly in MoveOn.org Web forums.

In a representative post, a MoveOn.org member compared President George W. Bush negatively to Adolf Hitler, writing, "Bush is no Hitler. Hitler was a socialist and believed in something beside money. He did not dodge real military service and he believed at least in Germany, which was a real nation and not a corporation like the US. Moreover, Hitler did not use depleted uranium and phosphorous to burn people alive. He did not condone the torture of prisoners 'for fun' or 'to relieve stress.'"

According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report, Soros and his wealthy Jewish American friends have now decided to aim their fire directly at Israel. Soros has invited Lewis and other North American Jewish plutocrats like Charles and Edgar Bronfman to join forces with him and leftist Jewish American organizations including American Friends of Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and the Reform movement's Religious Action Center to form a political lobby that will weaken the influence of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC.

Many of the individuals and organizations associated with the initiative have actively worked to undermine Israel. Soros caused a storm in 2003 when, during a fund-raising conference for Israel he alleged that Israel was partially responsible for the rise in anti-Semitic violence in Europe because of its harsh response to Palestinian terrorism.

In November 2005, the leaders of the Israel Policy Forum met with Rice and pushed her to dismiss Israel's legitimate security concerns regarding the operation of the Gaza Strip's border crossing points at Rafah and Karni. Following their advice, Rice aggressively and publicly pressured Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians that involved Israel's relinquishment of effective control over its own borders.

After Israel capitulated to Rice and an agreement was reached, Semour Reich, one of the founders of the Israel Policy Forum, crowed, "I have no doubt that we bolstered the secretary of state's instincts and strengthened her opinion that aggressive American involvement was needed to achieve practical results."

Ahead of then-prime minister Ariel Sharon's scheduled visit with Bush in the summer of 2003, Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a letter to Bush along with former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger expressing opposition to the security barrier and asking the president to treat Sharon in the same manner he had treated PA leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Weeks later, Bronfman criticized the Palestinians for not limiting their terrorist assaults to Israeli residents of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. In a media interview he said, "If the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements and told the whole world they were wrong, then the whole world would have had a case against Israel and there would be a two-state solution by now. Instead, they sent them into Israel proper, which is ghastly."

After Hamas's electoral victory in January, American Friends of Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom came together in an ad-hoc coalition to shield the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority from Congressional sanctions. Together they worked to sink the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act, which enjoyed overwhelming support in the Congress and the Senate and was backed by AIPAC. The legislation was designed to update US policy toward the PA in the wake of Hamas's ascendance to power.

The bill called for the immediate cessation not only of direct US aid to the PA but also for the cut-off of US assistance to nongovernmental and UN organizations operating in the PA that had connections to terrorist organizations. The bill defined the PA as a terrorist sanctuary and consequently would have barred the entry of PA officials to and the operation of PA offices in the US, and placed travel restrictions on PA and PLO representatives to the UN. The bill also would have prohibited US officials from having any contacts with officials from Hamas, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The bill was approved by an enormous majority in the House of Representatives. Yet, due to the lobbying efforts of this group of Jewish leftists, the Senate version was greatly watered down, and included a presidential waiver that rendered the bill more or less declaratory. Since there was little common ground between the two versions of the bill, the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act was scuttled.

According to the JTA account, Soros would like to institutionalize the ad-hoc coalition's success in undermining the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act in a new lobby. Its founders all insist that theirs is a pro-Israel group. Yet scrutiny of the groups' organizational and individual members' actions leads to the inevitable conclusion that far from acting to promote Israel, this new lobby will work to weaken Israel, to weaken the Israel-American alliance and to strengthen Israel's enemies. While its Jewish founders insist that they are pro-Israel, the fact of the matter is that they are about to establish an American Jewish anti-Israel lobby.

To its discredit, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government took no steps to stymie the coalition's machinations against the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act. Indeed, since 2003, Israel's governments have gone out of their way to applaud these groups. Olmert's now infamous speech in June 2005 where he said, "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies," was made at the Israel Policy Forum's annual dinner.

BUT FOR all that, it is not too late to change course. The Jewish American anti-Israel lobby is scheduled to be launched on October 26. Now is the time for the Olmert government to forthrightly announce that the new lobby is not pro-Israel, but rather anti-Israel.

Even if the government does no such thing, Israel's citizens have a responsibility to explain to the organized American Jewish community and to its umbrella organization, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, that we, the citizens of the largest Jewish community in the world, view these groups as anti-Zionist. Israeli citizens should request an explanation for the inclusion of some of these groups in pro-Israel umbrella organizations like the Conference of Presidents when their goal is to weaken Israel, to weaken Israel's alliance with the US and to strengthen Israel's enemies. Israeli citizens can and should send letters and e-mails to this effect to the Conference at its New York offices.

One of the great strengths of the American Jewish community is its pluralism. On a religious level, all communities - from the ultra-Orthodox to the ultra-Reform - are recognized as Jewish communities. But there is a line that everyone knows may not be crossed. Jews for Jesus have removed themselves from the Jewish people and everyone knows this. There is not one Jewish organization that accepts them as Jews.

By the same token, the vast majority of American Jews support Israel. As is the case with religious observance, this support runs the gamut from disciples of Meir Kahane to followers of Yossi Sarid. But everyone knows that organizations like Not in My Name, which acts as the Jewish American branch of the International Solidarity Movement, seeks to undermine IDF operations and makes common cause with Israel's enemies, are not Zionist organizations.

Like Jews for Jesus, Jews who work to weaken Israel's security, undermine Israel's relations with the US and strengthen Israel's enemies take themselves beyond the broad tent of the American Jewish pro-Israel community.

Israel's alliance with the US is based on the fact that most Americans support Israel. American support for Israel finds its roots in foundations as diverse as religion, politics, morality, security, culture and economics. While the alliance is visibly weakened, its foundations remain solid. To rebuild American political support for Israel and to enhance the US-Israel alliance, it is imperative that Israel be capable of understanding the nature of this support. This understanding begins by making distinctions between our many friends and our foes and acting on these distinctions. Not all of our friends are Jews and not all Jews are our friends.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Carol Greenwald, October 13, 2006.

This was sent to me by Raphael Israeli, who is Professor of Islamic History at Hebrew University. He writes:

I would like to bring to the attention of your membership, the fact that money is being "milked" under false pretense by the "Abraham Fund", presided over by Ami Nahshon in NY, which presses Jewish organizations to donate for Arabs in Israel who are becoming more hostile to Israel by the day.

Hi Ami

I read with great astonishment the report of your parade of fake "achievements", which if nothing else misleads your donors with the rosy description of what is in fact a great retreat in the relations between Arabs and Jews in Israel. Those have to be measured not by statements, which those who get funds are ready to make, but by the situation on the ground which has grown markedly worse. ...

Much more worrisome are the annihilitionist statements by Hamas, the very kin of the Palestinians you are supporting, that no Israeli Arab has dared counter so far, with in the background the clamoring for the :"Right of Return" of Palestinians in Israel, namely the end of the country, being advocated by ALL leaders of Arabs in Israel.

If you claim "achievements", you have to be able to show statistics in what way or in what domain have developments showed any advance in any domain indicating the relations have improved. MY research on the ground (not from NY), which you do not bring to the attention of your good-hearted and naive donors, shows exactly the reverse, especially during the last Lebanese War where Israeli Arabs (I won't be surprised if they included some of your grantees), accused ISRAEL of the War, pressure has mounted on Israeli Arabs who volunteer to the Armed Forces to desist, large demonstrations came out in support of Muhammed and against the Pope in the recent controversies, but NONE in favor of their country that is threatened of decimation by both Iran and Hamas.

Many mindless Jews who are tortured by the inequalities between Jews and Arabs in Israel, have been donating money to rectify that gap, under the naive and false believe that the Arabs would thereby be grateful. Quite the contrary is happening: Arabs who get Jewish support take it, use it and smile about the stupidity of Jews who think that by promoting Arabic among Jews, the Jewish cause is helped. Quite the contrary, they realize that Jews are waking up to the state of "discrimination" and are amending it, always in the Arab's favor, never in Jewish favor (e.g,. encouraging Arabs to contribute something to the security or the Jewish culture and nature of the state)

That Jews have always been "suicidal" and self-deprecating and self-flagellating is nothing new. But I believe that the donors who know nothing about all this should be made aware so that they can make their choices and not be solely misled by your rosy reports which have no leg to stand on.

One day they will rise and ask why they were deceived by this self-perpetuating hoax of the Abraham Fund, and someone will be held accountable for that.

It would be decent on your part to at least warn your donors of this different perspective, based on scholarly books if they care to read them:

1. R. Israeli - Arabs in Israel: Friends or Foes, Ariel Center, 2003 (in Hebrew)

2. R. Israeli - Green Crescent oevr Nazareth, Frank Cass, London, 2003

3. R. Israeli- The Islamic Movement in Israel, Brassey's, London, 1993

4. R. Israeli, The Templars of Islam: Sheikh Ra'id and Muslim Fundamentalists in Israel, Vallentine and Mitchell, London, 2007, in press.

In case you do not respond and persist in your one-sided and ineffectual reports, that are geared to perpetuate this immense injustice, I will distribute this letter among Knesset members, the Zionists Federations and other channels so that at least a more balanced view of this is afforded to the misled donors.

Hag Sameach

Raphael Israeli
Professor of Islamic History
Hebrew University

Contact Carol Greenwald at cgreenwald1@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 13, 2006.

The fire ball Wafa Sultan, the Syrian-American psychologist, whose legendary interviews with al-Jazeera made her into international phenomenon, is taking on Islam as her life's mission.'

This article was written by Yitzhak Benhorin and is called "Wafa Sultan: I want to beat Islamic prison" and it appeared in Ynet News

(VIDEO) Syrian-American psychologist, whose interviews censuring fanatic Islam thrust upon the world stage, demands Arab world takes its head out of the sand; Tells Ynet she's not afraid of threats: 'This is my life's mission'

WASHINGTON -- Dr. Wafa Sultan recently became a legend. Her two interviews with al-Jazeera, in which she censured Islam and the way in which it inflicts ignorance and alienation on its followers, have made her into a phenomenon: an educated Muslim that demands that the Arab world take its head out of the sand.

In a recent interview, the only time I see tears creeping into Dr. Sultan's eyes is when she speaks of her family in a small village in western Syria, two or three hours from northern Beirut. In their eyes, she is a shameful stain on the family, which includes seven brothers and three sisters.

Her eldest brother claims that she received a million dollars from the Jews in order to denounce Islam. Her mother, age 74, refuses to speak to her on the telephone.

"I know I'm hurting them," she said. "They feel ashamed. I can understand that." Her sister in Qatar, who is married to a Palestinian, is more supportive. They speak once a week. Dr. Sultan spoke of how hard it was to be able to speak with friends in Syria, but not with her mother and brother.

Wafa lost her family, but won the world's acclaim, with a series of interviews, the most famous with al-Jazeera, in which she attacked fanatic Islam, and the alienation, misery and struggle against advancement that it imposes on its followers.

She is a short woman, but hugely endowed with vision and courage. Warm and free of pretense, she remains aware of the importance of her message. "I think that in 300 years, the name Wafa Sultan will be remembered as someone who helped Islam come out of the Middle Ages," she told Ynet.

Her own departure from the Middle Ages was triggered by the murder of her lecturer at the Halab Medical School in 1979. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood murdered eye doctor Prof. Yusef al Yusef because he was an Alawi (like the family of Syrian President Bashar Assad), yelling 'Allah Akbar', shooting into the air, and driving off on a motorcycle.

Dr. Sultan called this the turning point in her life. She started questioning her life and belief system, with her husband, whom she had met at the time. She stopped fasting and praying. Her husband wandered from embassy to embassy trying to get a visa. It took them ten years to get out of Syria.

Coming to America

When they left Syria, he was an agricultural engineer and she was a psychiatrist. When they arrived in the US in 1989 with two children (a third has been born since then) and 100 dollars, they didn't speak the language. They lived for a few months with friends and worked in every job available.

Sultan told of working as a cashier, gardening, doing everything necessary to survive. It took them years to get on their feet financially, when her engineer husband opened a garage. "Better a mechanic in America than an engineer in Syria," she said.

The garage wasn't the Sultans' only American venture. Within a week of arriving in America, Sultan started writing. She wrote articles for Arab-language newspapers in the Los Angeles area. Every editor stopped her at a certain point and wouldn't publish her thoughts, she said.

Eventually, a few weeks before September 11th, a friend suggested that she start her own website. Thus, anneqed.com was born: Meaning "the critic" in Arabic, it contains articles in Arabic and English.

Wafa received several warning phone calls from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). At first, she says, they were able to restrain her to a degree, but after September 11th, she knew she could not remain silent. "Today I'm a completely different person. Let them do what they want."

Interview that shocked Arab world

Wafa's website was read in the Middle East, as well. That's how she received her first appearance with al-Jazeera in July 2005. "They knew the influence of my articles and websiteI believe they didn't think I'd be able to defend my views on live television."

Unfamiliar with al-Jazeera or the show on which she was interviewed, she didn't realize that her appearance would be as part of a debate. She was asked if there is a relationship between Islam and terror and then verbally attacked; despite being "ambushed", she was able to gain the upper hand and was invited for a second interview, with a more senior commentator.

The second interview became an Internet hotspot. Since its broadcast on al-Jazeera, sections were translated by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) and distributed by various Internet users. Millions of surfers in the Middle East and around the world saw the interview that took place on February 21, 2006.

Dr, Sultan debated Egyptian professor of Islamic Studies Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli, who couldn't keep up with her, asking her again and again "so you're a heretic?" and stating that there was no point in debating with someone who insults the prophet Muhammad and the Quran.

Wafa Sultan said she has received death threats and estimates that someone will try to assassinate her, but she is not prepared to be frightened. "They weren't able to shut my mouth the first time. In February, I took them down again. They won't ever invite me again," she smiles.

Weeks after the interview, one of the announcers from the show published an article claiming that she'd been paid in order to criticize Islam. She answered him in a letter: "Your interview introduced me to the Americans and the international community. Even my neighbor didn't know who I was until you introduced us and now you blame me for being bought by the Americans?"

Penetrating Islamic world

Since then, she has been banned by the Arab media. However, she has managed to penetrate branches within the Muslim and Arab world. Many people enter her website and send her emails, both positive and threatening. In her opinion, any positive message is a good sign.

She believes that her mission -- to "breach the walls of the prison of the Islamic world" -- is difficult, but that she has succeeded in making a crack. Now it will be easier for others to come after her, she said.

Wafa told of an e-mail from a Moroccan mulla who said that he had bound her internet article into a book and told his 17 year old son that this was his new Quran. She receives e-mails from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia. She receives mails from Muslim women cheering her on. Sadly, they always use pseudonyms, because they are afraid.

Earlier this week, she received an e-mail from a 23 year old Syrian student who wrote that the government had blocked her website but not her e-mails and asked her to send them via e-mail. "I know that I have a large influence on the Arab world," she said proudly.

When reminded that producer Theo Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam for similar reasons, she responded: "I lived in fear for 32 years. 32 years of my life were stolen from me by radical Islam. Let them do what they want. I think they'll succeed one day. It's no big deal."

Possible trip to Israel

Dr. Sultan recounts that when she lived in Syria, she was taught to hate Israel, to think of Israelis as inhuman, a different kind of creature. When she was in California with her husband, she discovered that a shoe salesman was an Israeli Jew. Hysterical, she ran out of the shop barefoot.

When her husband asked her what was wrong with her she answered that the man was her enemy and that she hated him. It was the first time she had ever met an Israeli Jew face to face. "Slowly, I learned how wrong and stupid we were. You're humans no less than us," she said.

Dr. Sultan wants to visit Israel, hopefully soon. Monday, she will meet with the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles to advance the issue. This, needless to say, will only increase the hatred towards her from the radical branches of Islam across the world.

But she clarified: "I'm proud of myself. This is my mission in life. Nothing will stop me."

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 12, 2006.

Mr. President

To us, and to Amir Taheri per the article below, it looks like "pre-emptive obedience". But to the Islamofascist leadership in the Moslem world, it is "pre-emptive social instruction". They are teaching us to be good Dhimmi, EVEN BEFORE they extend their sovereignty over us. That way, it will be easier for them to extend their sovereignty over us.

The list is already too long, and getting longer.

Newspapers, other media outlets, schools, museums, book publishers, opera houses, art galleries, carnivals, circuses, cultural folk-events, individual teachers, at least one American movie producer (*), our Guantanamo staff, and maybe even the Holy See...all cower in fear of the 'wrath of the Saracen' and pre-emptively censor their institutions' output in order to not incur that wrath.

We infidels in the West no longer enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of artistic expression, freedom to analyze and debate and critique the very worst threat that our civilization faces (now, and across its entire 1500-year history).....because of Moslem intimidation and pressure and threats from within and without.....and because we have witnessed the horror that awaits anyone or any institution in the West that dares incur the wrath of the Islamofascist rent-a-riot/mob-on-demand leaders.

Some commentators have vainly pointed out the hypocrisy of such wrathful Moslem responses to supposed slights, in light of the current and traditional proliferation of Moslem anti-Jewish and anti-Christian rantings and caricature and art, all so prominently displayed throughout Mosem countries and newspapers and visual media.

But these critiques miss entirely the point of the Moslem wrath and rage.

The Islamofascists do not care that we may think them hypocritical.

They do not care that their destructive and lethal riots prove that Islam can indeed be a violent, wrathful, hate-filled, destructive ideology (at least for some large part of the Moslem world, but surely not for all).

They are not even responding to the incidents of supposed slights and insults about which their rent-a-riot mobs are raging.

They are using these incidents, some real (Danish cartoons, Pope's quote) and some fabricated (Guantanamo disrespect to a Qur'an), as an excuse for the riots, in order to teach us to be good dhimmi.

In standard mainstream Moslem tradition, the Moslem is superior and the dhimmi non-Moslem under Moslem sovereignty is inferior, even unclean or poluted ("najji"). Anyone anywhere who does not accept Islam is inferior, by definition....but the Dhimmi, by virtue of living under Moslem sovereignty as a non-Moslem, can retain his religion only if he agrees to the terms of dhimmitude (and if he does not, then he must convert or die). The Dhimmi must agree to not criticize the Moslem (or any aspect of the Moslem's religion and culture), not question the Moslem's inherent superiority, and not do a host of other things (cf. the Pact of Omar for about 36 such limitations)....all of which oppress and humiliate and debase the Dhimmi, remind him of his inferior position, and permit the Moslem to maintain the fiction of his superiority and 'natural right' as the superior being to rule and abase and abuse and humiliate, and when necessary kill, the Dhimmi.

