| HOME | Featured Stories | October 2006 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
NEW "SAVE YESHA" MOVEMENT FOUNDED
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 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 |
|
THE WEIGHT OF THE WORLD ON ISRAEL
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 |
|
FATAH ARMING, TOO; MORMONS AIDING TERRORISM:; ANTI-ZIONISTS IN ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 31, 2006. |
|
STANDARDS FOR ACADEMIA & FOR DEBATE 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. WHAT HAPPENS TO A MODERATE MUSLIM 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. FATAH ARMING, TOO 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. MORMONS AIDING TERRORISM? "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. ZIONIST AFFIRMATION & RECLAMATION 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). ANTI-ZIONIST AFFIRMATION & ABANDONMENT 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. CONDITION & REWARD FOR JOINING CABINET 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. ARABS RIOT ON WAY TO TEMPLE MT. 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. P.A. COMPLAINS ABOUT SETTLERS "STORMING" A MOSQUE 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. |
|
WHY IS PRESIDENT BUSH FINANCING PLO'S FORCE 17?
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. PLO STRUCTURE & COLLABORATING FACTIONS 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. BUSH, RICE & the SHADOW GOVERNMENT ARMING PLO'S FORCE 17 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. MUNICH MASSACRE by FORCE 17 & BLACK SEPTEMBER 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 |
|
ISRAEL'S ENCIRCLEMENT
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 |
|
AMERICA'S TRAINING TOMORROW'S ARAB TERRORISTS
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/
|
|
ARABS WITHOUT JEWS: ROOTS OF A TRAGEDY
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 |
|
NEW YORK TIMES: 601,027 IRAQI DEAD SINCE 2003; ACTUAL: 49,760 MAX
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. 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 |
|
THE MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE IN LEBANON - ASSET OR LIABILITY?
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. A PREDETERMINED FAILURE 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. ASSET TO TERRORISTS, LIABILITY TO ISRAEL 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. EROSION OF ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC POSTURE 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 |
|
THE USUAL OUTRIGHT, PURPOSEFUL LIES BLAMING ISRAEL FOR WHATEVER
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:
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). |
|
ABOUT TIME
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
|
|
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." |
|
EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT HOSNI MUBARAK TO VISIT RUSSIA
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 |
|
THE EU'S JEWS ARE DOOMED, JUST AS IS THE EU
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 |
|
JEWCENTRICITY - JEWS IN THE GLOBAL-HISTORICAL EVENTS
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 |
|
WHO IS OMAR BARGHOUTI?
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.
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. |
|
14 YEAR OLD CHRISTIAN BOY DECAPITATED BY MUSLIM GROUP IN IRAQ
Posted by Avodah 15, October 30, 2006. |
|
This comes from 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 |
|
THE [JACK] STRAW THAT BROKE THE MULTI-CULTI BACK IN THE UK
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
|
|
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 |
|
POWER CORRUPTING; CLINTON VS. BUSH FOREIGN POLICY; ANTISEMITIC JEWS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 30, 2006. |
|
LIBEL TOURISM 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. CIVIL STRIFE TOLL IN GAZA The month's toll was 20 Arabs killed in Hamas-Fatah clashes (Arutz-7, 10/23). THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF POWER "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 & SMUGGLING 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. EGYPT & THE VEIL 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). SOURCE OF IRAQ'S MAIN PROBLEMS 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). ISRAEL PREPARING FOR WAR WITH SYRIA? 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. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLINTON & BUSH ON N. KOREA, IRAN, P.A. 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. ANOTHER FLAW IN ABANDONMENT 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. P.A. PREPARING NEW FRAUD TO GET WESTERN MONEY 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. ARAB PROPAGANDA EFFECTIVE IN ISRAEL 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). ANTISEMITIC JEWS 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. |
|
BUSH BUILDS ANOTHER AL QAEDA IN GAZA
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 |
|
HAMAS MUST-SEE TV: AMERICA'S SO-CALLED ALLIES HELP SPREAD TERRORIST PROPAGANDA
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 |
|
NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT DYNAMICS OF ISLAMOFASCISM IN THE USA LOOK BAD
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 "Ä 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 Ä 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"
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" www.westernResistance.com 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 Traoré 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 Généraux 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 Île-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 |
|
SOME HISTORY AND GOALS
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 |
|
IT IS CHAI TIME TO REDUCE THE PER BARREL PRICE OF OIL!