Our civilization spent a thousand years learning the exact opposite: the dignity of every human being and his/her rights to equal opportunity of access to resources and opportunities in a free and open society.

So the Islamofascists know that it will not be easy to teach us to be good Dhimmi...since dhimmitude is antithetical to our moral values and social mores. And that is exactly why they are off to an early start, a pre-emptive start, in instructing our societies about lesson #1 in dhimmitude: the good Dhimmi does not criticize Islam!

And we are doing a good job of learning that lesson, as evidenced by our rapidly multiplying examples of 'pre-emptive obedience'.

the buck stops at your desk Mr. President. Any plans?

(*) "The sum of all fears" was supposed to be a movie about Islamofascist Arab terrorists hi-jacking nuclear missiles from western armed forces. After some meeetings with CAIR and other Arab/Moslem intimidation groups, the movie's producers altered the plot so that it was merely a secret neo-nazi group doing the hi-jacking.

See ACAIR for details.

Phyllis Chesler's Introduction to Amir Tahari's article:

The eminent expatriate writer and prolific columnist Amir Taheri, who has endorsed my latest book, has just published a piece about the phenomenon of "pre-emptive obedience" at work in the West.

He mentions my inability to find a British publisher because, he says, publishers are rejecting scores of manuscripts "pre-emptively" in order to avoid "provoking" Muslim violence.

He also mentions the cancellation of my colleague Nancy Kobrin's book, for which I wrote the introduction, as yet another example of this unfortunate western self-censorship which he believes is, at heart, anti-Muslim.

Hopefully, his piece will get picked up far and wide as his pieces usually do.

In Communist-ruled East Germany, they had a term for it: pre-emptive obedience. This meant guessing the future orders of the politburo and obeying them before they were issued. East Germany was thrown into the dustbin of history a long time ago. However, "pre-emptive obedience" is making a comeback in re-unified Germany and several other European countries.

It was based on "pre-emptive obedience" that the German Opera in Berlin decided to cancel its production of Mozart's Idomeneo after the managers decided that it might anger Muslims. The opera had already been shown in 2003 without incident and no Muslim group had called for it to be withdrawn. Thus, the managers were obeying orders that had not been issued.

A few days after the Idomeneo scandal it was the turn of French philosopher Robert Redecker to do a bit of "pre-emptive obedience" by going into hiding after publishing a newspaper column that some of his friends feared might anger Muslims. The fact is that quite a few Muslim writers have published essays more daring than Redecker's without going into hiding under police protection, thus resisting "pre-emptive obedience" of orders that might come from "Islamofascist" groups.

"Pre-emptive obedience" was also at work when the Whitechapel Art Gallery, one of London's major art exhibition venues, decided to withdraw a number of paintings by the surrealist Hans Bellmer. The reason? The management decided that the erotic paintings might "hurt the sensibilities of the Muslim community" which is strongly present in London's East End of which Whitechapel is a part. Again, no Muslim had seen the paintings or would have been able to interpret them as "an erotic assault on the Quran", let alone demand that they be withdrawn.

Thanks to "pre-emptive obedience", a wave of self-censorship has also hit the traditionally bawdy world of German carnivals. The Dusseldorf carnival, for example, has banned any gear that might appear "Islamic" and thus designed to "hurt Muslim sensibilities". A work by the Swiss sculptor Fleur Boecklin was also withdrawn from public view in Dusseldorf after it was branded "a misrepresentation of Islam as an aggressive faith".

Self-censorship for alleged fear of Islamic revenge has hit other areas of life in Europe.

In Spain, folkloric ceremonies and carnivals marking the expulsion of the Moors from Andalusia have been cancelled in all but a handful of villages, ending a 400-year old tradition.

In Germany, France and Britain numerous illuminated manuscripts of Persian poetry and prose have been withdrawn because they contained images of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and other historic figures of Islam.

In most European countries, an official black of list of books has emerged, containing works deemed to be "hurtful to Muslim sentiments". The list includes the names not only of such major European authors as Voltaire and Thomas Carlyle but also of Muslim writers whose work has been translated into European languages. For example, the novel Haji Agha by Sadeq Hedayat, translated into French and published in the 1940s, is no longer available. The novel Four Pains by Cyrus Farzaneh has also disappeared from French bookshops and libraries along with The Master by Darvish.

Last month a British publisher, acting on "pre-emptive obedience", cancelled plans to publish the translation of Twenty Three Years, a controversial biography of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) by the late Iranian author Ali Dashti. Literary agents and book publishers have no qualms about admitting that they would not touch any manuscript that "smells like stirring the Muslims into a rage". One editor tells me that he has rejected at least 10 manuscripts in the past year alone because he did not wish to "risk controversy or worse" with Muslims. "I don't want to live under police escort," he says.

The American author and feminist Phyllis Chesler is still trying to find a British publisher, while her colleague Nancy Korbin has just lost her American publisher. In both cases, fear of angering Muslims is cited as the excuse for what is, in fact, "pre-emptive obedience".

The practitioners of "pre-emptive obedience" often claim they are acting in accordance with the best principles of multiculturalism.

"We wish to show respect for our Muslim neighbours," says a spokesperson for the Whitechapel Art Gallery.

While museums in Germany and Britain are hiding works that show images of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), Turkish and Iranian museums continue to display their tableaux containing his images.

Sometimes the imagined threat of "Islamic anger" is used for settling of scores that have nothing to do with Islam. In the Russian city of Volgograd (former Stalingrad), for example, there are no more than a few hundred Muslims. And yet the Russian government has just closed down the local newspaper based on the claim that it had hurt "Muslim sensibilities" by publishing a cartoon that shows Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) along with Moses and Jesus, watching some people fighting on television. The truth is that the local branch of the United Russia Party, the political mouth piece of President Vladimir Putin, had been trying to shut the newspaper for years. The supposed feeling of "Muslim sensibilities" is nothing but an excuse for an attack on media freedom.

Ugliest evils

The truth, however, is that blaming Muslims for censorship, one of the ugliest evils in any civilised society, is an insult to a majority of Muslims. The adepts of "pre-emptive obedience" see Muslims as childish, irrational and incapable of responding to works of literature and art in terms other than passion and violence.

The party of "pre-emptive obedience" violates one of the basic principles of the western societies, that is to say freedom of expression. And, that makes it harder for Muslim democrats to persuade their co-religionists that, rather than fear freedom, they should learn to benefit from it.

The party of "pre-emptive obedience" hurts Muslim interests in another way. By presenting Muslims as agents of censorship and intolerance, it incites the non-Muslim majority against them while presenting the most reactionary fundamentalists as the sole legitimate representatives of Islam.

Self-censorship in Europe also provides the despotic regimes in Muslim countries with an excuse for their systematic violation of the right to free expression. While Muslim writers and artists are fighting and, in some cases, even dying to defend their freedom of creation it would be a sad irony to see that same freedom undermined by the party of "pre-emptive obedience" in the West.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth Matar, October 12, 2006.

Dear Friends,

According to the Hebrew poet Uri Zvi Greenberg (1896-1981), "whoever controls the Temple Mount controls the entire land of Israel!"

And now, in the Hebrew year 5767, 2006 C.E., the Arabs are threatening a "blood bath" if the Jews dare build a synagogue on their own holiest site, the Temple Mount, as proposed by Uri Ariel, a Jewish Knesset member of the National Union - National Religious Party. (Headline in the Jerusalem Post of October 11, 2006: "Arab MK threatens bloodbath over plan for Temple Mount shul")

Knesset Member Ariel said his proposal would maintain the status quo and not infringe on Muslims "right of full access to the Aksa Mosque, which is situated on the ruins of the Second Temple.

Ariel said it was abnormal that the most holy Jewish site in the world was off-limits to Jews as a place of religious worship.

How did we arrive at this ludicrous state of affairs?

By not asserting our inalienable right to our G-d given homeland and our holy sites therein.

The following are excerpts from a previous article of mine. You may see the whole article at:
http://181818.org/green/blog/index.php?mode=viewmonth&month_no=07&year=2004 > Scroll down to July 29.

Since June 7, 1967, when the Temple Mount was liberated, only Muslims have been allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, by order of then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. Dayan insisted that Jews be allowed to visit the Temple Mount, but not to pray there. Dayan gave an explanation for his scandalous decision as follows: Since for the Muslims the Temple Mount is a Muslim Mosque for prayer, while for Jews it is merely a historical site recalling the past, the Arabs are not to be disturbed in acting there as they do now, and the right of the Muslims to control it must be recognized. How sad, no, how tragic, that Dayan was an assimilated Jew and completely ignorant of Jewish religion and unfeeling toward Jewish tradition.

Dayan's terrible decision is still in place. Only Muslims are allowed to pray on the Jewish Temple Mount, and Jews and Christians are forbidden to do so. They are even forbidden to move their lips in prayer!

Ariel Sharon, soon after his election as prime minister, went up to the Temple Mount in September of 2000. A new wave of terror started immediately, which had been planned by Arafat for several months.

Even though Sharon supposedly defied the whole Arab world by going up to the Temple Mount, he subsequently showed no interest whatsoever in claiming Jewish ownership of the Temple Mount, which is the holiest place in the Jewish religion.

He permitted the Arabs to build additions to their Mosques using heavy machinery, and looked away when the Arabs wantonly destroyed Jewish artifacts from the First and Second Temple periods. This was done deliberately by the Arabs to destroy any evidence of prior Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. (Some such artifacts, which had not been destroyed, have turned up on the world antiquity market at tremendous financial gain for the Arabs.) When Israeli archeologists warned Sharon of dangerous cracks in the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount, and cautioned against the Southern Wall's imminent collapse, the Sharon government called in Jordanian engineers to do the necessary repairs. This in spite of the fact that Israel has engineers who are just as good, and probably better. Was this Sharon's way of disavowing his interest in the Temple Mount as a Jewish Holy place?

Unfortunately, we have now arrived at a point when a "post-Zionist leftist oligarchy consisting of consecutive Israeli governments, secular Israeli courts, and the leftist media, subjugate us, both physically and spiritually.

Incredibly, we are not allowed to build our homes in our biblical homeland of Judea and Samaria without U.S. State Department permission. Our government has promised our only "friend", the United States, not ever to do this!

If "illegal outposts" are built by some idealistic religious young couples, who feel subject to a Higher Authority, they will be forcibly and brutally removed, as was done by the Olmert government in Amona. Of course, Ehud Olmert did make promises to Condoleeza Rice! Does Olmert feel promises to Condi are more important than the promises to the Jews by the G-d of Israel?

Dear Friends:

This concerns all of us! Move heaven and earth, but don't let the Moslem enemy gain additional control of our Temple Mount. Please share with us suggestions as to how we can work together to prevent this from happening.

May we be worthy of redemption and may the Third Temple be built speedily, and in our days.

With Blessings and Love for Israel,

Ruth Matar

P.S. My son (and Nadia Matar's husband), Dr. David Matar, has contributed a historical background on the Temple Mount:

Jewish tradition, from its very beginnings, has seen the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the very center of the universe, the focal point of G-d's connection to the Jewish people and all of mankind. The Torah relates in Genesis that the near-sacrifice of Isaac took place atop Mount Moriah, which was identified with the Mountain of G-d, the Mountain of pilgrimage that is the Temple Mount.

After King David founded Jerusalem as the capital of the kingdom of Israel, he purchased land with a granary from a Jebusite named Aravna; David's son Solomon built a magnificent Temple there that stood for 400 years. Solomon's Temple was designed and built as a permanent shrine on a grand scale, which would replace the Tabernacle that had served the Israelites in the desert, and in various temporary locations within the Promised Land.

Although destroyed by the Babylonians in their conquest of Judea, the temple was rebuilt by the returning exiles, and served as the center of Jewish spiritual and material life for the next 600 years. In the reign of Herod the Great, near the beginning of the Common Era, the Temple was completely refurbished, while the Temple Mount almost doubled in size -- all in order to accommodate millions of pilgrims, Jews and non-Jews from all over the known world.

Almost 2000 years have passed since the Romans destroyed the Second Temple; yet committed Jews throughout the centuries, in all the lands of their exile, have prayed in the direction of their ruined Temple. To this day, Jews focus their hopes, dreams and prayers on the speedy rebuilding of the Temple, as the central condition for national and cosmic redemption.

* * *

NEWSFLASH FROM ARUTZ 7: Israel Complacent - Muslims Seek to Strengthen Hold on Mount Thursday, October 12, 2006 by Yechiel Spira

Israel is not expressing objections to the construction of a fifth Temple Mount minaret, in line with Jordanian plans.

Jordan's King Abdullah II announced plans this week to construct a fifth minaret on the Temple Mount, a move that would further increase the Islamic occupation of the site, the holiest site to the Jewish People. Ironically, shortly following the liberation of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in the 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli government decided to return the keys to the Mount to the Islamic Waqf Authority, under Jordanian control, permitting the continued occupation of the holy site until today.

While tenacious yearning to visit the Mount by Jews has resulted in a modicum of government acquiescence, religious Jews are often barred from the holy site, as are members of other religions, compelled to bide by the standards set by the Islamic occupiers. Jews who adhere to the strict religious requirements demanded of visitors to the site cannot visit at will, and while there are generally visitation times during which Jews and other non-Muslims may ascend the Mount, the Waqf will not "tolerate" Jews praying on the site. They are backed by Israel Police who are quick to enforce the prayer ban, generally arresting those bold enough to defy it.

The latest Jordanian construction process will begin early in 2007. The plans call for a 42-meter-high tower in the area near the Golden Gate, near the eastern wall of the Mount.

Jordanian official Dr. Raief Najim, a senior personality involved in the project, was quoted by The Jerusalem Post as saying that to date, he has not detected any Israeli objections to the project. He said he has already toured the proposed building site, accompanied by a senior Jerusalem district police official, a national government representative, and an Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) official - signaling passive approval by the various governmental agencies.

Jordanian authorities have already announced a building tender for the project, which carries a NIS 2.5 million price tag.

While Israel continues to claim control of the Temple Mount, in reality, the day-to-day running of the site is under Waqf control, with Israel complying with Waqf dictates regarding the goings-on on the site. When Waqf requests are not honored by the Israeli government, threats of violence have on many occasions accomplished the Waqf's goals.

The Temple Mount was the home of the First and Second Temples, and will house the Third Temple in the future. It remains the holiest site to the Jewish nation, far more sanctified than the Kotel (Western Wall), which is merely a retaining wall of the Mount.

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 12, 2006.


ISM poses as a peace organization, but sent members to Lebanon, to serve Hizbullah as human shields. It takes orders from Arab terrorists.

"...every Friday, the ISM organizes riots in the West Bank. ISM members openly boast about having been arrested for vandalizing and destroying Israeli security fences and equipment. In March 2003, fugitive Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya was arrested in a house the ISM rented in Jenin."

The FBI fails to prosecute the ISM for "breaking US anti-terrorism laws by fundraising for organizations linked to terrorism and [ISM] even commits passport violations by teaching its members to create false identities to elude the Israeli border control." "Yearly conferences are held on American campuses to recruit and train new ISM members. ISM recruits even within Israel's borders."

Israeli security is lax. An infiltrator into ISM exposed this laxity. Perhaps Israel will tighten its security. Will the US? (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/13.)

The article was much longer. There was much evidence of ISM meeting with Arab terrorists, which must be what "solidarity" means, but not additional hard evidence of criminality.


Gaza businessmen appealed to the terrorists to stop attacking at border crossings, because it stifles trade on which the businesses depend. The businessmen have had to transfer their businesses abroad, leaving the P.A. poorer (IMRA, 9/13).


During its battle against P.A. Islamists, Israeli forces captured videos showing that the supposed charity, Da'wa, finances terrorism and indoctrination in schools of hatred against Jews and cooperation with Hamas. Da'wa calls its work educational. The videos show how the charity disguises its real work (IMRA, 9/12).


The Presbyterian Church has published a book that adopts an Arab conspiracy theory about 9/11. It claims that Pres. Bush had the World Trade Center demolished by placing explosives around it. It alleges his purpose was to let loose a series of wars that would establish a global US hegemony.

The Presbyterians now have so few members, it may be demolishing itself, by such foolishness (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/12).

I didn't read the book, but the theory doesn't make sense. How could the US dominate the world by making Iraq self-governing? How could the US dominate the world with its small military and by letting its navy decline? How come there is no ideology of empire? Since the Muslims keep attacking US targets, why fabricate an attack? How does the author explain that the US has not kept oil or territory, but spends its own money on Iraq?


Libyans have convinced themselves that Bulgarian nurses injected 20 Libyan children with AIDS, hoping that they would spread the disease to their families (IMRA, 9/12).

The Arabs are so conspiracy minded and devoid of factual reasoning, that one doesn't know whether they really got the disease, whether they contracted it at the hospital, or whether they had Bulgarian nurses. I doubt the nurses committed a crime


Brushing off the rocket menace that eventually paralyzed northern Israel.

Supposing Israel could exert pressure for Lebanon to reassert sovereignty in the south.

Imagining that military action could enable Lebanon to heal its abnormality.

Placing faith in the UNO and expecting UNIFIL to suddenly gain a strong mandate.

Reassuring Syria that it could continue to arm Hizbullah without consequences.

Olmert thought the people were as war-weary as he (IMRA, 9/12 from Efraim Inbar).


Undaunted by his Harvard study having been found unscholarly, incorrect, illogical, slanderous, and neurotic, and repudiated by Harvard, John Mearsheimer, of the U. of Chicago, recently blamed the Israel lobby for 9/11 and the Iraq war.

"Israel Lobby" is his code word for scapegoating the Jews. Who is in that lobby? He named Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross. He attributed al-Qaeda antagonism towards the US to US policy toward Israel (Iral Stoll, NY Sun, 10/1, p.4).

Bin Laden admitted having set off 9/11. The first reason he said was the US military presence in S. Arabia, and just about last of many, was Israel. Mearsheimer sure is not scholarly.

It's amusing that he identifies as members of the Israel lobby Indyk and Ross. Those were two of the four Jewish officials in the State Dept. known as "Baker's Jews," notorious for working against Israel and in duplicitous ways. But they are of Jewish origin, so to an ignorant antisemite, they must be working for Israel.


After a newspaper published French teacher's blistering attack on the character of Muhammad and the Koran, death threats sent him into hiding. Muslims didn't debate him, they sought to kill him (Elaine Sciolino, NY Times, 9/30, A3). France handles this as an individual case, but obviously it is a Muslim communal matter. Unless France deports and bars Muslims, it will lose its freedom.


Aggressors plan, while their intended victims plod. The aggressors don't care how much they set back their standard of living, in order to build the instruments of aggression. The West won't sacrifice its standard of living in order to resist aggression until it is too close to home. Then the price for resistance soars.

As the aggressors' intent becomes more apparent, and as their proxy wars unfold, the democracies face hard choices. Should they go to war or impose economic sanctions that cost them some contracts? They try to put off making a choice. When the deadline for Iranian compliance with the UNO on nuclear development passed, the Europeans, who had seemed resolute, showed lack of resolve.

Compounding the difficulty are Democrats who pressure Pres. Bush to work with the irresolute and even with China and Russia, who are resolute against us.

The Europeans would be much more comfortable in the short run if the US collapsed, and could not demand that they make hard choices. Being uncomfortable with us, they dislike the US. Democrats complain that the US has a poor reputation in the world. They should be proud of the US when it upholds standards of decency that many other countries won't, and ashamed of themselves for undermining US resolve. If the US had a bigger military and were consistent in dealing with aggression, the US would have a better reputation. We lost respect for holding back, and we make the timid and mercenary uncomfortable when we plunge ahead.


A previous Israeli regime accepted the Road Map with 14 exceptions, that the US unilaterally ignored and Israel did not insist on. They were sensible exceptions. Israel should have insisted that they become part of the plan or Israel would reject the Map.

Recently IMRA asked Israel's Foreign Ministry whether it referred to the 14 amendments, when discussing with the US a revival of the Road Map. The Foreign Minister laughed. She said she did mention it in "another context." Her laughter mocked her own country's need for national security.

I started to reread those amendments, but gave up. They were overly detailed yet vague. They were written in stilted English, and are not memorable. They make no impression of being reasonable. They should have been written in brief summary form, first, as principles that are persuasive. This is another opportunity lost to make Israel's case seem impressive and to make the Arab cause seem unreasonable.


When a world leader is inconsistent, and like Pres. Bush, makes exceptions for Palestinian Arab terrorists, then the main message becomes unclear and losses support and respect.


(IMRA, 9/14.) Just trade, or also resupply of Hizbullah?


PM Olmert's regime is so incompetent, irresolute, and corrupt, that is must fall soon. The question is not who will replace Olmert, but what culture will replace his, of shallow corruption, with the national interest (MRA, 9/14 from Ari Shavit of Haaretz).


The Road Map is a watered down version of the Oslo Accords. The Arabs never honored either set of plans. The Road Map was just a pretense at providing security for peace. Now the Israeli regime indicates that it will allow the Road Map to be diluted even more. But the Arabs have proved they don't keep agreements and are striving to boost their war-making capability (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/14).

When even the Arabs are saying that the Road Map is dead, Israel should cast it off officially. It never was any good. Israel should assert what conditions make sense.


Hizbullah's scout program trains about 40,000 children in radical Shiite ideology. The first lessons are in hating Israel and wanting to destroy it. Later come military tactics. Eventually, Hizbullah recruits those children into its military forces (IMRA, 9/15).

Hizbullah is getting a grip on the country. It must be disbanded, not just disarmed.


It was British PM Blair who persuaded Pres. Bush to make a false distinction between jihad against the US and jihad against Israel. Then he persuaded Bush to abandon his guideline that for statehood, the P.A. must switch from supporting terrorism to fighting it. (I think Bush still pays that guideline lip service, but) Blair convinced Bush to accept the Road Map that does not require the P.A. to fight terrorism, only pretends to.

Blair ignores Abbas' support for Hamas policies, Abbas' pleas to join the Hamas regime, and Hamas adherence to the Iranian line. Instead he urges Israel to negotiate with Abbas on the basis of the Road Map.

What is Blair good for? He is one of the few W. European leaders who recognizes that there is a global jihad and it must be fought off. The other leaders will do almost anything to please the Muslims. France let Iran and Syria off the hook over Lebanon and favor Hizbullah the aggressor, over Israel, the victim. Pres. Chirac unfairly criticized Israel, initiating a storm of European emulation. Antisemitism in Europe is mainstream, and antisemitic violence in France (and Britain) is at a level like Germany's just before the Nazis came to power. Olmert has been giving in to Europe, when he should be keeping European influence out of its area (IMRA, 9/16 from Caroline Glick).


A US intelligence general in Iraq said that the government of Iran sends millions of dollars in aid and C-4 explosives to Iraqi insurgents and to Hizbullah troops (9/29, Ed.).

Isn't it it time to make Iran pay for its harm to us?


While the US dithers about sanctions against Iran, Iran immunizes itself against sanctions. It transfers billions of dollars to non-Western banks. It stockpiles dual use materials, in case of embargo. It persuaded more than half the UNO members to oppose sanctions, undermining future compliance with sanctions.

That leaves military action. If the US engages in a limited attack, Iran would weather it and continue its nuclear development (IMRA, 9/16).


The Lebanon "Star" recommends that they not respond violently to the Pope's "ignorance." They may have pointed to an actual slight error, but they also accuse him of error in attributing the early spread of Islam to warfare (IMRA, 9/16).

Their early history was one of attacking caravans, tribes, and cities, then attacking neighboring countries, then spreading further by arms and subversion. They conquered India, Spain, and Turkey. Turkey conquered the Byzantine Empire, then pressed deeper into the Balkans. These are historical deeds, recorded and known.

How is it that the Muslims, steeped in their historical traditions, distort their history? Because their traditions also include deception and they believe what is convenient. Riotous and murderous, they still impose Islam by force. What a barbaric people that a newspaper has to urge them not to respond violently to the Pope's scholarly response to them!


The democracy movement in Egypt resented America's apparent initial support for Israel in the Lebanon war. It switched its campaign from seeking democracy to urging the government to overturn the peace treaty with Israel. So it is with other Arab democracy movements (IMRA, 9/16). I did not believe they were sincere. They did not challenge establishment of Islam nor offer to protect minority groups. The so-called democratic movement has been sidelined by the Islamist movement and repressed by autocrats who, in many Arab states, simultaneously appease the Islamists.


A former prosecution official had declared 150 outposts illegal, based on a law passed in 2004. The Land of Israel Legal Forum points out that most of those outposts were built before that 2004 law. When built, the Defense Minister had the authority to declare them legal. Presumably he had. The government is being asked to consider opposing arguments (Arutz-7, 9/4).

The pity of this is that the anti-Zionist side, here, comprises fellow Jews. They know not what they do. They pick the wrong enemy. The real enemy, the Arabs, are unrelenting.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Mgr, October 12, 2006.

This was written by Eli Lake - Staff Reporter of the New York Sun and appeared today in the New York Sun

WASHINGTON -- A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission -- headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker -- is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.

They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should "make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It also says America's top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.

Both Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-commissioner, Lee Hamilton, have said for nearly a month that the coming weeks and months are crucial for the elected body in Baghdad. More recently, Mr. Baker has said he is leaning against counseling the president to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr. Bush yesterday spoke approvingly of his father's old campaign manager and top diplomat, saying he looked forward to seeing "what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton have to say about getting the job done."

The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself." He added, "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."

But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."

Mr. Baker in recent days has subtly been sounding out this theme with interviewers. On PBS's "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker was careful to say he believed the jury was still out on whether Iraq was a success or a failure. But he also hastened to distinguish between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative."

"If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success," he said.

That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. "Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative," the group member, who requested anonymity, said.

Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.

The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations, though both bodies in the past have spurned requests for significant aid for Iraq.

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.

Contact the poster at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 12, 2006.

Dear Mr. President,

Please pass the content of this email to your Secretary of State. She is deeply confused.

It is nothing short of a humiliation for our country to hear her so drastically and fundamentally mis-represent the reality of the Middle East and the Israel-Arab conflict. She is steering us on a course of catastrophic collision with an ugly terrorist reality that she seems unwilling or unable to face.

In her speech yesterday (Secretary Condoleezza Rice: Keynote Address at the American Task Force on Palestine Inaugural Gala; Washington, DC, October 11, 2006, www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73895.htm), she made the following most misguided statement that was proven wrong weeks before she said it.

"...At the time of the (Palestinian Authority) election, there were those who criticized our support for the election. And many still do. But I would ask everyone, "Is there a better way than to allow people to express their views, to have a role in choosing those who will govern them? And now look at how things are changing. For decades, Hamas dwelled in the shadows, able to hijack the future of all Palestinians at will, without ever having to answer for its actions. Today, however, the Palestinian people and the international community can hold Hamas accountable. And Hamas now faces a hard choice that it has always sought to avoid: Either you are a peaceful political party, or a violent terrorist group - but you cannot be both."

Well... not quite! In the Middle East you can!

She cannot not know that for the past week, Mahmoud Abbas has been partially paying the salaries of 3,000 members of Hamas' so called Executive Force, an armed terrorist group created by Hamas in May. As recently as last weekend (Oct. 7), Hamas/PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh declared at a rally, "I tell you with all honesty, we will not recognize Israel, we will not recognize Israel, we will not recognize Israel" (Washington Post, October 11, 2006). Abbas, who claims before Western audiences that he recognizes Israel, said in a television interview, only a few days before then, that "Hamas is not required to recognize Israel%G%@ It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel" (Al-Arabiya [Dubai] and PA TV, October 3).

In the five months since it was created, Hamas' Executive Force has nearly doubled in size from 3,000 armed men in May to a 5,600 strong force today. It is composed mostly of members of Hamas' Iz el-Din al-Qassem Brigades, which has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings against Israeli civilians since the start of the Palestinian terrorist campaign in September 2000 (Reuters, October 6). And Palestinian polls consistently demonstrate that a majority or large plurality of Palestinian citizens are in favor of continued violence against Israel.

So it should be clear that, at least in the Arab world, there are those who can be both political parties AND violent terrorist groups, at one and the same time. Look at Hezbollah in Lebanon, or the Mahdi Army in Iraq, the poplar support for the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the rise in popularity and political power of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt. If the Arab voting population supports terrorism, they can indeed vote in to power a violent terrorist group.

Abbas is hanging on to power by a thread. Hamas is on the rise. Murderous extremists routinely abduct, torture, and kill anyone brave (or foolish) enough to challenge them. The 'Palestinian State' that Secretary Rice is trying so hard to 'birth', is doomed from the outset to be another Arab terrorist state'..whose number one agenda item will the destruction of Israel.

And this situation is not new. More than a decade before the creation of the State of Israel, the British fact-finding group led by Lord Earl Peel, which toured the Holy Land in 1936, saw much the same dynamic of Jew-hatred and violence in the Arab leadership and rank-and-file:

The British report to the League of Nations noted the destructive and hate-mongering role of Palestinian Arab leadership at the time. Regarding the hate that fueled Palestinian Arab political culture, they commented: "...in Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably interwoven with antagonism to the Jews... That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not to hate the Jews."

"....we [The British] find ourselves reluctantly convinced that no prospect of a lasting settlement can be founded on moderate Arab nationalism. At every successive crisis in the past, that hope has been entertained. In each case it has proved illusory."

Hate, violence, terrorism, and a commitment to forcibly eliminate the presence of Jews: those were the characteristics of both the Arab leadership and their following. The same is true today.

Whether she is pandering to popular opinion, blindly following the flawed and oft-failed vision of the Department of State, or genuflecting to Arab petro-power, Secretary Rice is squandering any real hope of peace in the Middle East by pretending that her fantasy of Middle Eastern politics and power structure is reality.

I most sincerely urge you to bring the above facts to her attention, and work with her to craft a RealPolitik approach to the Mid-East conflict.

Even more embarrassing is her flawed understanding of the current status in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Far from being able to "hold Hamas accountable", the PA and the Palestinian rank-and-file are hostage to Hamas and its rapidly growing terror army and armaments; as the following report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy demonstrates. It's called "Beyond the Dust" by Ehud Yaari and was in Jerusalem Report, October 16, 2006 He is the author of Toward Israeli-Palestinian Disengagement and Peace by Piece: A Decade of Egyptian Policy.

Behind the clouds of dust stirred up by the political skirmishing now going on between Hamas and Fatah, some truths have been obscured, truths that will not go away even if and when a government of national unity arises in the Palestinian Authority. Such a government will, in the last analysis, be no more than a ploy -- more or less sophisticated -- aimed at imposing a semblance of order on the internal scuffles plus, of course, getting the European Union to cancel or at least to ease the financial embargo on the Hamas government of Prime Minister Ismail Hanniyeh.

One of the obscured truths is that an unprecedented arms-acquisition effort is under way in the Gaza Strip. Close to 20 tons of standard explosives have been smuggled in since Israel withdrew last summer. Thousands of RPG grenade launchers and large quantities of rifles, pistols and grenades are coming in through the tunnels under the Philadelphi Route, separating the Strip from Egypt. Several Katyusha rocket launchers, like those used by Hizballah against northern Israel, are already in the hands of Hamas and other terror groups. It is only a matter of time before they also get hold of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft rockets and, even more troubling, third generation anti-tank missiles, like the Russian Koronet. Such weaponry will enable the terrorists to effectively target vehicles and structures 3-4 kms. inside Israel, and not to have to depend on their primitive high-trajectory Qassam rockets. Also under way is a feverish campaign to dig tunnels into Israel under the security barrier around the Strip, with the aim of facilitating terror attacks in Israel.

What all this means is that the Israeli government will have to decide sooner rather than later whether to implement the recommendation of the army and the security services to retake the area along the border between the PA and Egypt. Such a move will entail operating inside residential neighborhoods of the city of Rafiah, and will once again turn the Gaza Strip into a sealed-off enclave. The diplomatic harvest that Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert hoped to reap from the withdrawal will simply wither away. The alternative is for Gaza to continue becoming a huge stockpile of weapons and ammunition that must ultimately explode, with disastrous consequences.

Another obscured truth is that Fatah is not on the way back to power. PA President Abbas (Abu Mazen) and his Fatah cohorts are doing their best to hang on to their power and privileges, but they lack the momentum and the determination to go onto the offensive against Hamas, let alone dislodge the Islamist movement from power. In fact, Hamas is gradually penetrating the security apparatuses that were the heart of the Arafatian regime and which are rapidly ceasing to function in the West Bank, while in Gaza they are receding into a near-desperate defensive posture. The process of degeneration in Fatah is carrying on at full steam, not one of all the promises of reform has been kept. At most, Fatah will manage to survive as the junior partner to Hamas or, perish the thought, its fig leaf. Israel's partner in the Oslo process, the Palestinian element that is committed to compromise, in theory at least, is going bankrupt.

Yet another bitter truth: The implosion and disintegration of Palestinian society has not been halted. On the contrary, the deterioration of civil order, of the social fabric, of the arms of government, of public services, is continuing everywhere. Many believe that the point of no return has been passed and that chaos has become the norm beside which all other political considerations pale into insignificance. Hamas has so far utterly failed to offer the public effective and normative governance, the impoverishment of broad sectors is ongoing, and personal security is dwindling away. Things have reached such a state that in a city like Hebron, and the same goes for East Jerusalem, there has been a meteoric revival of the Tahrir (Liberation) Party, an Islamic movement that eschews terror but preaches the renewal of the caliphate by means of some kind of a putsch. This is no more than a reflection of the disillusionment felt toward all of the old familiar organizations.

The same is true, incidentally, of the so-far limited phenomenon of local groupings, such as the Popular Resistance Committees, emulating the al-Qaeda model and going as far as attempting to become Bin Laden's Palestinian branch. Thus, the 'Islamic Army' has declared its establishment in Gaza, and a series of Palestinian websites have recently become organs of the jihad according to the school of Sheikh Osama. Even in Hamas there is nervousness over this tendency among certain young Islamic circles.

These are the conditions on the ground, and this is the true course the Palestinian environment is taking, and for the foreseeable future at least, no hudna-style truce or new coalition can alter the bitter truths obscured by the dust.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 12, 2006.

The list below, while offered in something of a humerous vein, has a very important message. When vitriolic Israel-Bashers demand boycotts and divestment, they claim they want to influence Israel to change its behavior. What they really want is a platform from which to broadcast their vitriol and diatribe. But more important than that is the fact, arising ineluctibly from the list of achievements below, and in the email list below this one, that Israel has, over the past 50 years, made substantive and material contributions to the world far far beyond its size of population and economy....and it has done this despite being in a constant defensive war against an intractible terrorist genocidal enemy....and it has done this whlie sharing its innovations and developments and breakthroughs with the entire world....inclding the very peoples and nations who want to destroy it.

boycott Israel....and you make the statement...quite literally, that you want to push progress and medicine and technology back 50 years.....

and when arab countries proclaim their intent to destroy israel....they want to sent back the entire world by at least 5 ceturies..........does that make any sense

This was written by Barry Shaw, who made aliyah from England. He writes the "View from Here" columns from Israel. To sign up to receive his emails, contact him at netre@matav.net.il

If you're going to boycott Israel - do it properly!

OK. So I understand that you are ticked off at Israel, and in love with the Palestinians. That's fine with me, as long as you have truly weighed up all the facts.

So, you want to boycott Israel? I'll be sorry to miss you, but if you are doing it - do it properly. Let me help you.

Check all your medications. Make sure that you do not have tablets, drops, lotions, etc., made by Abic or Teva. It may mean that you will suffer from colds and flu this winter but, hey, that's a small price for you to pay in your campaign against Israel, isn't it?

While we are on the subject of your Israeli boycott, and the medical contributions to the world made by Israeli doctors and scientists, how about telling your pals to boycott the following.....

An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis. So, if you know anyone suffering from MS, tell them to ignore the Israeli patent that may, more accurately, diagnose their symptoms.

An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralyzed hands. This device electrically stimulates the hand muscles, providing hope to millions of stroke sufferers and victims of spinal injuries. If you wish to remove this hope of a better quality of life to these people, go ahead and boycott Israel.

Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood. This innovation replaces the inhalation mask with an improved drug delivery system that provides relief for child and parent. Please tell anxious mothers that they shouldn't use this device because of your passionate cause.