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 |
|
AN AGNOSTIC NEW ZEALANDER WRITES TO PALESTINIANS
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. A DOWN UNDER OVERVIEW 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. THE UNBEARABLE BURDEN OF LIFE 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. WHY I STAND? 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. PALESTINIAN PAST AND FUTURE? 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 |
|
UN FAULTS ISRAEL ON HEALTH CARE
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 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)
(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 |
|
dddd
GAZA RESIDENTS DO NOT LIVE IN REFUGEE CAMPS
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 |
|
O' THOSE "MISCHIEVOUS MOSLEMS" -- WHAT A BUNCH OF MERRY PRANKSTERS!
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:
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 |
|
WHOSE JERUSALEM
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: "THE FINAL STATUS OF JERUSALEM" April 29, 1999
|
|
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 |
|
PROXY TERRORISM FROM IRAN
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 |
|
ISRAEL'S FLAT EARTH SOCIETY
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 wereÄ 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 |
|
BRITAIN IS TURNING ON THE U.S. [AND ISRAEL] -- AT ITS OWN PERIL
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 |
|
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. BACKLASH TO THE U.S. 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. OPEN SEASON ON JEWS 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 |
|
81% OF AMERICAN JEWS BELIEVE ARAB GOAL IS DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL, NOT MORE LAND
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:
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. |
|
WHERE ISRAEL STANDS; SECURITY FENCE -- CONCRETE DETAILS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 27, 2006. |
|
WHERE ISRAEL STANDS 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? WHERE ISRAEL STANDS -- SECURITY FENCE 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. SECURITY FENCE -- CONCRETE DETAILS 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. |
|
HOW CAN ISRAEL SURVIVE HER LEADERS?
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 |
|
TRAUMAS OF A SYNAGOGUE IN SDEROT; A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT UNDER FIRE
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. |
|
FALLOUT OF HAMAS'S RULE SPURS PALESTINIAN DESIRE TO FLEE
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 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: http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/opinionpolls/poll28/highlights.html
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
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 |
|
THE CRYPTO-JEWS OF BRAZIL
Posted by Nurit Greenger, October 27, 2006. |
|
Friends, 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 |
|
JIHAD BRIDE MAGAZINE
Posted by Milton Fried, October 26, 2006. |
|
This comes from Bob Windholz |
|
Contact Milton Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com |
|
REFLECTIONS FROM THE FRONT LINES IN GAZA
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. |
|
HAMAS AND HIZBULLAH PREPARE FOR WAR; US BETRAYS ISRAEL, AGAIN; DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM NOT ALL MILITARY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2006. |
|
MUSLIM PLOT AGAINST CZECH JEWS 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). ABBAS ON RECOGNIZING ISRAEL 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? P.A.'S ANNUAL LIE 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. SEC. RICE REVEALS BUSH'S ABANDONMENT OF ISRAEL "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? BEWARE OF ISRAEL-P.A. DEAL 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'M A WINNER 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. DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM 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. |
|
UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISM
Posted by American Truth Forum, October 25, 2006. |
|
|
|
MUSLIM LEADER BLAMES WOMEN FOR SEX ATTACKS
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. |
|
MIDDLE EAST MADNESS
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 naïve 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. Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@comcast.net |
|
TARGETED ASSASSINATION; SUICIDE BOMBING SPREADING; RICE RATIONALE CHALLENGED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 25, 2006. |
|
"HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE" 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. TARGETED ASSASSINATION 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. ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICANS 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? HIZBULLAH GETS NEW BASES 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. SUICIDE BOMBING SPREADING AMONG MUSLIMS 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. HIZBULLAH HAD EXPERT INTELLIGENCE 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. CANADA STANDS UP TO PREJUDICE 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. ISRAELI PRESS PURSUES PERSONALITIES, IGNORES ISSUES 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). MORE CONSEQUENCES OF WITHDRAWAL 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. RICE'S RATIONALE CHALLENGED 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. |
|
BBC OUTPUT FOR CHILDREN
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,
To be put on Jock Falkson's email list, contact him at falkson@013.net |
|
PILLOWING
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
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:
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. |
|
THREE WAYS TO WAR IN GAZA-THE LIKELIEST, PERHAPS BEFORE THE 2006-YEAR IS OUT
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
|
|
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
|
|
RELIGION BY CHOICE
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.