These are just a few examples of how people have benefited medically from the Israeli know-how you wish to block. Boycotts often affect research. A new research center in Israel hopes to throw light on brain disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's disease. The Joseph Sangol Neuroscience Center in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer Hospital, aims to bring thousands of scientists and doctors to focus on brain research.

A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralize the highly contagious smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the existing vaccine.

Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Doctors Ciechanover and Hershko's research and discovery of one of the human cells most important cyclical processes will lead the way to DNA repair, control of newly produced proteins, and immune defense systems.

The Movement Disorder Surgery program at Israel's Hadassah Medical Center has successfully eliminated the physical manifestations of Parkinson's disease in a select group of patients with a deep brain stimulation technique. For women who undergo hysterectomies each year for the treatment of uterine fibroids, the development in Israel of the Ex Ablate 2000 System is a welcome breakthrough, offering a noninvasive alternative to surgery.

Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine. These are just a few of the projects that you can help stop with your Israeli boycott.

But let's not get too obsessed with my ducal research, there are other ways you can make a personal sacrifice with your anti-Israel boycott.

Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel. So, set a personal example. Throw away your computer! Computers should have a sign attached saying Israel Inside. The Pentium NMX Chip technology was designed at Intel in Israel. Both the Pentium 4 microprocessor and the Centrum processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 in Israel by four young Israeli whiz kids.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R. & D. facilities outside the US in Israel.

So, due to your complete boycott of anything Israeli, you now have poor health and no computer.

But your bad news does not end there. Get rid of your cellular phone. Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by MOTOROLA which has its biggest development center in Israel. Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists.

Feeling unsettled? You should be. Part of your personal security rests with Israeli inventiveness, borne out of our urgent necessity to protect and defend our lives from the terrorists you support.

A phone can remotely activate a bomb, or be used for tactical communications by terrorists, bank robbers, or hostage-takers. It is vital that official security and law enforcement authorities have access to cellular jamming and detection solutions. Enter Israel's Net line Communications Technologies with their security expertise to help the fight against terror. SO ALL THE NOISE ABOUT THE USA LISTENING TO OUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE CALLS, YOU SHOULD KNOW IT IS ISRAEL WHO IS DOING THE LISTENING FOR US.

A joint, nonprofit, venture between Israel and Maryland will result in a 5 day Business Development and Planning Conference next March. Elected Israeli companies will partner with Maryland firms to provide innovation to the US need for homeland security.

I also want you to know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita - 109 per 10,000 - than any other nation. Israel has the highest number of startup companies per rata. In absolute terms, the highest number, except the US. Israel has ratio of patents filed. Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies outside of Silicon Valley. Israel is ranked 2 in the world for venture capital funds, behind the USA. Israel has more museums per capita. Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita.

Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth. These immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom or _expression, economic opportunity, and quality of life.

Believe it or not, Israel is the only country in the world which had a net gain in the number of trees last year.

Even Warren Buffet of Berkshire-Hathaway fame has just invested millions with Israeli Companies.

So, you can vilify and demonize the State of Israel. You can continue your silly boycott, if you wish. But I wish you would consider the consequences, and the truth.

Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world, including the Palestinians - and to you - in science, medicine, Communications, security. Pro rata for population we are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth.

So if you have a desire or need for advanced medical care, a better computer, a place for investment of technology funds, more effective communications, or increased security, check with the Palestinians. I'm sure they'll be happy to help you out.

Israel: Diverse, Creative, and Free"

Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US.

Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

With an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16s, Israel has the largest fleet of the aircraft outside of the US.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbours combined. On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups.

Twenty-four percent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees - ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 percent hold advanced degrees.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia to safety in Israel.

When Gold Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.

When the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day - and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship - and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.

Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."

According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U.S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

In 1991, during the Gulf War, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert wearing gas masks as scud missiles fired by Saddam Hussein fell on Tel Aviv.

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.

Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.

Israel has two official languages: Hebrew and Arabic.

Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U.S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

Technology... With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).

In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.

Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

The technology for AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert."

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth. This from a country just 55 years young having started off life on a very frontiers-like basis, whose population had mostly just emerged from the devastating World War II years.

What other country in the world can lay claim to such an achievement? How many countries with more advantages than Israel have become basket cases and a burden to the world community offering begging bowls instead of humanitarian succour? The question should be not what makes Israel such a special case, but can the world really afford to be without it?

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 11, 2006.

This is what happens when you do not teach right! Like the USA like Israel.

As a Jew, I will never understand WHY Israel has to struggle in the international arena for its legitimacy to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East, the country G-d gave the Jews! Maybe someone can explain this to me. This article was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz.

Former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon believes that Arab propaganda against Israel's right to exist has found purchase even in Israeli society itself.

"Arab propaganda strengthens claims against the legitimacy of the existence of a Jewish State," Ya'alon said, "and, very unfortunately, these claims are even seeping into Israeli society, and among the Israeli youth who find themselves in a crisis of identity and of ignorance of the history of the Jewish people."

Ya'alon made the comments as part of his address to a conference of Beit Morasha of Jerusalem at the capital's Inbal Hotel.

The former military leader said that the State of Israel is in an ongoing struggle for its very existence and, despite its strength as a regional superpower, it is struggling in the international arena for the legitimacy to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East.

Ya'alon continued,

"Beyond military and economic strength, the key to Israeli national well-being is education to values and to a Jewish Zionist identity. Therefore, I have decided to take action in this area in the context of Beit Morasha and in collaboration with [its founder] Professor Binyamin Ish-Shalom, with whom I have worked since the days of my service as the Chief of Staff....The establishment of the Center for Jewish Culture at Beit Morasha will allow us to act together for the promotion of value-based education and to address matters of identity, of Jewish culture, and issues of society and the state."

Founded in 1990, Beit Morasha of Jerusalem is "dedicated to enhancing the Jewish and Zionist character of the State of Israel," its mission statement declares. Beit Morasha integrates intensive study of Talmud, Jewish Law and Jewish philosophy with formal academic studies aimed at all sectors of Israeli society.

In an address to the Zionist Organization of America in May of this year, General Ya'alon said: "In Israel, we must consolidate our Jewish Zionist narrative. Without believing in our case, there is no way to convince someone else."

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nurit@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoaib Choudhury, October 11, 2006.

Greetings from Dhaka !

As you know, I was assaulted by a mob led by BNP's Cultural Wing leader Helal Khan and Babul Ahmed on 5th of October. Our Managing Editor M. A. Ahsan (who takes care of the publication of Weekly Blitz) was also seriously injured, which resulted in suspension of the publication of Weekly Blitz for this week. Immediately after the incident, Mr. Ahsan and me rushed to the Shahbagh Police Station and met the officer-in-charge, Rezaul Karim with the request of lodging a complaint against the attackers and sending police forces to our office to save our properties. But, the police officer, (who reportedly received TK. 200,000 as bribe from the attackers) reluctantly asked us to go back to homes, take shower and meet him after several hours. This was a very notorious response from the officer-in-charge. The attackers took unlawful possession of our office and looted a number of compuers, printers and other valuables from the office. Earlier, when they attacked me, Babul Ahmed shouted saying, "he is an agent of Jews, kill him". They snatched my mobile phone, took TK. 42,000 cash from my pocket and forcively took away the key of the vault of the office and looted TK 350,000 cash. It may be mentioned here that, the police protection was mysteriously withdrawn from our office four days before the attack. Meanwhile, more surprisingly, the government has also withdrawn police protection from my residnece, which has definitely put my entire family in to a tremendous horror.

Now being given legal protection by the police, we lodged a formal case with the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on Sunday, 8th of October, where the Metropolitan magistrate Mizanur Rahman sent the case to criminal Investigation Department (CID) for investigation and necessary actions. But, the influential people (the attackers) belonging to the ruling party are now trying to press CID to send the matter to cold storage. Hearing about lodging the case, the attackers, under the direct patronization of the officer-in-charge of Shahbagh Police Station lodged a false case with the police station in the evening of 8th October, where Rezaul Karim (the OC) instructed his fellow officers to issue warrant of arrest against us. On the following day (9th of October) another false case was filed by the attackers with the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, which the court sent to Shahbagh Police Station for investigation and action. The court also accepted the petition of the attackers and instructed the police to raid my office and residence. This incident forced me to go into hiding on the dark hours of 9th October, as I was told by some pressmen that the officer in charge was ready to arrest me, assault me in custody and kill me. The Officer in charge is continuously conspiring to do everything to 'give me a proper lesson'. The attackers also held a press conference in Dhaka on 10th of October, where attacker Babul Ahmed said, "Shoaib is an agent of Israel and Jews".

I appeared before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. Shafiq Anwar on the 11th of October 2006 through my lawyer Advocate Samarendra Nath Goswami for bail. The magistrate in the bail order wrote, "the counsel appearing for the state (this is a police officer) strongly opposed the bail petition. But, the allegation is confusing. So, the bail is granted". The verdict clearly shows that, the attacker continues to get patronizatin from the government. They want to harrass us and want to see the complete death of Weekly Blitz, which is the most out spoken newspaper in Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Wall Street Journal, kindly published an article titled 'Darkness in Dhaka' on their US edition on 10th of October and Asian Edition on 11th of October. I have placed the article below, please scroll to read.

Now, may I request you kindly to pass on this message to as many as people you know and request them to do the following things urgently:

1. Send an email or fax to Bangladesh Embassy in Washington or New York,

2. The letters should be addressed to :

Ms. Khaleda Zia,
Prime Minister,
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh,
PM's Office,
Old Sangshad Bhaban,
Dhaka, Bangladesh


Mr. Md. Lutfozzaman Babar,
State Minister,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh,
Bangladesh Secretariat,
Topkhana Road,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh

3. In the letter, please, ask the Prime Minister and her State Minister for Home Affairs to immediately withdraw the false sedition charge (trial begins on 12th of October 2006), arrest the attackers forwith and ensure police protection to my office and residence.

You may also kindly call the State Minister for Home Affairs at his cell phone number: 880-1711-540265

I am also providing the fax numbers of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister:

Prime Minister's Fax: 880-2-8113244

State Minister for Home Affairs Fax: 880-2-7171611

Bangladesh Embassy in Washington, Fax Number:

Bangladesh Embassy in Washington, Email:
Bangladesh Consulate, New York, Fax:

Bangladesh Consulate, New York, Email:

I shall be eternally grateful for your kind support and cooperation. I also urge the members of print and elecronic media, kindly to accord their precious support to us.

With Profound Regards

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
Cell Phone: 880-191-326232, 880-1711-938344

The writer is a journalist, columnist, author, amd editor of "Weekly Blitz". Email him at salahuddinshoaibchoudhury@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 11, 2006.


Like many Israelis, my colleague is angry at the current and prior political leaders, for not using Israel's strength to prevent the Lebanon war. It had the means but not the will.

She is annoyed with Israelis who still kowtow to gentiles. Some want to thank Pres. Bush for letting Israel fight and for sending Israel bunker-bombs. "Who is Bush that we should thank him," she asks, "is he God?" She points out that Israel is fighting an enemy of the US, but is paying for the bunker-bombs. The US probably will demand concessions for their sale, later, she supposes.

Like most Israelis, she watches the news incessantly, and dreads talking with friends whose sons are at the front, lest they have bad personal news. She resents Sharon and Olmert, whose sons are not fighting. Olmert's had fled the country. His leftist wife and daughter (whom he admits influence him), protest against the IDF. If my colleague, a patriot, protested against the IDF, she would be arrested, but leftists enjoy immunity.

"Israel is calling its counter-attacks a 'moral' war, because our soldiers are killed because we don't bomb the 'innocent civilians' that the terrorists intentionally put in danger." She thanks G-d that the Allies had not fought WW2 that foolishly. "If it did, Hitler would have won."

"Above all, just 11 months ago the government brainwashed young soldiers to pull Jews out of Gush Katif. Now those soldiers are back in and losing their lives. Never do you hear from Olmert that Gush Katif was a mistake. He spoke to Gush Katif people and told them that the government was correct to drag them out and this will bring a stronger Israel. Above all the evicted people allowed Olmert to speak and didn't throw him out. We definitely are sick mentally. Now Olmert is still speaking about continuing his Convergence Plan (to evacuate many Jews from Judea-Samaria, but he wavers on that). Maybe a Katyusha landing on his head would straighten out his brain." She admits she is upset, but I agree with her, except I'd challenge rather than bar him.


Six girls and some Arabs in Samaria had an encounter. The Arabs claimed that one girl, Tirzah, dumped an Arab's bucket of olives. The girls denied it. The police always believe Arabs over Jews (although Arabs have been found usually to give false witness). They arrested the girl and are keeping her in jail until trial's end.

Israeli law requires speedy trials for jailed minors. Nevertheless, the judge set the next session for four months later, remarking, "You [settlers] are a public that knows to take all the time, but does not know how to give." (Her crime isn't worth 4 months!) He didn't respect the law he is pledged to uphold. He said he'd make an example of this girl.

She was held in jail with hardened criminals and Arabs. She could speak with her mother only by phone through glass, to prevent her from getting passed a weapon, which is harassment when imposed upon such a person. She had irritated the system by refusing to recognize its non-Torah authority. Protests brought the girl another judge, who said people should be tried for what they do, not as examples. The girl was in jail enough for what she (allegedly) did. Case dismissed. (Women in Green, from my associate). Nationalists get poorly treated by the judicial system, but the first judge was agitated primarily by her claim of his non-legitimacy.


Not only did the UNO resolution about Lebanon fail to accomplish anything, it set the stage for further conflict, casualties and damage. Someone took satisfaction in what he thought was the resolution's apparent restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in southern Lebanon. What restoration?

Hizbullah units remain there, nobody daring to disarm them or prevent their rearming. The resolution ties up Israeli self-defense against one, without the UNO or the Lebanese Army interested in stopping a new attack. UNO commanders contend that the resolution hobbles means of enforcement.

In a wider context, Hizbullah remains a key member of a fragile parliamentary coalition. The country's President is a holdover collaborator with Syria. Syrian intelligence agents continue to assassinate Lebanese proponents of independence from Syria.

There is no restoration of Lebanese sovereignty but of the status quo that led to the war. People must be desperate if they find some redeeming quality in the Security Council.


The Muslims spin their conspiracy theories against the West, and gradually Western leftists adopt some of them. Western pundits should be debunking the theories, instead. The theories don't stand up to analysis, but the analysts don't stand up to the theorists.

The basic idea is that all over the West, different governing groups are committing crimes against Muslims, seeking to ruin them. No evidence is cited. The notions are supported only by supposition.

For the supposition to have any basis, there would have to be in the West a general realization of the Islamist menace. There isn't. It is very difficult to rouse the public to the menace. Many governmental leaders are calling Islam a religion of peace and many intellectuals deny that jihad is violent.

When the West had an opportunity to let Israel deal with Islamists in Lebanon, it stopped Israel and is hesitant to put many troops there and to let them fight the terrorists. Most of the Western countries do not have enough troops for that. They give Islamic states foreign aid. They let Muslims immigrate into their countries and influence them.

The real conspiracy is by the Muslims against the rest of the world. They have the ideology and are spending the money to build up their following, their influence, and their control, as Iran is doing in :Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The Muslims also have a suspicious nature and religiously sanctioned hatred and duplicity. Hence they slander the West, believing that the West must be doing to them what they try to do to the West. Remember Arafat? His first terrorism mission was an attempt to poison a water supply in Israel.


9/11 united US conservatives against Islamist terrorism and united liberals against conservatives. Liberals don't see terrorism as a major threat. To wake up liberals to the threat would take another 9/11 (Daniel Pipes, #707, 9/11, 5-year anniversary).

Haven't liberals noticed that terrorism keeps moderate Muslims in line and Europeans intimidated? It gets partial Islamization of Western countries and threatens the stability of Muslim countries. Terrorists are able to tie up large Western forces and distract the West from grave problems such as Iranian development of nuclear weapons.

Hizbullah and other terrorists have been getting advanced weapons that can bring down tanks and helicopters. That is serious enough. They are trying, however, to develop weapons of mass-destruction. Would that get the attention of liberals, or does Iran have to give an atomic bomb to terrorists?


Sadat promulgated a constitution that made Sharia the basis for Egyptian law. This allowed the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood to revive and build. The government supports religious schools that teach the return to Islam by nominal Muslims and war on non-Muslims. Religious music and greetings have replaced secular ones. Women mostly wear religious dress. Professional organizations spread Islamism and hatred of the West (as they do in Jordan), and neglect members' needs. Government workers spend much of their short day in religious functions. Liquor is banned except for tourists. Pan-Islamism has replaced nationalism. Government media spread Islamism. No wonder they persecute the Copts and the Brotherhood is moving to dominance! How foolish Israel was to give land for "peace" and to let Egypt watch the Gaza border! (IMRA, 9/12.) How foolish the US is to give Egypt a couple of billion dollars a year for a modern army!


About 3,000 Saudi students had attended US colleges. Now their government is paying full, out-of-state tuition of about $31,000 each for an additional 12,000. It is a bonanza for the colleges, which are pleased. They talk about creating "understanding" between the two countries. S. Arabia states that this exposure will give the students a Western orientation that offsets tendencies to terrorism (IMRA, 9/10).

Contact engenders misunderstanding by Muslims, who resent Western ways, even though the colleges will cater to the students. How could it be otherwise? Colleges usually are dissolute places, anathema to Muslims. They no longer uphold core values of Western civilization and defense of our society against totalitarian movements.

Educated Muslims flock to terrorism. The news brief did not state what the students will study. I hope it is not science, which they would put to use in behalf of terrorism.

The presence of Muslim Arabs is likely to increase violence and anti-Semitism on campus. How many of the students really are agitators and terrorists, already?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, October 10, 2006.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz newspaper, an English-language publication based in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, was working in his office on October 5 when nearly 40 people stormed the premises. Mr. Choudhury's newspaper's office was bombed in July of 2006 and this past week, his newspaper's office was ransacked and Mr. Choudhury was badly beaten by an extremist mob. Yet, he is due to go on trial on October 12th on the old charges that had never been dropped: blasphemy, sedition, treason and espionage. Salah Choudhury faces death if convicted.

As CAMERA writes:

Last year, the tireless efforts of just a few people helped get Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a moderate Muslim and brave proponent of peace and dialogue with Jews and Israel, released on bail in Bangladesh, after 16 months of undeserved and inhumane imprisonment. He had been arrested and incarcerated for simply trying to fly to Israel to speak at a conference about how the media can help foster religious tolerance. He is a newspaper editor and has published essays supporting relations with Israel... He has bravely risked his life to publicly support Israel, pluralism, moderation and interfaith coexistence. Ask that he be released and that he, his family, and his newspaper office receive police protection.

What you can do?

* Please call members of the media (local and national) to educate them about Mr. Choudhury's bravery and his dire predicament. Urge them to cover the story immediately and to call attention to the unfair nature of the charges against him. Media contact info is at the end of this alert.

* Call/write your elected officials. Ask them to contact Bangladeshi officials to ask that the charges be dropped and for the police to protect Mr. Choudhury and his family from further violence and harassment.

The article below was written by Bret Stephens and it appeared today in the Wall Street Journal Online. It is called "Darkness in Dhaka."

Meet Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. As these lines are being written, Mr. Choudhury, a gadfly Bangladeshi journalist, is running for his life. Assuming he survives till Thursday, he will face charges of blasphemy, sedition, treason and espionage in a Dhaka courtroom. His crime is to have tried to attend a writers' conference in Tel Aviv on how the media can foster world peace. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Welcome to Bangladesh, a country the State Department's Richard Boucher recently portrayed in congressional testimony as "a traditionally moderate and tolerant country" that shares America' s "commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law." That's an interesting way to describe a country that is regularly ranked as the world's most corrupt by Transparency International and whose governing coalition, in addition to the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, includes two fundamentalist Islamic parties that advocate the imposition of Shariah law. There are an estimated 64,000 madrassas (religious schools) in Bangladesh. The Ministry of Industries is in the hands of Motiur Rahman Nizami, a radical Islamist with a reputation of a violent past. In March, the Peace Corps was forced to leave the country for fear of terrorist attacks. Seven other journalists have also been brought up on sedition charges by Ms. Zia's government, most of them for attempting to document Bangladesh's repression of religious minorities.

But few stories better illustrate the Islamist tinderbox that Bangladesh has become than Mr. Choudhury's. "When I began my newspaper [the Weekly Blitz] in 2003 I decided to make an end to the well-orchestrated propaganda campaign against Jews and Christians and especially against Israel," he says in the first of several telephone interviews in recent days. "In Bangladesh and especially during Friday prayers, the clerics propagate jihad and encourage the killing of Jews and Christians. When I was a child my father told me not to believe those words but to look at the world's realities."

With that in mind, Mr. Choudhury, then 38, began publishing articles sympathetic to Israel in the Weekly Blitz while reaching out to Jewish and Israeli writers he encountered on the Web. That led to the invitation by the Hebrew Writers' Association, and to Mr. Choudhury's only crime: By attempting to travel to Israel in November 2003, he violated the Passport Act, which forbids citizens from visiting countries (such as Israel and Taiwan) with which Bangladesh does not maintain diplomatic relations. Violations of the Passport Act are usually punishable by a fine of $8.

But that wasn't the sentence meted to Mr. Choudhury. Following his arrest he was taken into police custody and, as he tells it, blindfolded, beaten and interrogated almost incessantly for 10 days in an attempt to extract a confession that he was spying for Israel. He refused to offer one. He spent the next 16 months in solitary confinement in a Dhaka jail, where he was denied medical treatment for his glaucoma.

By then, Mr Choudhury's case had come to the attention of Congressman Mark Kirk (R., Ill), who intervened with Bangladesh's ambassador to the U.S. to secure Mr. Choudhury's release on bail, though the charges were never formally dropped. Help also came from Richard Benkin, a Chicago-area activist who has taken up Mr. Choudhury's cause, and the American Jewish Committee, which invited Mr. Choudhury to the U.S. in May to receive its Moral Courage Award. But Mr. Choudhury says he decided to forgo the trip after a government minister warned him, "If you go, it will not be good for you."

In July, the offices of the Weekly Blitz were bombed by Islamic militants. In September, a judge with Islamist ties ordered the case continued, despite the government's reluctance to prosecute, on the grounds that Mr. Choudhury had hurt the sentiments of Muslims by praising Christians and Jews and spoiling the image of Bangladesh world-wide. Last week, the police detail that had been posted to the Blitz's offices since the July bombing mysteriously vanished. The next day the offices were ransacked and Mr. Choudhury was badly beaten by a mob of 40 or so people. Over the weekend he lodged a formal complaint with the police, who responded by issuing an arrest warrant for him. Now he's on the run, fearing torture or worse if he's taken into custody.

Much of Mr. Choudhury's current predicament can be traced to Ms. Zia's reluctance to cross her Islamist coalition partners, who are keen on the case of the "Zionist spy" and would like nothing more than to see him hang. It doesn't help that a powerless caretaker government will take charge later this month in preparation for next January's elections. The U.S. Embassy in Dhaka has kept track of Mr. Choudhury and plans to send an observer to his trial. But mainly America' s diplomats seem to have treated him as a nuisance. "Their thinking," says a source familiar with the case, "is that this is the story of one man, and why should the U.S. base its entire relationship with Bangladesh on this one man?"

Here's an answer: Bangladesh does not mean much strategically to the U.S., except for the fact that it is home to some 120 million Muslims, many of them desperately poor and increasingly under the sway of violent religious notions imported from Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration, which every year spends some $64 million on Bangladesh, has made a priority of identifying moderate Muslims and giving them the space and cover they need to spread their ideas. Mr. Choudhury has identified himself, at huge personal risk, as one such Muslim. Now that he is on the run, somewhere in the darkness of Dhaka, will someone in the administration pick up the phone and explain to the Bangladeshis just what America expects of its "moderate and tolerant" friends?

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 10, 2006.

While his current name is Vladimir Putin, Ras-Putin, the so-called "Mad Monk" of old Russia may have returned as a warrior, determined to destroy America, Israel and any other nation who gets in his way.

This will not be a re-run of the Cold War but a Hot War, conducted through Ras-Putin's proxies: Iran - Syria - Hezb'Allah and even Hamas.

Some have forgotten Ras-Putin earlier years in the KGB as a cold warrior where there were training camps in the Soviet Union geared to train Terrorists like Carlos the Jackal (alias Ilyich Ramirez Sanchez). Their role was to infiltrate America to plant sleeper cells and other U.S. locations globally to become what is euphemistically called "insurgents". Perhaps if the Media used the correct term of Terrorists instead of "Insurgents" and called it a 'religious' war instead of "Sectarian Violence", the world's influentials and Media would deal with these issues more pro-actively.

Ras-Putin now as Vladimir Putin may not be a full reincarnation of the 'Mad Monk' Ras Putin but the mystic of a conqueror's past is deep within this man. We think of such charismatic tyrannical personalities as Iran's current mad President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, by his own words is an extraordinarily dangers man, but Ras-Putin is his Machievelli who pushes Ahmadinejad.

Ras-Putin seems to want a power confrontation with America but dare not do it directly so he target's America's small but vital ally, Israel. This Putin can do safely because he has what are called: "Cutouts" in the Intelligence world. Someone else is tasked to do the dirty work and the puppet master Ras-Putin holds up his hand in shock and indignation to show his hands are clean.

Which, of course, is his method for making Iran under Ahmadinejad nuclear-capable and giving Ahmadinejad the courage to ignore America while pledging again and again to wipe Israel off the face of the earth with one big Nuclear Bomb.

Ras-Putin is more dangerous that Hitler and Stalin combined.

Ras-Putin, with his instincts to cause trouble, has now put Chechen Muslim Russian soldiers on Israel's border in Lebanon. Like a vulgar Russian Cossack he has bulled his way into Lebanon. He thinks he will curry favor with other Islamists in the Arab and Muslim world. The Americans once trained the Afghan Mujahadin (Taliban) to fight and beat the Soviet soldiers - driving them out of Afghanistan. When the Soviets left, the Taliban and their leader Osama Bin Laden were well-trained terrorists who knew how to blow up America's Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9/11.

So, Ras-Putin wants his Muslim Chechen soldiers now in South Lebanon in Sidon to get friendly with Hezb'Allah and other dedicated Muslim terrorists. No doubt, they will and return to Russia eventually with a greater fervor for Allah when they start blowing up Russian installation and cities.

In the meantime, Israel must face yet another enemy.


1. "Moscow Posts 2 Chechen platoons in S. Lebanon, one headed by an ex-rebel commander, "to improve Russia's image in the Arab world," DEBKAfile Exclusive October 7, 2006 http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3354

2. Supporting what I have written, I must refer you to an article written by Natan Sharansky, entitled "Moral Myopia" as follows:
"Moral Myopia" by Natan Sharansky (from Zionnet: http://www.zionnet.net/id47.html) Natan Sharansky, a former deputy prime minister in the Sharon government, is currently a member of the Likud opposition in Israel's Knesset.

IN THE SUMMER of 2000, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin told me a story that I have been unable to get out of my mind. We were meeting in the Kremlin, and I raised the grave danger facing the world from the transfer of missile technology and nuclear material to the Iranians. In Putin's view, however, the real danger came not from an Iranian nuclear-tipped missile or, for that matter, from the lethal arsenal of any nation-state.

"Imagine a sunny and beautiful day in a suburb of Manhattan," he said. "An elderly man is tending to the roses in his small garden with his nephew visiting from Europe. Life seems perfectly normal. The following day, the nephew,carrying a suitcase, takes a train to Manhattan. Inside the suitcase is a nuclear bomb."

The threat, Putin explained to me a year before 9/11, was not from this or that country but from their terrorist proxies -- aided and supported quietly by a sovereign state that doesn't want to get its hands dirty -- who will perpetrate their attacks without a return address. This scenario became real when Al Qaeda plotted its 9/11 attacks from within Afghanistan and received support from the Taliban government. Then it happened again this summer, when Iran was allowed to wage a proxy war through Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and northern Israel. But this time, the international community's weak response dealt the global war on terror a severe blow.

Five years ago, after 9/11, such a lack of culpability seemed inconceivable. That was when President Bush abandoned the conventional approach to fighting terror by vowing that the United States would henceforth make no distinction between terrorists and regimes that support them. You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.

In the pre-9/11 world, regimes were rarely held responsible for the actions of terror groups. Now the Taliban regime was being held accountable.

This was critically important for two reasons. First, it recognized that international terrorism relies on the support of sovereign states. It is regimes, after all, that give terror groups territory on which to train, arm and indoctrinate their members, and regimes that provide them critical financial, diplomatic, logistical and intelligence support.

Second, although shadowy terror cells are difficult to eradicate fully and suicidal fanatics impossible to deter, the regimes that support terror groups do have a return address and are rarely suicidal . Thus, holding the Taliban responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda, and elevating the logic for doing so to a central principle in the war on terror, greatly enhanced deterrence. Every single regime was immediately put on notice.

Fast forward five years. Hezbollah launches an unprovoked attack on Israel. It is clear that Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran. It is public knowledge that Hezbollah receives more than $100 million a year from the Iranian regime, as well as sophisticated weapons and training.

Yet Iran has paid no price for its proxy's actions. No military strikes on Iranian targets, no sanctions, no threat whatsoever to Iranian interests. On the contrary, in the wake of the war, there have been renewed calls in the democratic world to "engage" Iran.

Symptomatic of the moral myopia in the West is a farce worthy of Orwell: Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, under whom students were tortured after a 1999 crackdown at Tehran University and whose rule was marked by the continued stifling of dissent, spoke... at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence."

The Iranian regime's intentions are clear. It calls for "wiping Israel off the map" and tells its followers to "imagine a world without America. " It seeks to dominate the Middle East. By failing to hold Iran accountable for its brazen support of Hezbollah, the free world has undermined a central pillar in the war on terror and given the Iranian regime a huge weapon for achieving its ambitions. Now the mullahs know they can attack a democratic country with impunity.

Considering the apocalyptic fanaticism of Iran's leader, it is an open question whether the current regime in Tehran is capable of being deterred through the threat of mutually assured destruction. But given how the world has responded to Hezbollah, the point may be academic. For surely Iran would be better served by using proxies to wage a nuclear war against Israel. And if there is no accountability, why stop with Israel?

The road to a suitcase bomb in Tel Aviv, Paris or New York just got a whole lot shorter.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 10, 2006.


She is bright and she is right; Caroline B. Glick does it again. The cliché history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce is wrong, it repeats itself first as farce and second as tragedy.

Many times I wonder what are politicians and "leaders" think and know and if they are in the right mind when they make decisions detrimental to our security, to our personal existence.

Iran and North Korea are no more a threat to USA national security interests than the Palestinians Authority and the American public is at least aware of this fact.

While there are distinct signs Europe is leaning towards ending its appeasement policy the USA is still wallowing in appeasement rhetoric that includes its approach to terror-ruled Palestinian Authority.

During Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to the PA last week, it was made clear that the fact that in the last six years more than a thousand Israelis were killed by the Palestinian jihad the State Department is unfazed! Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does not get it: Abbas is Arafat like in a suit.

While to the American nation is told that Pakistan is our "friend," Pakistan uses the PA as an excuse for terror sponsorship and nuclear proliferation. Furthermore, the PA is also used by jihadists throughout the world as justification for attacks on Western and Jewish targets.

In the USA, we should raise hell about Rice sanctioning the policy put together by US to expand by up to 70 percent Abbas's presidential guard and personal army, Force 17. No US tax dollar should go to fund the training and arming and expansion of Abbas's army from 3,500 to 6,000 soldiers.

The Whitehouse must stop responding the black mailing policy used by countries like North Korea, Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Enough is enough of the mockery.

I personally think that Secretary Condoleezza Rice is siding with the enemy of Israel! No smiles should be seen on any of Israel's leadership faces when meeting with her.

This is called "History's dangerous repetition" and is by Caroline B. Glick. Jewish World Review Oct. 10, 2006 / 18 Tishrei, 5767

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

It would seem that Karl Marx got things backwards. History does not repeat itself first as tragedy and then as farce. Rather, it repeats itself first as farce and second as tragedy. This, perhaps more than anything else is the conclusion one should reach from North Korea's nuclear test on Columbus Day.

It was the Clinton administration, which back in the Roaring '90s began the policy of appeasing North Korea. Throughout the decade the US wined and dined the North Korean Stalinists who always responded by pocketing US concessions and escalating their nuclear and ballistic missile activities and threats against the US and its Asian allies.

The farce was then US secretary of state Madeleine Albright's visit to Pyongyang in late October 2000, two weeks before the US presidential elections. There, after the North Koreans tested the Taepo-Dong 1 ballistic missile off the coast of Japan in 1998 and refused to end either their missile programs or missile exports to Iran, Albright tripped the night fantastic with Kim Jong-Il. Her buffoonery was a perfect capstone to eight years of the Clinton administration's addiction to ceremony over substance.

While America's tone towards North Korea chilled under the Bush administration, there was little substantive change in its policies.

Secretary of state Colin Powell met with his North Korean counterpart Pak Nam Sun and to this day US attempts to strike a deal with Pyongyang have not ended. And now, Pyongyang, with its medium-and long-range ballistic missiles, has tested a nuclear bomb.

THERE IS of course also North Korea's ally Iran. Toward Iran, too, the substance of the Bush administration policies is little different from that of his predecessor. Like North Korea, the Iranians respond to US attempts at appeasement by escalating their rhetoric and redoubling their offensive military build-ups of missiles and nuclear capabilities.

The great shift, then, which occurred under the Bush administration, a shift for which President George W. Bush has been pilloried by his political rivals, has been rhetorical.

While hypocritical, the division between rhetoric and substance has something to recommend it. The benefit of the current US position toward North Korea and Iran is that the rhetoric has left open the possibility that the policy itself will finally be suited to reality. Today, unlike the situation in the 1990s, the American public is at least aware that these states are a threat to US national security interests.

In the aftermath of North Korea's nuclear bomb test, the US can support military actions by Japan and South Korea against North Korea; build up its missile shield; and perhaps end its 14-year self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing and so revamp its nuclear arsenal.

Were the Bush administration to change its policy tomorrow regarding Iran -- begin shaming Europe into ending its appeasement, and threatening Russia with trade sanctions if Moscow continues supporting Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, while building up its military options to strike at Iran's nuclear installations -- the American public would understand why the policy change was necessary. Indeed, such a move could even help the Republican Party in the upcoming elections.

DISTURBINGLY, WHILE Bush has paved the way rhetorically for a shift in policy toward North Korea and Iran, he has done no such thing in the US's relations with the terror-ruled Palestinian Authority. And as is the case with Iran and North Korea, the stubborn and ill-considered continuation of the Clinton administration's appeasement policy toward the PA during the Bush years has only exacerbated and escalated the threat posed by the PA to US national security interests and to the national security of US allies -- first and foremost, of Israel.

In the 1990s, the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, was the most frequent foreign visitor at the White House. The head of the PLO was the object of adoration by the Clintonites. It didn't matter to them that Arafat never revoked the PLO Charter calling for Israel's destruction. It didn't matter that he indoctrinated a generation of Palestinian children to become suicide bombers in jihad against the Jews. It didn't matter that he used billions of dollars of American and European taxpayer money to build the largest terror army in the world. Arafat showed up at signing ceremonies. He was the poster child of appeasement.

The Clinton administration tied itself to a policy toward the Palestinians, which, like its policies toward North Korea and Iran, opened it to ever escalating blackmail. As the terror threat emanating from the PA-ruled areas rose, empowering Arafat became the obsession of the Clinton White House. He was showered with money, guns and love. No Israeli security consideration could hold a candle to the need to strengthen Arafat.

From bombing to bombing, Arafat was enriched and empowered. Israel's security became the main obstacle to the signing ceremonies.

After seven years, the myth of Arafat the peacemaker exploded in the faces of more than a thousand Israelis who would be killed over the next six years of the Palestinian jihad. But the myth of the PA endured.

For the past six years, each bombing, every clear indication that the PA itself is a terrorist entity is met by more breathless US protestations of support for Palestinian empowerment and statehood. The fact that the last six years have left the State Department unfazed was made absolutely clear during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit last week.

Since Arafat appointed Mahmoud Abbas, his deputy of 40 years, PA prime minister in 2003, the US has upheld Abbas as a man of peace, a moderate and a respectable leader that the Bush administration wishes to strengthen. To this end, the Bush administration has overlooked Abbas's clear support for terrorism. It has excused his constant appeals to merge his Fatah terror group with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has ignored the fact that his Fatah terror group has committed more acts of terror than Hamas and that Fatah's involvement in terror and the sophistication of its attacks has only increased since Abbas replaced Arafat after the latter's death in November 2004.