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. "Me?" "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. |
|
TEACHING JEWISH CHILDREN
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 |
|
ELECTION REFORM; ISRAEL TOO NICE FOR OWN GOOD; UNIFIL EXPLAINS, OR DOES IT?; RICE AND ARABS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 24, 2006. |
|
ISRAEL TOO NICE FOR OWN GOOD 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 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! YESHA BUILDING 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. DANES, AGAIN 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! MOTHER OF MURDERED ISRAELI GIRL 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). U.S. TRUCKS WITH TERRORISTS 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. WHY DIPLOMACY CANNOT WORK AGAINST IRAN 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. UNIFIL EXPLAINS, OR DOES IT? 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. BUILDING ON FAILURE - update 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. RICE MEETINGS WITH ABBAS & SAUDIS 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. MYSTERIOUS ATTACK ON U.S. EMBASSY IN SYRIA 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. |
|
THE WALL OF SHAME
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.
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
OR Central Fund for Israel
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
|
|
YAD ELIEZAR'S HISTORY: A WEALTHY PERSON IS ONLY 'IMPORTANT' BECAUSE HE IS A VESSEL FOR KINDNESS
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 |
|
THE SEVEN LAWS OF NOAH AND THE NON-JEWS WHO FOLLOW THEM
Posted by Tsila, October 23, 2006. |
|
This was written by Michael Kress and it appeared in Moment Magazine
http://www.momentmag.com/features/oct06/2006-10_Noahides.html. |
|
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." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TorahJudaismAndIsrael
Contact Tsila at tsilagroup@yahoo.com |
|
WANNA WIN THIS WAR? LISTEN TO MCCARTHY & LONDON, AND PARTNER WITH TECHNION
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:
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 |
|
PROF. KHALIDI --- PALESTINIAN HISTORY: CREATE IT, IF YOU CAN'T REMEMBER IT
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,
|
|
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 stateÄfrom 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
|
|
THE MIND OF A SUICIDE BOMBER
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 |
|
LIEBERMAN'S PLAN: A DANGEROUS SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
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 |
|
SOURCE OF ISRAEL'S P.R. PROBLEMS; JEWS VS. MONEY-CHANGERS; TURKEY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2006. |
|
WHY WAS ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE ABOUT HIZBULLAH POOR? "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. THE SOURCE OF ISRAEL'S P.R. PROBLEMS 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. PRISONERS 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. U.S. SWITCHES AGAINST ISRAEL 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. PROPAGANDA 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. THE JEWS VS. THE MONEY CHANGERS 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). CASES AGAINST ABANDONMENT PROTESTORS STILL PENDING 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). ARAB USE OF HUMAN SHIELDS 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. BUSH TO APPEASE IRAN OVER IRAQ? 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. RUSSIA VS. U.S. 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. WHY DID ISRAEL LOSE THE LEBANON WAR? "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. SYRIA PREPARING FOR WAR WITH ISRAEL 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). TURKISH GOVERNMENT PRESSES FOR ISLAMISM 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. |
|
AMERICAN JEWS TOP HATE-CRIME TARGETS
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, October 23, 2006. |
|
This comes from World Net Daily
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52568 |
|
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. |