During her visit last week, at Abbas's request, Rice was scheduled to meet with Fatah commander Hussein a-Sheikh in the American Consulate-General in Jerusalem. The meeting was cancelled at the last minute when Israeli activists demanded that Sheikh, who was directly responsible for the murder of dozens of Israelis and several American nationals, be arrested by Israel police upon arrival at the consulate. Yet, Rice still met with other Fatah leaders, like Muhammad Dahlan who has been directly implicated in the murder of Israelis in terror attacks perpetrated by men under his command.

EVEN MORE disturbingly, Rice has officially sanctioned a policy put together by US Army Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton to expand by up to 70 percent Abbas's presidential guard and personal army, Force 17. The administration wishes to raise some $20 million to fund the training and arming and expansion of Abbas's army from 3,500 to 6,000 soldiers. This move comes after the US transferred 3,000 rifles and 1 million bullets to Force 17 in June. Yet Force 17 is a terrorist army led by terrorists.

Right after he received the weapons shipment, Abbas appointed Mahmoud Damra commander of the force. Damra, who like many of the Force 17 officers and soldiers, doubles as a Fatah terrorist, was wanted by Israel due to his direct involvement in the terrorist murder of at least 15 Israelis. One of his deputies claimed that the US rifles were immediately used to attack a bus carrying Israeli schoolgirls in Judea.

Israel arrested Damra at a checkpoint shortly after he received Abbas's appointment. The US immediately began pressuring Israel to release him.

In addition to Damra's direct involvement in Fatah terror, he also has close ties with Iran and Hizbullah. In 2002, Arafat reportedly appointed him Force 17's liaison officer to Iran and Hizbullah forces. The fact that Abbas appointed Damra Force 17's overall commander just weeks before Fatah and Hamas began Iran's proxy war against Israel by attacking the IDF position at Kerem Shalom and kidnapping Cpl. Gilad Shalit, should say something about Abbas's intentions. Yet, last week, Rice couldn't praise Abbas enough.

North Korea's nuclear test and Iran's nuclear intimidation show us what happens when failed policies are not abandoned. Due in part to its continued US-backed legitimacy, the PA is used by Pakistan as an excuse for terror sponsorship and nuclear proliferation and by jihadists throughout the world as justification for attacks on Western and Jewish targets.

No doubt the North Korean nuclear test is a turning point in this world war.

The question is whether it will force the US to finally part with appeasement, or whether Rice will convince President Bush to take his chances by repeating history a third and fourth time.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, October 10, 2006.

Jonathan Pollard is in the 22nd year of his prison sentence, while Ronald Montaperto, a former Pentagon analyst, received three months in prison for the "very serious charge" of passing highly classified intelligence to two Chinese military officers.

Senators Lautenberg and Lieberman must appreciate the air of anti-Semitism with which this huge disparity of sentences resonates. Call Lautenberg's assistant, Linda, at: 202-224-3224; Call Lieberman at: 202-224-4041.

Tell them about the huge disparity of sentences, and demand that they "Free Jonathan Pollard NOW!"

This is called "Pentagon analyst gets light jail term" and it was written by Bill Gertz September 9, 2006 and it appeared in The Washington Times

A former Pentagon analyst who passed highly classified intelligence to two Chinese military officers was sentenced to three months in prison yesterday -- far shy of four to five years called for in sentencing guidelines.

Federal Judge Gerald Bruce Lee said that despite the "very serious charge" against Ronald Montaperto, he was swayed to reduce the sentence based on letters of support from current and former intelligence and military officials.

Montaperto, 67, who pleaded guilty in June to unlawful retention of classified documents he obtained while working at the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he was trying to get intelligence for the United States from the Chinese officials.

"I never meant to hurt my country in any way," Mr. Montaperto said during his hearing at U.S. District Court in Alexandria. He worked at the Pentagon from 1981 until his dismissal in 2003.

Neil Hammerstrom, the assistant U.S. attorney, told the court that Montaperto met 60 times with two Chinese military intelligence officers and provided both secret and top secret information during the meetings.

Mr. Hammerstrom asked for at least a two-year sentence, arguing a tough prison term was needed because Montaperto "repeatedly placed in jeopardy sensitive sources and methods pertaining to our national security."

Montaperto told investigators he could not remember the specifics of the classified information he passed to Chinese intelligence, lapses that prevented prosecutors from charging him with more serious spy charges.

U.S. officials said a major U.S. electronic eavesdropping operation against China went silent around the time Montaperto admitted passing the highly classified data to the Chinese in 1988.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House intelligence committee, said he is concerned by the apparent support for Montaperto from the U.S. intelligence community and promised a committee probe.

"You would think that the intel community would set the standard for holding people accountable for mishandling and passing of classified information to our enemies," Mr. Hoekstra said.

Among the officials who wrote letters of support were Lonnie Henley, currently the deputy national intelligence officer for East Asia in the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte. Mr. Henley said he has been "close friends" with Montaperto since the 1980s.

Another supporter was retired Rear Adm. Eric McVadon, who currently holds a security clearance as a consultant on China to the CIA and Pentagon. Adm. McVadon said he would not second guess the case against his friend but could only "recoil at characterizations of him in the press as a spy."

Judge Lee said he also considered Montaperto's "extraordinary" voluntary confessions in the light sentence, which includes three months of home detention and five years' probation.

However, investigators said Montaperto did not reveal or admit the passing of secrets until fooled into making the admissions in a 2003 sting operation while he worked at the U.S. Pacific Command think tank in Hawaii.

U.S. intelligence officials have said Montaperto was first investigated in the late 1980s after a Chinese defector said Beijing considered him one of their "dear friends," or informal supporters of China.

The light sentence contrasts with the 12-year prison term given in January to another former Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, who was convicted of providing classified information to two officials of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Contact Buddy Macy at vegibud@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 24, 2006.


In a world that is more belligerent and less hospitable to US bases, the US Navy has to hold ordnance off shore and protect the transport. Building only about five warships a year, however, the US is reducing its fleet to only 150 ships, whereas China (of unknown ambition but rogue behavior) is moving towards having 600 ships.

The US military suffers from defense cuts and from a bureaucracy so wasteful as to triple building costs, aside from inflation. The military management is bloated but inefficient. Intelligence is poor, and the 9/11 Commission recommendations were not implemented, but more bureaucracy was added (John Lehman, NY Sun, 9/27, p.2).

The regular military budget does not cover the war, which depends on last-minute emergency allocations, leaving combat forces under-supplied. This is more of President Bush's war on-the-cheap.

For decades, military spending was misallocated by lobbying and by which Congressional district supplies would be purchased from. Congress used to overspend on giant, more vulnerable aircraft carriers, the single loss of which would be more costly. Such budgeting left less for what the military really needs and requested.

US military doctrine formerly was to have a military big enough to handle two major wars (not world wars), then 1 and a half, and now even less than that. The reserves no longer are reserves. Pressed into almost continuous service, they leave us no real reserve. Surely our enemies, who prefer guns to butter, know that.

Since the threats are growing rather than diminishing, we need a more powerful military, the appropriate doctrine for it, the will to use it suitably and before small wars become large ones, and the determination to wipe out our enemies rather than stand pat as our inadequate forces in the field are forced to do. We need to husband our resources or else more than our Navy will be in decline.


The Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations presented an award to Maher Hathout, the President of the Islamic Council of Southern California and senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council for "outstanding human relations work."

He may have done some good work, but he also: (1) Called the US "terrorist" for fighting back against Afghanistan and Sudan; (2) Called Hizbullah an American-style freedom-fighter, although it is imperialist, theocratic, and terrorist; (3) Claims that the US is under Israeli occupation, which is the old anti-Semitic notion of the Jews controlling the world; (4) Accused the US of financing a brutal, apartheid state in Israel; (5) etc. That "human relations" work consists of spreading vile slander (IMRA, 9/7).

Why does Los Angeles County confer an award for human relations upon an anti-American hate-monger? Do they know only of his good work, which apparently is a cover for evil work? Are they naïve, in denial, or Far Left?


After the war in Lebanon started, verbal and physical attacks on Jews in Britain tripled, from almost 30 a month to more than 90. People consider Israel to be in the wrong. They take in out on the local Jews. Most of the attackers are Muslims, but other ethnic groups and all classes and races participate. Some express the sentiment that Hitler should have slain all the Jews (IMRA, 9/6). Equal opportunity bigots.

It works like this: (1) Gentiles deprive the Jewish people of their homeland and disperse most of them; (2) Gentiles make the refugees unwelcome, and say, "Why don't you go back to where you came from!; (3) Jews return to the homeland; (4) But the Arabs attack them; (5) Israel defends itself; (6) The European media falsely accuses Israel of being the aggressor; (7) The large and subversive Muslim populations in Europe attack Jews; (8) Instead of fighting Islamic subversion, the Christian or ex-Christian population of Britain blames the Jews; (9) It does not occur to those Christians in their supposed enlightened societies that the Muslims are filled with dangerous hatred and they, themselves, are stereotyping Jews and blaming ones not involved in the war.

When I hear Americans condemning the US administration for not working with Europe and catering to European policies, I wish it were true.


An Israeli company expects to be able to fill orders in a few months for a system to protect tanks found vulnerable in Iraq and Lebanon, if it gets the orders. The system would save the lives of infantry wounded in the open and unable to get picked up by helicopters under heavy fire.

The US Army formed an evaluation team with members of Raytheon, which makes a rival product not to be ready for five years. The team rejected the Israeli product. This raises questions of conflict of interest in the team. Did it put some team members' company profits before the lives of American troops? The troops need protection this year.

The IDF order depends upon approval from the Israeli Treasury (IMRA, 9/8).

The Western countries have powerful militaries, but pull their punches against terrorist forces operating from civilian areas. This gives the terrorists an even chance. The West loses more troops, to spare the civilians, often accomplices of the terrorists. Perhaps the West overdoes its humanitarian concerns, and should lay down heavier firepower and knock out the terrorists more surely, along with anti-Western civilians who tolerate the terrorists in their midst. There is no question that most Shiites of southern Lebanon and most Arabs of Gaza approve of the terrorists in their midst.


Israel reserved the right itself to stop the rearming of Hizbullah. Syria reportedly is rearming Hizbullah. Israel has not acted (IMRA, 9/6). Israel talks. Just talks.


When the President of Syria asked for peace with Israel, PM Olmert replied, "The conditions for peace talks are not yet propitious" Failing to explain himself, he left the impression that Israel is not interested in peace. By default, it also makes Syria seem interested in peace. Olmert thus gave a propaganda victory to the enemy.

What Syria calls peace, however, is a subterfuge for Israel to cede to it strategic territory that would greatly boost Syria's chances if it started another war against Israel.

Olmert should reply that Israel is eager for peace, and wants to put its own conditions on the table. (Usually the Arabs insist on exclusive preconditions, their conditions.)

He should add that most Israelis oppose the concessions Israeli governments previously offered Syria. Therefore, Israel has a new position. Israel annexed the Golan Heights 25 years ago, and has been holding them for as long as Syria did, earlier. Israel will not give them all up; UN Security Council Resolutions 242 does not expect it to.

There are some strategic parts of the Golan that Israel must retain. There are some other parts, one having Druse loyal to Syria, that Israel could give to Syria. That would be a reasonable compromise to negotiate (Hillel Halkin, NY Sun, 9/26, Op.-Ed.).

Mfr. Halkin has done his usual job of starting out seeming reasonable and familiar with the issue by making a case for Israel to retain its territory, and then, suddenly, misunderstand the issue and making his customary pitch for surrender of territory.

Why call an Israeli concession of some of its territory without Syria conceding some of its territory a "compromise?" Why should Israel cede any territory to its enemy? What has territory to do with peace? Haven't the previous Israel withdrawals, including Oslo, taught Halkin that land-for-peace does not work? Doesn't he understand that the problem is a combination of religious fanaticism eager to destroy Israel by slicing it up in phases and imperialism that finds any excuse for demanding Israeli territory? Halkin operates under the illusion that the Arabs have some legitimate grievance that relinquishing territory to it would alleviate. Israeli withdrawal, unfortunately, merely whets the Muslim Arab appetite for more land. Olmert should tell Syria to first prove desire for peach by ceasing to arm Hizbullah and to broadcast hatred of Jews.


The parliament passed a law for the King's signature that grants the government the right to veto mosque preachers. The law is motivated by the discovery that native terrorists who attacked the country were recruited by radical preachers (IMRA, 9/9).

The Islamists denounced the bill as restricting freedom of religion. What freedom of religion do Islamists allow, when they have power? The problem is that their religion strays into politics, intolerance, and violence, so the government needs to protect the state from it. If they behaved properly, they would not be restricted.


PM Olmert set several goals for the war in Lebanon, one of which was to free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. No goal was met. The father of a soldier killed during the war complained about this failure to fulfill the goal for which his son sacrificed his life. PM Olmert answered callously, deriding the father for having expected Israel to retrieve the kidnapped. Olmert's positions: first, believe me, and second, you were a fool to believe me. Now he is negotiating over prisoners, which he said he wouldn't do and which most Israelis abhor, because releasing terrorists means more Israelis murdered.

Hizbullah gave videos of the kidnapped soldiers to Israeli Channel 10. In complicity with Hizbullah -- the station selling air time and the kidnappers wanting to discourage Israelis -- Channel 10 filmed the anguished families of the victims, trying to ascertain from the footage whether their sons were alive. The station should have lent the video to the IDF, whose experts might glean clues of use to the families and to the country.

The war was lost when Israel gave in to demands by the UNO, US, EU, and Egypt that instead of protecting itself, Israel allow into Lebanon hostile foreign troops that refuse to stop arms smuggling, refuse to disarm Hizbullah, and refuse to force them out of their positions in southern Lebanon. (The Turks refuse to fire on fellow Muslims.)

Pres. Bush is no better. He says the US will not allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. But he also says the US is working with other countries on a diplomatic solution, even while Iran rejects or abuses diplomatic overtures. The means Bush utilizes cannot solve the problem, just as the means Olmert used did not solve the problem.

The failure of both the US and Israel arises from mistaking process for content (i.e., talk for action). They confuse goals and means. Israel said it was fighting to uphold a UNO resolution to disarm Hizbullah. That is not what it was fighting for and it should not have lent legitimacy to the UNO. Bush said it was most important for the US to work with French and UNO backing. He thereby hobbled the US in behalf of the prestige of those most unworthy parties. (Welcome to the policies of defeated Sen. Kerry, Pres. Bush!)

Turning to the UNO when national survival is at stake all the more greatly threatens national survival (IMRA, 9/9 from Caroline Glick). We need more self-confidence.


Nadia Matar, head of Women In Green, had written to the official in charge of expelling the Jews from Gaza, likening him unfavorably to the Judenrats of Jewish communal leaders cooperating with the Nazis in expelling Jews from their cities. She was indicted for "insulting a public servant." (The law does not cite truth as a defense.) The judge said it is a matter of free speech in politics.

Her defense was that the Left insults Israeli officials much more harshly (and falsely), praises the PLO and Hamas, spies and informs in behalf of the Arab enemy, and PM "Olmert admits that he is prepared to repeat the crime of handing weapons, ammunition and pieces of the homeland to the Arab enemy. All these people are not being brought to justice for their treasonous and criminal words and deeds." (IMRA, 9/20.)

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, October 9, 2006.

Another melee in Columbia: Where education used to be paramount but is replaced by lack of decorum, hooliganism, public brawls, and egg-throwing wannabe scrimmagers

The Minutemen Project, normal citizens from all over the United States, is a group who have taken it upon themselves to monitor and report the flagrant incursions of huge numbers of Mexicans and other Central and South Americans through the vast shared Mexican-American border known for bruising desert, sand, arid hard-scrabble wasteland...and few border officials to enforce immigration policy.

Whether for reasons of economizing or government policy, difficulty of training personnel or some as-yet-unclarified reason, the number of border guards assigned to this vast stretch of some 1,200 miles remains far below that needed to prevent the nightly mobs of motley fleet-footed non-citizens trying to breach US shores without documentation.

As an overall reminder for those who wonder why the US should not throw open its doors to millions of unwanted and unself-supporting undefined: No country in the world permits the unfettered encroachment of the undocumented; many countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as Africa immediately incarcerate any hapless soul, tourist, insurgent or newcomer who enters without visa, express documentation or extensive papers permitting entry and guaranteeing exit or full-time employment.

Though the official figure of southern invaders has been stated as in the 12 million-person realm, knowledgeable officials say the figure is much closer to 20 million. In addition, perhaps, to working illegally for contractors who are forbidden to hire them, these millions bleed the country of illegitimate welfare, of medical benefits -- particularly emergency room services for which they pay nothing--they claim without right, nassive educational services to which they are not entitled, and city services in general. These illegals have come close to bankrupting the several border states that have absorbed the brunt of their incursion: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. Within short order, neighboring states have soon 'inherited' the hordes of illegals, and conditions in neighboring states have in flash time have deteriorated. Senators and state represenatatives are seeking governmental help to stem and halt the human tide that threatens to unbalance the status of numerous states and Federal politics.

Why do these desperate runners brave the starvation and thirst, often possible death, to sneak into the sovereign country to their north? Some come for fast and easier money than they can find in Vincente Fox'es Mexico. Some come to leave disadvantageous living conditions in several of the countries in the Central American isthmus. Some come to sell drugs and market controlled substances. Some come for reasons that warrant close examination for national security but that involve police getting little help from municipalities stretched to the limit. And some come for reasons not altogether clear, if not altogether altruistic, occasioning headaches and high anxiety in a post-9/11 world.

Jim Gilchrist, Marvin Stewart and some hundreds of other unpaid American citizens have in the past few years taken it upon themselves to guard those desolate reaches where nightly incursions have taken place all going one way: into the US. They sit along the border reaches with binoculars and trucks, and report hasty invaders ducking under concertina wire or haphazard fencing to the authorities, who then locate the illegals and send them back over the border to their origins. For their trouble, the Minutemen have been called vigilantes, which term has been misused according to the trusted Webster meaning. Or "racists," another term laughably irrelevant, and again, not in accord with how Webster would define the term. There is nothing racist about protecting one's borders against an illegal insurgent flow of waves of those who don't stop to pay the freight or write for permits.

On the other side of the ledger, large US agricultural interests strive to encourage such crossing into the country for one simple reason: Money. Although contrary to America law to hire persons who are not citizens, such agribusiness employers pay sub-par wages to these brand-new hands and feet. The undocumented gladly labor for substantially less than American workers can afford to. They work for far less than the minimum wage, but obviously earn far more than they would earn in the mismanaged shambles of the Mexican economy.

Employers pay no benefits, provide the most wretched of shelter, and concern themselves only with gathering the harvest of fruit, vegetables, corn, cotton, and a host of often backbreaking work that would ordinarily involve medical and vacation and child-care benefits. These aliens speak almost no English, ask for nothing--and get nothing; they are presumably satisfied with whatever rate is provided by their new employers, and don't seek benefits to which usual workers are entitled. Some have payroll taxes deducted from their pay packets, which go toward the Federal government and do not have to be repaid at some future date because the workers do not have Social Security records into which to place eventual disbursements. Such deductions are, however, only a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of supporting such unregistered recipients.

The Democratic Party, too, encourages this trafficking in humans for partisan concerns: Assuming the new migrants will become Democrats when they eventually might become citizens, the Democrats back these mass migrations into the country in order to boost their putative numbers from the almost 50-50 split that obtains in the US polity today, as evidenced by recent elections, where winners win by a hair's breadth.

Minutemen Founder Jim Gilchrist had been formally invited to speak at Columbia, invited by the Columbia Republican Club, headed by student Chris Kulawik. Several speakers supportive of the Minutemen were on hand to speak to the SRO crowd at Columbia's Lerner Hall on W. 114th and Broadway. They barely got a chance.

The room was at capacity, about 200 people, mostly students, with a few front-row representatives of the press, or some who chose to be separated for whatever reason from the students sitting behind a slim rope divider. I was sitting right on the first row, middle seat.

Screaming radicals interrupted dignified Minuteman Marvin Stewart's every second sentence, rising to such a crescendo that even with a mike, the speaker on stage could not be heard. After his presentation referring to the Constitution and the Bible went on for some 20 minutes, the ferocious crowd of t-shirted and be-jeaned conforming non-conformists stood up and turned their backs on the speaker. About 40% of the audience stayed put in their seats, decorous and unraucous, presumably the campus members of the GOP club and their supportive contingent. Many simply wanted to hear what the speakers had to say.

Outside, demagogic rallying was taking place, with truth and fact sacrificed to expedient rabble-rousing sloganeering whenever possible.

Inside the hall, the yelling never abated, and the decibel went up to painful. These people countered any attempt to shush them with a snide "Or what? You gonna shoot me?"

Irony was apparently no strong suit on these screaming, invective-hurling, paper=tossing, stage-grabbing, disrespectful, heedless, punch-throwing, insult-flinging group of dissidents. The first reaction to anyone who disagreed with them was... violence in various permutations, followed by a faux-injured assumption that the disagreer might take a gun and kill them. Another case of the accuser being more likely to blame innocent others with what they were themselves were perpetrating.

I was appalled. I asked the laughable "Security" why they had not arrested these violent punks, especially those who broke furniture and ripped up the stage, trying to attack the speakers. As everything was on tape, why would the university not suspend these miscreants, who demonstrated more ignorance of sociopolitical realities than they did a delight in thumping their own scrawny chests in loud tantrum mode. Their mindless shouting avoided anything like fact, knowledge of history or acknowledgment of the Constitution. It was a given that they had little patience for citations from the Bible.

The "Security" -- paid for by the Republican club hiring them -- who finally managed to toddle up to the pandemonium onstage replied to my questions by mumbling. Some inane responses: "We aren't real police"; "We're just hired"; and "We really don't know anything about this..."

Yet before the event, they had made it clear no backpacks could come in, they confiscated trays of eggs, they almost refused to let in this correspondent, even with press and CUNY faculty credentials. (Their VIP list was incomplete. I had legit credentials, even for a stealth class-warfare skit-and-skirmish political theatre.)

As the brawl continued onstage, with a counter-protest group assembling onstage to protect speakers Stewart and Gilchrist, a small group of some 10 people stood to the side of the shambles, and firmly stood near the stage, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Following all parts of the action in the room became difficult, as so much was going on, with factions and counter-factions swinging away, or trying to defend freedom of speech, chairs going over, tables falling, curtains ringing down suddenly, and Security quickly closing the proceedings down.

I was not hurt. But the noise level was deafening. The diffident student next to me confided: "I am ashamed that I go to Columbia." She said that, "as a California girl," she "was used to this"-but when the sloppy campus Stalinists stormed the stage and started ripping things up, slammed the podium down and ripped off the attached mike, her mouth fell open and she shook her head in disbelief. I thought the banners in English, Spanish and Arabic were telling. What does Arabic have to do with this skirmish and Minutemen watch-dogging? Precisely what did the Arabic segment of the banner really mean?

Someone told a few of us that the Arabic portion of the banner did not read "There are no illegals," but "The Holocaust never happened." If that was the case, another note was added to the complexity of the event: A chilling note of jihadism, whose latest meretricious plaint, given voice most recently by autocrat and Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, was that "the Holocaust probably didn't happen." If the translation was about the Holocaust and not immigration illegality, the brazen Stalinist rioters are involved with large-scale student leftism and fascistic intent far removed from just this issue alone. And gives one even more pause. How knowledgeable are these dissonant rabble about the underpinnings of their own sponsors? Where does the money come from? Who is backing these strange protests, which are thousands of miles, and dozens of job ladders, away from the lives of these privileged few?

And perhaps the Arabic scrawl did not translate into the disreputable and inciting slogan that was communicated to us.

These were anarchists, the same crowd who come in to most of these one-time peaceful protests and squirt violence over everything and everyone. At rock concerts, I always wear ear packing. But for this informational talk, I was not prepared for the din and roar of these squalling delinquents throughout the entire presentation of the two speakers.

After the ugly scatology, nonstop insults and turning their backs on the speaker, these infants of papa's income were annoyed that the next speaker, the decorated border soldier, Jim Gilchrist, had the cojones to call them 'tyrants' and 'petty despots.'

The term ayatollahs, is superior--they don't listen, they just destroy.

Jim Gilchrist barely even got onto the stage. After no more than a minute on the microphone, he was assaulted by the surge of the Stalinists onto the stage almost instantaneously. Their raised arms. Their flailing fists. Their yellow banners. Their scruffy vandal mindset, free of worry about the toothless and constipated "Security." President of Columbia Lee Bollinger failed to provide security sufficient to the clear need, and continues to stonewall when approached by news media and students angry at his failure to guard speakers, his abnormal silence and irresponsibility.

Question: What makes these trouble-stirrers so hysterical and self-righteous? Why should they be so sold on the illegitimate goals of illegals? What makes them so worthy of a hearing? Why do they have no compunctions whatsoever? Is it all for the folie-a-foule? I was frankly puzzled, except that they are children of privilege, maybe some are scholarship (i.e., not very scholarly and in by the skin of their diversity teeth) students, some diversity's little step-siblings, and they are acting out to be part of an (exciting) mob, to be part of the Oh yeah, we really cut it up when we went to school....

One woman I told to shut the hell up--she was screaming at the top of her lungs "Wrap it up! You don' know nothin'!" -- demanded to know if I was going 'to shoot' her. I was interested in these violent thugs being so quick to ask me, respectfully quiet in the front, if I would shoot them, when they were throwing things and ended up ripping up the stage and throwing round-houses against the two speakers. What kind of hooligan non-education is Columbia promoting? Other respected colleges in New York City are not like these Columbia fester flingers.

People left at the descent of the curtain and the impotent corraling of the useless campus comedy relief. Several people heard my reaction to some Delta minuses uttering idiocies in the general neighborhood of my hearing, and stuck mikes in my face. Several Schmoo-like creatures tried to argue with me, but were clearly outclassed by speed of response, facts, untrammeled articulateness and furious righteousness. They slunk away, making excuses.

Now I fully understand why friends and colleagues of 'other' persuasions are so concerned that a claque of supporters come when they address these academic-slug-fests. Where is our First Amendment?

Editor's Note: If you wish to protest Columbia's treatment of the Minutemen, I urge you to write to Pres. Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu. The university is acutely sensitive to its public image. This is a sample letter:

Dear Pres. Bollinger,

I wish to add my name to those protesting the events allowed to transpire at the Minutemen event at Columbia.

I have little sympathy for redneck vigilantes, but your administration seems to have forgotten they have as much right to the peaceful expression of their eccentric opinions as you or I. Specifically, your administration was wrong to:

a) Fail to provide adequate security.

b) Allow leftist protestors crimes of assault that would never be tolerated at the other end of the political spectrum.

c) Require the victims, rather that the perpetrators, of disruptive demonstrations to pay for added security.

Columbia has a sacred obligation to allow free debate and expose its students to all points of view. The test of free speech is whether you believe in it for people with whom you disagree.

John Doe CC '85
New York, NY

Contact Marion Dreyfus at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Steve Carol, October 9, 2006.

Have Judea and Samaria been figuratively lost? Judea and Samaria are the historically biblical names for the highland regions of the Land of Israel, with Samaria in the north and Judea to the south. They are the definitive and proper political and geographic names for the region and have been in general use since Clearchus, a disciple of Aristotle. These two areas have no other names. These names were used during the League of Nations Mandate period. They appear in British government documents, United Nations documents including the UN Partition Plan of 1947. They appear in U.S. State Department documents, including a July 18, 1948 map. Even as late as 1961, the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to "Judaea" and "Samaria" in an article on "Palestine" (Vol. 17, p. 118).

Trans-Jordan illegally invaded Judea-Samaria in 1948 and as a result of its aggression occupied that region. It then unilaterally annexed the area on April 4, 1950, which was recognized by only two nations, the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

The Arab League, their Muslim supporters, anti-Israel elements and anti-Semites, deliberately sought to rob the region of its correct political and geographic name. They had to fabricate a brand new name for they could find no other name for the territory. Mislabeling was their technique of disinformation and de-legitimization. The "West Bank" was the name concocted by King Abdullah I of Trans-Jordan and his British advisors, allowing the king to annex land outside of his artificially "created" kingdom. He then changed the name of his kingdom twice, first to "The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan" but that was quickly rejected since it gave the appearance of a kingdom only along the banks of the Jordan River. The name then was changed again to the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan." The term "West Bank" eradicates all Jewish historical connection to the area. It is a sad commentary that many in the West, including the political left, many Israel's supporters, some Israelis themselves, as well as the nave and self-delusional who think the name does not matter, have acquiesced to this unilateral change of names and use it in common parlance. But the name does matter. Similarly, the Arabs insist on calling the Persian Gulf, the "Arabian Gulf" and Iran's Khuzistan province, "Arabistan." Why then doesn't much of the world call the Persian Gulf "Arabian?" Is there a double standard at work here?

Besides the political origins of the phrase, one must wonder from a geographical perspective how wide a river bank can be? A river bank may be a few feet or so, but not some 30 miles deep from the river! Just because a new name is invented, does not mean the world should adopt it in common usage. Does an aggressor get rewarded with the additional bonus of a geographic name change designed to eradicate the historic name of a region? In March 1939, Germany renamed the present-day Czech Republic, Böhmen und Mähren after seizing that land by aggressive act. During World War II, Germany invaded, occupied and annexed part of Russia calling it Ostland. Do we use those terms today? Do we call Mexico the South Bank because it borders on the Rio Grande? Should we rename Serbia, the West Bank (of Europe) because it lies to the west of the Danube River and re-designate Poland the East Bank due to its location east of the Oder-Neisse Rivers?

Long before most of media capitulated to protests over Danish cartoons and statements by the Pope, the media and many in the world, out of fear and intellectual laziness agreed to obfuscate the truth by surrendering the use of the name Judea-Samaria and adopt the term West Bank.

The Roman emperor Hadrian in 135 CE after suppressing the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba, attempted to eradicate Jewish nationhood, statehood and any connection to the Land of Israel. He renamed the territory "Palestina" - after the Philistines, the ancient adversaries of the Israelites. Seeking to erase the Jewish connection to Jerusalem the Romans razed the city and named the city built atop the rubble, "Aelia Capitolina." Nevertheless as late as the 4th century, the Christian author, Epiphanius, referred to "Palestina, that is Judea." Despite this "Palestina" is still Israel, Aelia Capitolina is still Jerusalem and the West Bank is still Judea-Samaria.

Contact Dr. Steve Carol at drhistory@cox.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 9, 2006.

Israel must make it perfectly clear to the world it is no longer willing to cede land, justifiably secured in 1967, as a consequence of vanquishing Arabs intent on annihilating the Jewish State. Israeli leaders must declare that surrendering Gaza was a mistake, it has learned from that experience, and any surrounding regimes or so-called Palestinian entity will have to look elsewhere for territorial concessions. Today, Syria's myopic ophthalmologist President Bashar Assad drools at the prospect of taking back the Golan Heights peacefully or otherwise, sensing a lack of resolve within the leadership of Israel as well as a morale-bereft confused population, alas presumably willing to amputate even more portions of the Jewish State's tiny besieged anatomy, bizarrely less than two tenths of one per cent the land mass of surrounding Muslim mostly hostile neighbors, for but the faintest prospect of peace and sane existence. Such a perilous perception renders Israel's very existence at risk, vulnerable not only to the ambitions of Israel/Jew despising Arab and Persian states, but to myriads of perhaps state connected yet truly stateless jihad junkie groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas, as well Islamic terrorist cadres yet to be formed, whose holy grail is complete destruction of Jewish Israel. Buzzards circle whenever the faint aroma of blood wafts through the air, suggestive of a weak thus dying animal. Indeed, Islamic tyrants, rulers of throngs of exploited humiliated secularly stunted losers buried in a demanding technologically advancing century twenty-one, need victories to quell their frustrated masses and minions, thus battering a presumably weakened bleeding yet technologically advanced Israel, possessor of a relatively robust economy even Israeli Arabs will not leave, will guarantee needed feathers in their turbans, perhaps staving off future uprisings from those jealous good-life-wannabe window-shopping hovel-dwelling constituents, many owners of verboten receptor-of-dreams satellite dishes, but little more.

Land is a tangible commodity while peace can be but a gossamer illusory fleeting dream. A nation stewarding sufficient land, imbued with natural resources, can nurture current and future generations, build prosperous industries, develop a vibrant economy, and most importantly erect secure borders. A nation deluded by promises of peace, ever willing to trust those who talk through both sides of their mouth, ever willing to cede its sacred territory, will be compensated with nothing but tsuris. Such naivete breeds a justifiable disrespect and contempt from true Machiavellian movers and shakers, ever willing to sever the jugular of cerebrally challenged impotent prey to serve their insidious interests. Two-name double-game Holocaust-trivializing Abbas Mazen, for one, never intended or intends, if he once again squats in the negotiation/extortion spotlight, to arrest criminals attacking Israel or insure peaceful coexistence between the Jewish State and any stupidly, indeed traitorously, ceded Israeli territories within Judea, Samaria, and Israel's capital Jerusalem, no matter what he or his supporters say. Such one-way concessions are delineated on a Road Map, leading only to perdition, for those weary travelers foolishly willing to pay extortionist tolls, yearning but for that pie-in-the-sky peaceful existence conveniently promised by neo-P.T. Barnum-like negotiators adorned in robes, Armani suits, or even a de rigueur dress befitting a commanding Secretary of State. Arab rocket lobbers in Palestinian Gaza surely attest to that fact. Once fooled, shame on you, twice fooled shame on me; is it sinking in Olmert!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 9, 2006.


Jonathan Pollard's wife presented her husband's situation to Israel's State Controller. She informed him, "In the beginning Jonathan volunteered his services and only later did he became a bona fide agent on behalf of the State of Israel. His zeal to save Israeli lives was his sole motivation. Even the sentencing judge - who was no friend of the case - recognized that Jonathan was an ideologue, not a mercenary, and therefore declined to impose a monetary fine."

Israel, unlike other countries, turned over the evidence needed for prosecuting its agent! Coincidentally (if it were coincidence), it paid for the lawyer who by gross negligence failed to file an appeal in time, which tardiness became the excuse for not granting a hearing. Incidentally (if it were incidental), Israel refuses to pay for current attorneys, even though after a while, Israel acknowledged Pollard as an agent of it. But Israel never made that acknowledgment to US officials, who continue to treat Pollard as a common criminal.

Israel has never done anything to promote Pollard's release, and much to show it wanted him incarcerated, though it has exploited his name for its own purposes. One excuse made for this behavior is that it did not want to aggravate relations with the US. However, the government appointed to the Cabinet Pollard's handler, whom US officials regard as an unindicted co-conspirator. Apparently relations with the US is not a factor. Nor should it be a factor in gaining clemency for what his chief persecutor, Caspar Weinberger later admitted was, by the prosecution, an exaggeration of zeal in pursuing another agenda (IMRA, 9/6). Some of the slander against Pollard is that he was a mercenary, but the judge rejected that.

The presentation outlined in moderate language Israel's mistreatment of Pollard as false, shabby, and callous, a failure of ethics. Mrs. Pollard points out that this is not the only instance of Israel's unethical behavior, and warns that it may become the norm. (I think the mode is unethical behavior towards fellow Jews, not towards Arabs.) If this were Biblical times, and the story were incorporated into the Hebrew Testament, subsequent generations would read that Israel mistreated God's followers so badly that He sent the Iranians to wipe them out.


Some Israeli academics and other PhDs in Israel petitioned in "Haaretz" that Israel should allow Gazans to go to Judea-Samaria to attend Arab colleges. The ad indicated no understanding of, nor interest in, why Israel banned such travel. The main reason is that the Arabs might move the Israeli captive the better to hide him or use the opportunity to move terrorists. Another reason is that while they hold the captive, Israel does not want them to have normal lives. It is a non-violent imposition that the petitioners ought to appreciate.

What they omitted from their protest: (1) The Arabs should release the victim; (2) Arab colleges should stop concentrating on teaching terrorism; (3) The Arab students should stop committing terrorism; (4) Arab colleges should stop discriminating against Jews, whereas Arabs attend Israeli colleges; (5) The P.A. should stop bombarding Israel with rockets; and (6) Ask Arab countries to accept the Gaza students. The petition is selective.

Another petition in the same edition is that Israel end its surveillance of released but convicted traitor Vanunu, who tried to sell Israel's nuclear secrets (and threatens to keep trying). This was signed by Communists and Israel-bashers from all over, including the American Friends Service Committee.

Communist Prof. Ilan Pappe of Haifa U. accuses Israel of committing genocide against the Gazan Arabs (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/6). How melodramatic! The opposite and converse are true.


Muslims increasingly go on a rampage in reaction to rumors, accurate depiction of the facts about them, or deserved criticism. The tale of a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo was a false rumor, but riot the Muslims ddid, facts not being relevant to them. The more excited about these matters Muslims grow, the less excited (or is it intimidated) that Westerners become. (Perhaps the lack of strong Western counter-reaction accounts for the increasing Muslim boldness. So does their increasing numbers in the West.)

"Islamists ignore subtleties. Mr. Rushdie's magical realism, the positive intent of the Supreme Court frieze {showing Muhammad as a lawgiver}, the falsehood of the Koran-flushing story (ever try putting a book down the toilet?), the benign nature of the Danish cartoons, or the subtleties of the Pope's speech -- none of them mattered."

There were other instances of Western comments that probably were offensive to Muslims, yet didn't bring out the rioters. The occurrence and extent of violence is not predictable, but Islamists with access to the international media can more easily succeed in riling up the masses.

Muslims routinely publish cartoons offensive to Jews. The Saudi government bans Bibles, crosses, and stars of David. Muslim Arabs lack reciprocity. (They deem themselves superior in rights and above the law.)

Muslim violence and threats amount to a campaign of intimidation. Islam is trying to get the West to submit to it by accepting criticism from Islam but fearing to disseminating criticism of Islam (Daniel Pipes, NY Sun, 9/26, p.7).


Reuven Pedatzur wrote two years ago in "Haaretz" that the Israeli security establishment did not understand Hizbullah, when it warned against an attack by Hizbullah. He argued that Hizbullah follows the rules, and not having made war so far, it would not make war in the future. He demanded that the officials retract their warnings.

Then came the Hizbullah war, unprovoked. (Hizbullah thought it could get away with it.)

Now Mr. Pedatzur writes in "Haaretz" that the world should let Iran acquire nuclear weapons, because it acts rationally. Is he making the same mistake, again? (IMRA, 9/7.)

Wishful thinking to turns Westerners such as Pedatzur irrational. The Islamist ideology has become more radical, more of a death wish, and, in the case of Iran's President, more apocalyptical.


Jordan's youth is more educated but lacks a work ethic (IMRA, 9/7).

I can't give a definitive answer. However, Islamists shun economic advancement and the Muslims are too interested in destructive rioting and war. They would ban trade in many forbidden materials.


The World Jewish Congress has lost its ethical bearings. It cultivated what it considers close relations with the Vatican. Then it fails to tap those supposedly close relations to get the Church to stop some offense against the Jewish people. The chief recent grievances are the wrongful condemnation of Israel by the Pope and his spokesmen for warring in Lebanon and their failure to condemn Hizbullah.

Why does WJC fail to represent the Jewish people? It seems afraid to jeopardize those close relations. They aren't close relations, if they inhibit WJC from its primary mission.

Unlike other Jewish organizations, WJC accepts as the Church intermediary with it, Cardinal Lustiger, an apostate Jew. That sets a poor example. WJC asked the Church to act as broker in interfaith dialogues with Muslims. What a poor choice! (Israel needs the Vatican to dialogue in good faith with it!) To curry favor with Muslims, WJC denounced the Danish publishers of the innocuous cartoons, rather than the Muslims' violent outrages over the cartoons and the Muslims' noxious, antisemitic cartoons. The head of WJC said that 99% of Muslims reject violence. (He did not reveal how he picked that figure. I would guess 10%, because their holy book recommends violence and their culture is violent in most of their countries.) At a conference in Russia on Islam and Judaism, the regional head of WJC declared that Iran is willing for peaceful dialogue. But Iran threatens war (and has its proxies making war).

Israel entered a joint program with the Vatican against AIDS, sponsored by an organization that bars Israelis from registering on its website. A Catholic official of that sponsor, Caritas, denounced the organization. Why didn't WJC? WJC should have made ending the ban a condition of its help. Otherwise, it seems to be condoning the ban as well as missing an opportunity to remove it. (When Jews don't defend themselves, they lose respect and influence.)

WJC tries to ingratiate itself with gentiles, but when that becomes an end in itself, it is counter-productive (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/6).


British police reportedly plan to "tell Muslim community leaders operational details of raids weeks before they take place." (NY Sun, 9/26, Ed..)

You may expect the raids to be compromised. That practice can't last, but while it is tried, innocent people will get killed, because guilty people see warning signs, or are tipped off, or move away. Worse, Islamists may learn how to foil police tactics.


Referring to PM Olmert, the head of Hizbullah said he prefers that Israel have a foolish Prime Minister than a capable and strong one (IMRA, 9/6).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 8, 2006.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in Front Page Magazine October 6, 2006. It is archived at http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1344

You would barely know it in Britain, but France is currently under violent siege from the jihad -- and buckling under the onslaught. The Daily Telegraph yesterday broke the almost total media silence in Britain about the horrifying violence going on across the English channel with this story about the fighting in the suburbs between Muslim youths and the police:

Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared 'intifada' against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day. As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were 'in a state of civil war' with Muslims in the most depressed 'banlieue' estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin. It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones...

Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an 'intifada' on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas. He said yesterday: 'We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails.'

It seems that other police officers, and other parts of French society, are even now still in a state of denial over what they are facing, insisting this is some kind of class war rather than what it really is, a religious war. They said the same thing about last year's riots, ignoring clear signs of religious activism and incitement' along with the fact that the French government in desperation drafted Muslim Brotherhood imams into the banlieues to quell the disorder, thus giving the lie to the claim that these were merely 'secular' disturbances, all about poverty and unemployment and other such sub-Marxist claptap. They were anything but; they were actually all about French Muslims declaring their turf to be no-go areas for the French state.

The Brussels Journal crisply gets to the point:

Most observers in the mainstream media (MSM) provide an occidentocentric analysis of the facts. They depict the 'youths' as outsiders who want to be brought into Western society and have the same rights as the natives of Old Europe. The MSM believe that the 'youths' are being treated unjustly because they are not a functioning part of Western society. They claim that, in spite of positive discrimination, subsidies, public services, schools, and all the provisions that have been made for immigrants over the years, access has been denied them.

This is the Marxist rhetoric of the West that has been predominant in the media and the chattering classes since the 1960s. But it does not fit the facts of the situation in Europe today... Unlike their fathers, who came to France from Muslim countries, accepting that, whilst remaining Muslims themselves, they had come to live in a non-Muslim country, the rioters see France as their country. They were born here. This land is their land. And since they are Muslims, this land, or at least a part of it, is Muslim as well. The society they live in is a homogeneous Islamic one. For them that is society, there is no other. Consequently there is also no question of their 'leaving' that society to become part of another society, the putative Western one. 'Society' is the society they live in and from which they view and interpret what goes on around them. To understand their language we must understand how they see us, where we fit in in their society. Multiculturalism does not exist: it is always a matter of several cultures living side by side in defined territories, and the laws of one culture not applying in the territories of the others...

Those media that tell us that the rioting 'youths' want to be a part of our society and feel left out of it, are misrepresenting the facts. As the insurgents see it, they are not a part of our society and they want us to keep out of theirs. The violence in France is in no way comparable with that of the blacks in the U.S. in the 1960s. The Paris correspondent of The New York Times who writes that this a 'variant of the same problem' is either lying or does not know what he is talking about. The violence in France is of the type one finds when one group wants to assert its authority and drive the others out of its territory.

Meanwhile a French philosophy professor, Robert Redeker, has been in hiding for his life for more than three weeks after being denounced on al Jazeera by Ken Livingstone's friend Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, following which he received death threats. His crime was to write an article in Le Figaro -- which has since removed it from its website -- denouncing Islam as a religion of inherent violence, unlike Christianity or Judaism, and comparing Islamism to Soviet communism. The Brussels Journal (again) reports:

In the article, which was published in the conservative daily Le Figaro of September 19th, Robert Redeker accused Islam of 'exalting violence.' Mr Redeker has not attended classes at his school near Toulouse since the article was published. Pierre Rousselin, the editor in chief of Le Figaro, apologized on Al-jazeera for the publication of the article. A number of Islamic countries, including Egypt, banned Le Figaro following the publication of Redeker's piece. Mr Rousselin said the publication of the op-ed was a mistake. He said the article did not express the paper's opinion. The article is no longer available on the Figaro website.

Mr Redeker has written a letter to his friend, the philosopher André Glucksmann, describing his ordeal [French text here]: 'I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Several death threats have been sent to me, and I have been sentenced to death by organizations of the al-Qaeda movement. [...] On the websites condemning me to death there is a map showing how to get to my house to kill me, they have my photo, the places where I work, the telephone numbers, and the death fatwa. [...] There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there. [...] I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. [...] All costs are at my own expense, including those of rents a month or two ahead, the costs of moving twice, legal expenses, etc. It's quite sad. I exercised my constitutional rights, and I am punished for it, even in the territory of the Republic. This affair is also an attack against national sovereignty -- foreign rules, decided by criminally minded fanatics, punish me for having exercised a constitutional right, and I am subjected, even in France, to great injury.'

The Journal has also been reporting violence in Brussels, with three days of 'Ramadan rioting' and prison officers having to receive police protection on their way to work because of attacks following the death of a Muslim prison inmate for which other Muslims blame the prison authorities. And now the violence is spiralling out into the political sphere:

Belgian artists warn that a victory of the 'islamophobic' Vlaams Belang [Flemish Interest] party in the local elections on October 8th may lead to violence. In an interview in the Dutch-language weekly Knack Magazine this week painter Luc Tuymans says: 'In the worst case you will get organised resistance, perhaps even rather violent reactions. I suspect many shop keepers will have their windows smashed. People do not seem to be aware, but a vote for the Vlaams Belang may have serious consequences. They should realize this before they take a final decision in the voting booth.'...

Last week, self-declared 'anti-fascist' activists vandalised a car with Belgian licence plates in Amsterdam. They mistook the vehicle for the car of Vlaams Belang politician Filip Dewinter. The car, however, belonged to a French businesswoman based in Brussels. VB politicians are often the victims of acts of vandalism, including arson attempts. Yesterday the party announced that it has established a fund to reimburse local candidates whose properties gets damaged.

Just across the channel, therefore, there is mayhem: a religious war, escalating violence and gross intimidation, supine or ineffectual public authorities locked into a state of denial, and a growing climate of political violence and anarchy. Yet apart from a small number of articles, the British media has barely registered these terrifying and most ominous events. It has been preoccupied with yet more evidence of its own deep confusion as it progressively allows itself to be cowed by Islamic extremism. I shall post on those particular matters later today. [Editor's Note: National police in France reported 2,458 cases of violence against officers in the first six months of the year. This year will top the 4,246 cases recorded for all of 2005 and the 3,842 in 2004. Firefighters and rescue workers have also been targeted -- and some now receive police escorts in such areas. They have stopped blaming the violence on "desperation and poverty" and are starting to call it what it is -- an intifada.]

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 Lawrence Uniglicht, October 8, 2006.

It is critical that the Bush Administration swallows its pride, then alters course in that exponentially worsening dysfunctional Iraq war incited by a careless occupation bereft of historical perspective. If things continue as they are, Uncle Sam at some point will pull out, tail between his wobbly legs. Neighboring muscle-flexing revenue-rich nuclear-emerging Shiite Iran, possessing a Jew/Israel infidel despising jihadist agenda, will further metastasize through the out of control bowels of the civil war torn once adversarial regime, create order expanding the range of its fanatical fundamentalist totalitarian doctrine with relative impunity, no longer checked by the secular totalitarian balancing force Sadist Hussein, perhaps sparking a broader Sunni Shiite conflagration, sucking in competing oil-dependent, now oil-starved industrial nations, leading to a radioactive World War III of no return. The possibility of such a doomsday scenario should be sufficient to excise the admit-no-wrong attitude from a swaggering Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice led superpower.

Considerable emphasis must be placed on the empirical observation that just as oil and water will not mix, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will not mesh into one peaceful nation. Period!!! Their cultures are way too different. Indeed Kurds are not Arabs, are collectively more secular than Sunnis or Shiites, and yearn for an official autonomous Kurdistan, in fact resembling the de facto northern enclave they already inhabit. Turkey, however, will rant and rave about its own Kurdish populace, likely to intensify efforts to hook up with any sovereign proximate Kurdistan that might emerge from today's war torn Iraq. Such a problem must be addressed, hopefully in a civil manner. Perhaps fast track admittance into the European Union might quell the Turks, thus avoid a perhaps volatile confrontation. Further south, contemplate historical events and realize religious Sunnis and Shiites have been feuding for centuries over their prophet Mohammad's true successor. Talk about grudges; these guys make the Hatfield and McCoy feud of American folklore resemble a walk along the Appalachian Trail. Considering all this, why not be logical and divide the current dysfunctional imploding Iraq into three sovereign nations; populated by mostly Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, and Shiites in the south; most essentially receiving equal shares of all oil revenues potentially available over the whole of today's Iraq.

The United States, Britain, and other coalition forces will then be able to re-deploy all their currently besieged ineffective troops into friendly Kurdistan, out of harms way, still within close range of a nuclear emerging Iran, most importantly free to preempt any attempts that belligerent regime might make to craft a nuclear weapon and related delivery system. History demonstrates time and time again that guerilla wars cannot be won by occupying powers, irrespective of military superiority. The Bush Administration must rethink its Iraq strategy, broaden its coalition of allies, and reverse the perilous state of affairs now confined to one nation, yet likely to extend beyond those borders. Nothing is more urgent!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, October 8, 2006.

Sam Bahour's "We Can't Go Home Again" (NY Times, 10/7/06) is a masterful attempt at de-contextualization. His successful investment in the Palestinian economy is most highly to be praised. But when he critiques Israel for keeping close watch on its borders, he fails to mention (but cannot not know) that the tragic situation which he describes is not the result of Israel's denying him or other Arabs their rights.

Rather it is the result of Israel's need to defend itself against a ruthless, relentless, endless Arab terror war. Absent the war, all of the rights currently denied to him and to other Palestinians could re-appear. The borders could be open. The fence could be dismantled. Trade could flow freely. But what country in the world would keep its borders open when, on an almost daily basis, some of those entering have twenty pounds of TNT strapped to their underwear?

The input from B'Tzelem sounds damning, at first glance: "...it has been official Israeli policy since 1983 to 'reduce, as much as possible, the approval of requests for family unification.'" But let's recall three undeniable facts:

a) B'Tzelem has for decades been regurgitating, almost verbatim, Arab anti-Israel propaganda in the guise of 'honest criticism' of Israel's putative (and usually fictitious) human rights violations.

b) From 1949 until 2004, Israel maintained a very generous family unification program, allowing hundreds of thousands of Arabs to enter Israel in family unification actions, or as a result of arranged marriages between Arab Israeli citizens and Arabs from other Arab states, including those states officially at war with Israel. These in-migrating Arabs became Israeli citizens.

c) In 2004, when the IDF discovered that some of these new arrivals used their new identity cards as a way to sneak terrorists and arms through checkpoints, and to in other ways facilitate and aid and abet terrorism against Israel, the government decided to end the family unification program.

The end of this program does indeed affect adversely the businesses and the lives of some innocent and honest and well-meaning people like Mr. Bahour. But to maintain that program would mean more Israelis blown up, burnt alive, shot, stabbed, kidnapped. Mr. Bahour's dilemma is not the result of any Israeli program to control demographics. It is the result of Israel's need to defend its population against the endless, relentless barbaric brutal Arab terror war being waged against it. Absent that war, Mr. Bahour's problem would disappear.

Contrary to Mr. Bahour's assertion, "the real threat" does not come not from Israel. It comes from the Arab terrorists' genocidal war. Israel establishes controls on "...an entire population, breaking families apart and placing obstacles in the path of economic development" only as part of its defensive measures against that heinous terror war.

Mr. Bahor may not know it, but from June, 1967 to January 1994, Israel effected its "Mini-Marshall plan" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. During those 27 years, under direct Israeli sovereignty, the Arab economy grew by leaps and bounds, employment was almost 100%, as up to 300,000 West Bank and Gaza Strip Arabs worked in the Israeli economy for wages higher than those of their counterparts in other Arab countries. The Arab population more than tripled in those years, as infant mortality plummeted (thanks to Israeli medical services), longevity increased (thanks to Israeli health services and education), and hundreds of thousands of ex-patriot Palestinians returned to their homes and families. Tourism skyrocketed. Seven universities grew up on the West Bank and Gaza Strip where only three teacher-training junior colleges had been before. The bridges to Jordan were open, and West Bank Arabs used their Jordanian passports to exit to venues all over the world. Jews shopped in Ramallah, and Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv.

But all of this came to a grinding halt, and suffered a tragic and rapid reversal, when Arafat came to power in the wake of the Oslo Accords, in 1994. By 2004, the GDP of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was only 10% of what it had been in 1993...as a result of Israel's purely defensive responses to Arafat's terror war, which has now been going on for 13 years.

The history of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and their economy, before Arafat's terror war, makes it clear that, far from placing obstacles in the path of Palestinian economic development, Israel invested hundreds of millions of dollars (and in those days, that was money) to jump-start that development. Israel believed then that living with what we then called "the peace dividend" would encourage the Palestinian leadership to see that real peace, peaceful co-existence and the end to the decades of hostility and hatred, offered a far better way of life for both Israelis and Arabs. Israel was wrong.

It is stridently obvious that if the Arab terrorists were to put down their weapons there would be no more violence, and no more road blocks, and no more curfews, and no more lock-downs, and no more targeted assassinations, and no revenue withheld, and the defensive barriers could be dismantled, and trade and tourism and business endeavors such as Mr. Bahour's could flourish......just as was the case in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from 1967 to 1993, before Arafat's terror war, when roads were open and tourists were everywhere and Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv and Jews shopped in Ramallah and the economy was robust and growing.

But if Israel put down its weapons, there would be no more Israel.

Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
"We Can't Go Home Again"
By Sam Bahour
Ramallah, West Bank
October 7, 2006

THIRTEEN years ago, I left a comfortable life in the United States for an uncertain future in the West Bank. Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization had just signed the Oslo Accords. Like many others, I saw an opportunity for Palestinians to finally